[RP] Grimnir's Fury

[Karast]

I agree with the premise of this proposal as in that Grimnir's fury is largely useless and it should be buffed / changed to encourage it's use as an end tree ability.

But I disagree with the suggestion. WOI is already a hot button issue of an ability. It is devastatingly powerful and completely shutdowns warbands in tight spaces due to the undefendable / unimmunable knock back which many have requested to be changed before. It is a problematic ability from a warband balance perspective and there is good reason that it is heavily used by zealots on destro side in organized WB's.

The proposed RP version while functioning slightly differently would have the same core issue. CC shouldn't ignore immunities. It creates too many chain cc issues and negates skilled play since you no longer need to worry about immunities and coordinating CC rotations. Just stack a few RP and lock down a warband for 10-20 seconds. It has a big chance to be abused just as the zealot one is being abused. It also isn't very fun to spend 10-20s being chain rooted, just as it is not very fun to spend 10s being ping ponged against a wall, or between two zealots.

The thing to keep in mind about Grumnir's fury is that the core of the ability is not too bad. But the long cast time, combined with the short range on the res are what limit it.

Rather than a complete redesign the cast time could be dropped to a more realistic 2-3s range, and the res ranged increase to 60 or 100ft. It has a lengthy cool down on it to balance it. It could become a nice option with just a few tweaks to cast time and radius.

These changes would at least be easier to test out.

[Nameless]

Make Gf like steeky feetz effecting area of the ground. so every one that dies for the durutation of 10 sec at the marked ground can be brouth back without ress sickness. So that way enemy could see that and.counter it. Make it 2 sec cast and 15 min cd. And now u got skill worth taking even at solo cos u could ress quite good at soeges

[dansari]

Make Gf like steeky feetz effecting area of the ground. so every one that dies for the durutation of 10 sec at the marked ground can be brouth back without ress sickness. So that way enemy could see that and.counter it. Make it 2 sec cast and 15 min cd. And now u got skill worth taking even at solo cos u could ress quite good at soeges

That's an interesting idea, but again doesn't really solve the issue of how practical the ability is. In reality, the only time I could see this working is if you're in lord room or holding a choke point and you know, with certainty, that within the next 10 seconds destro is going to morale dump your frontline. If you are lucky and they either don't see your ground effect or have started their dump by the time you finish casting, if everyone respawns at the spot of their death, they could just instantly die again. If you're unlucky and they just wait out your ground effect, you've burned a 15min cooldown for 14pts invested in a tree to have zero effect on the outcome of a fight/keeping your wb alive.

[Darosh]

I do agree with Karast, 'Robin, Foot' and Lefzee ~ the proposal would substitute an impractial - yet functional - ability (which does not require setup, e.g. morale pumps, but mere coordination) with an easily abuseable and at face-value gamebreaking (in all environments, especially CQ; root + bodyblock, yay) 'mirror' of an ability that is, guess what: easily abuseable and gamebreaking at face-value in (more or less exclusively) CQ environments.

Tho', in regards to counter-proposals... I do not quite unterstand why all traits should be tampered with at once; tampering with either:
a) range,
b) targetcap,
c) CD,
d) casttime,
e) application (e.g.:PBAoE) or
f) mastery placement,
would be more reasonable and should be tested step-by-step, as Foot' pointed out ~ the potential oft the ability is enourmous.

As to the meta discussion:
CASUAL DISCLAIMER: I am aware that balance mods aren't calling the shots, furthermore this is not meant to offend or w/e but a matter of principle, consistency and basic common sense.

- What is the point of rules if they are being selectively applied?
- Why is 'You are ought to know and unterstand what I mean, if you don't ... tough luck, I won't elaborate'-esque 'argumentation', appeal to mirror, dancing along the lines of definitions (e.g.: practicality) and vaccuum-powered theorycrafting (in direct opposition and spite to experienced large scale ORvR leaders and players) being tolerated?
- Why does the balance moderator that submitted the proposal moderate its discussion if there exists another moderator?

Regardless of efforts, competence and whatnot, basic common sense dictates that moderation is meant to be matter of impartiality - if one moderates a discussion, participation is a means by which to guide the discussion, not to (f)actually push the argument for either side.

RoR is already struggling with massive communicational issues (I gave my 2cents about that and its consequences a few months ago and was eventually proven dead-on right, mind you) and PR issues, what is the point of feeding into that by allowing for people to claim (whether based in truth or not) that balance moderators can push their own proposals and influence the discussion by virtue of their mere colored name and ability to issue infractions?

TLDR:
Public opinion and perception matters, you do not want people to even have opportunity to think along the lines of 'Better not argue against Mr.Moderator's proposal, I/you might get shreked if he manages to twist a single word in your rebuttal...' and point towards relevant, easily twistable incidents*

With that said, again, no offense to you, Dan - but this boggles my mind beyond belief, textbook way of 'how-not-to'.

E: Added a bit*.

[dansari]

No offense taken. You're right, and I haven't moderated discussion since page 3. Could you point to where the rules are being selectively applied? This isn't really the place to discuss it, so I'm not sure where you'd like to do that other than a PM, but I'll share my thoughts below:

Spoiler:

If you're referring to why I submitted a proposal without a mountain of evidence, I think it's clear to anyone who's played a runie that Grimnir's Fury goes unused because of its impracticality (and honestly it's not vague; the people who have attempted to use it are in agreement that it's impractical, especially for being a 14pt investment); if you're unfamiliar with the ability, simply by looking at the tooltip regarding its cooldown + range you might think "oh, you could use this in maybe .5% of situations. When would you ever be able to rez a group of players who miraculously all died within 30ft of each other without getting interrupted before finishing except in a scenario in which you want your warband to get rezzed in the spot where you all died?" Proposals for abilities and tactics that sit at the top of trees that are relatively useless or otherwise underperforming get moved into discussion all the time, like:

SL/Chop 3rd tactic
Scout SW 3rd tactic
Sorc 13pt ability

Other proposals that don't provide a ton of evidence, but are understood enough to be an issue, are also moved, like:

AM/Sham stack converter/wipe
SL/Chop Detaunts
Chosen aura

As for providing transparency into balance decisions, I thought I was doing well on that front, but might certainly be able to do better, by acting as a liaison and providing a follow up to why a proposal may have been rejected. For examples, you could look at any number:

1
2
3
4

I don't think I've ever come across with a "my way or the highway" attitude. Plenty of people can and have disagreed with me in this thread (and countless others); the only ones I've taken issue with are the comments that are derisive or tangential. I'm certainly not someone who understands every facet of the game, nor have I tried to paint myself as such, so I really do encourage people telling me the proposal sucks, as long as they can say "here's why it sucks/would be OP/isn't in line with the game" or "here's how you could make the ability work without needing to rework it." Ultimately the goal is to have a discussion about the ability, which has gone pretty well so far -- people with a lot of game knowledge have commented in favor/in opposition to it, which is healthy for discussion imo.

On "theorycrafting" in opposition to ORVR leaders: you mean lefze, member of phalanx, or glorian, member of BT, both who support at least reworking the ability, aren't experienced ORVR players?

The "appeal to the mirror" thing is incredibly misunderstood, since the original intent of Aza's rule is to quell whines of buffing your class when a buff for your mirror is being proposed. In actuality, the rule would seek to restrict comments like: "well if Runies get this then Zealots should absolutely get X, Y, or Z."

Finally, part of what peter and I are tasked with is to encourage diversity of builds where each tree is viable, in at least one environment; thus, making Grimnir more viable rather than the cookie cutter build I referenced on page 4 is part of the draw and ultimately the impetus for my proposal. Runie is a perfectly capable healer and arguably the best for order atm, but that doesn't mean Grimnir's Fury is a viable 14pt investment.

On topic: I'm not really sure how you can justify taking this proposed ability "in all environments" since stagger is king in scenarios.

[Darosh]

No offense taken. You're right, and I haven't moderated discussion since page 3. Could you point to where the rules are being selectively applied? This isn't really the place to discuss it, so I'm not sure where you'd like to do that other than a PM, but I'll share my thoughts below:

Spoiler:

If you're referring to why I submitted a proposal without a mountain of evidence, I think it's clear to anyone who's played a runie that Grimnir's Fury goes unused because of its impracticality (and honestly it's not vague; the people who have attempted to use it are in agreement that it's impractical, especially for being a 14pt investment); if you're unfamiliar with the ability, simply by looking at the tooltip regarding its cooldown + range you might think "oh, you could use this in maybe .5% of situations. When would you ever be able to rez a group of players who miraculously all died within 30ft of each other without getting interrupted before finishing except in a scenario in which you want your warband to get rezzed in the spot where you all died?" Proposals for abilities and tactics that sit at the top of trees that are relatively useless or otherwise underperforming get moved into discussion all the time, like:

SL/Chop 3rd tactic
Scout SW 3rd tactic
Sorc 13pt ability

Other proposals that don't provide a ton of evidence, but are understood enough to be an issue, are also moved, like:

AM/Sham stack converter/wipe
SL/Chop Detaunts
Chosen aura

As for providing transparency into balance decisions, I thought I was doing well on that front, but might certainly be able to do better, by acting as a liaison and providing a follow up to why a proposal may have been rejected. For examples, you could look at any number:

1
2
3
4

I don't think I've ever come across with a "my way or the highway" attitude. Plenty of people can and have disagreed with me in this thread (and countless others); the only ones I've taken issue with are the comments that are derisive or tangential. I'm certainly not someone who understands every facet of the game, nor have I tried to paint myself as such, so I really do encourage people telling me the proposal sucks, as long as they can say "here's why it sucks/would be OP/isn't in line with the game" or "here's how you could make the ability work without needing to rework it." Ultimately the goal is to have a discussion about the ability, which has gone pretty well so far -- people with a lot of game knowledge have commented in favor/in opposition to it, which is healthy for discussion imo.

On "theorycrafting" in opposition to ORVR leaders: you mean lefze, member of phalanx, or glorian, member of BT, both who support at least reworking the ability, aren't experienced ORVR players?

The "appeal to the mirror" thing is incredibly misunderstood, since the original intent of Aza's rule is to quell whines of buffing your class when a buff for your mirror is being proposed. In actuality, the rule would seek to restrict comments like: "well if Runies get this then Zealots should absolutely get X, Y, or Z."

Finally, part of what peter and I are tasked with is to encourage diversity of builds where each tree is viable, in at least one environment; thus, making Grimnir more viable rather than the cookie cutter build I referenced on page 4 is part of the draw and ultimately the impetus for my proposal. Runie is a perfectly capable healer and arguably the best for order atm, but that doesn't mean Grimnir's Fury is a viable 14pt investment.

On topic: I'm not really sure how you can justify taking this proposed ability "in all environments" since stagger is king in scenarios.

First of all, this a textbook example of how to communicate (which many might wanna take a hint from), thank you very much.

As to the spoilered bit, as it contains a few topic related things:

Spoiler:

If you're referring to why I submitted a proposal without a mountain of evidence, I think it's clear to anyone who's played a runie that Grimnir's Fury goes unused because of its impracticality (and honestly it's not vague; the people who have attempted to use it are in agreement that it's impractical, especially for being a 14pt investment); if you're unfamiliar with the ability, simply by looking at the tooltip regarding its cooldown + range you might think "oh, you could use this in maybe .5% of situations. When would you ever be able to rez a group of players who miraculously all died within 30ft of each other without getting interrupted before finishing except in a scenario in which you want your warband to get rezzed in the spot where you all died?" Proposals for abilities and tactics that sit at the top of trees that are relatively useless or otherwise underperforming get moved into discussion all the time, like:

SL/Chop 3rd tactic
Scout SW 3rd tactic
Sorc 13pt ability

Other proposals that don't provide a ton of evidence, but are understood enough to be an issue, are also moved, like:

AM/Sham stack converter/wipe
SL/Chop Detaunts
Chosen aura

I agree with the notion of the argument, however the lenience (which is in a sense commendable) that you are pointing out does only feed into what I've referred to in my initial post ~ to give you an example:

Daniilpb's proposals do not give anyone a chance to twist the situation and the circumstances (i.e.: him being guild member of Fusion, Peter being a member/guildleader(?) of Fusion and balance moderator); to claim bias/favourism or mistreatment of any way, shape or form, as they are containing elaborate explanations and breakdowns of the current situation of x, the proposed situation of x after y changes and the risks that come with these changes (and are subject to frequent edits based on the ongoing discussions).
Furthermore, this way of going about things essentially levels the playing field (as you've stated in regards to yourself, and as can be generalized: not everyone knows the game inside out, yet everyone has the potential to provide ideas that can turn out to be workable) and allows for a tidy discussion from the get go (e.g.: if the player that submits the proposal does so based on a lack of knowledge, it'll naturally show in his explanation and breakdown of the situation, giving others players and the moderators a chance to correct him asap instead of 10 pages into the thread).

This modus operandi should be - if not only for the sake of maintaining good 'public relations' - be the standard, and those submitting proposals held to it, especially if they are 'closely related' to staff one way or another.

Alternatively, sober and without reference to recent incidents and current struggles:

Spoiler:

Discussion of Balance Issues (Topic Starters)

One of the difficulties inherent in establishing a class balance forum is the potential for a very low signal to noise ratio, or, to put it another way, a lot of whining threads. In order to prevent this, we will require threads within this forum to be made according to the following format:

1. Identify the issue. Be as specific as possible. A thread identifying, for example, Festering Arrow in combination with the morale and SW-specific buffs would be a good example. A thread complaining about Shadow Warriors being OP would not.

2. Explain why it's an issue. You need to demonstrate why exactly the issue you've identified is such a problem, with reference to the metagame. To use an overpowered strategy as an example, this would involve demonstrating that the risk-reward balance of the strategy is incorrect, because the counterplay is either non-existent or overly demanding in comparison to the effort required to use the skill or strategy. It could also involve demonstrating that the strategy or game element is overcentralizing - i.e. that the metagame revolves around counters to this particular strategy or element, to the extent that not extensively preparing for it is an automatic death sentence.

To continue with Festering Arrow as an example, it would suffice to point out the difficulty of seeing the skill to detaunt it, its nature as a one-shotting skill preventing any after-the-fact plays, its ability to bypass resistances and the inability to stack other defenses to reliably mitigate it without unduly compromising other areas of one's build.

3. Propose a viable solution to the problem. In the case of an overpowered strategy, this would involve proposing either fair nerfs to the strategy or constructing a means of counterplay on the opposite side. It does not matter too much if the solution you propose is demonstrated to have flaws, as long as those flaws were not completely and totally obvious when you posted your topic. The purpose of the ensuing debate is both to verify the topic starter's thinking is correct and to refine a response to the problem.

--

Spoiler:

As for providing transparency into balance decisions, I thought I was doing well on that front, but might certainly be able to do better, by acting as a liaison and providing a follow up to why a proposal may have been rejected. For examples, you could look at any number:

1
2
3
4

I don't think I've ever come across with a "my way or the highway" attitude. Plenty of people can and have disagreed with me in this thread (and countless others); the only ones I've taken issue with are the comments that are derisive or tangential. I'm certainly not someone who understands every facet of the game, nor have I tried to paint myself as such, so I really do encourage people telling me the proposal sucks, as long as they can say "here's why it sucks/would be OP/isn't in line with the game" or "here's how you could make the ability work without needing to rework it." Ultimately the goal is to have a discussion about the ability, which has gone pretty well so far -- people with a lot of game knowledge have commented in favor/in opposition to it, which is healthy for discussion imo.

'Commenting' here as a means of showing acknowledgement, I did not intend to challenge your dedication as far as transparency or general attitude is concerned.

On "theorycrafting" in opposition to ORVR leaders: you mean lefze, member of phalanx, or glorian, member of BT, both who support at least reworking the ability, aren't experienced ORVR players?

Hereby you are neglecting Footpatrol (BTC, iirc) and Karast (CO-lead of CNTK), both in direct opposition to the proposal for legitimate reasons, I've essentially replied to this point with my initial post, in hindsight I might have badly phrased the initial sentence of the bit about counter-proposals.
As far I am concerned, the majority of arguments in favor of this proposal are crowbar attempts to get the ability changed entirely and not 'reworked' (i.e.: possible angles and ideas [e.g.: Nameless' PBAoE, Foot''s and Karast's cast/CD/targetcap considerations] are needlessly bunched up in counter-argumentation and in a sense [intentionally] missunterstood).

Foot' pointed out that small, incremental changes (necessary because of the potency of the ability) could yield reasonable solutions; viability and reliablity of the ability, yet it would still remain a format-specific (ORvR) tool and require proper coordination ~ and I wholeheartedly agree with this approach.

The "appeal to the mirror" thing is incredibly misunderstood, since the original intent of Aza's rule is to quell whines of buffing your class when a buff for your mirror is being proposed. In actuality, the rule would seek to restrict comments like: "well if Runies get this then Zealots should absolutely get X, Y, or Z."

In the past this rule has been applied exactly the way it reads, proposals and arguments were shutdown because people argued on the basis of mirrors, in particular proposals and argumentation in regards to BW/Sorc and SL/CH ~ I'd argue that 'reciprocality' would suggest that if 'if X gets Y then Z should get A' = 'if X has Y then Z should get A', cancel out the time of application the implementention and you are back at the start; it's the same argument and an appeal to the mirror in the guise of 'inspiration'.

If I were now to make an IB proposal in order to get a BG-esque superpunt for my midget, I could phrase the 'BG has it, so I should have it' as 'Hey, BG superpunt ""inspired"" me to propose this ""new"" ability (that performs essentially exactly like or maybe even better than the BG superpunt)' - it would be a whine disregarding the metagame nonetheless and ought to be punished, imo.

--

Finally, part of what peter and I are tasked with is to encourage diversity of builds where each tree is viable, in at least one environment [...]

Yes, in at least one format ~

On topic: I'm not really sure how you can justify taking this proposed ability "in all environments" since stagger is king in scenarios.

You seem to have mistaken 'environment' for 'format', I do not (or rather try not to) use these terms interchangeably, with that said it should go without saying that picking WOI/GF (as proposed) and stagger is a pointless endeavour and most certainly not worth the tradeoffs in any format (besides alcohol/boredom-powered pugfarm) ~ while GF as proposed and if just remotely similar to WOI in terms of exceptions might be an alternative to stagger in all things pugfarm...

Now, in regards to 'environments', WOI's displacement trait makes it a counterable annoyance in open fields and a nightmare in close quarters ~ if GF was to be changed to mirror WOI it'd be a nightmare for those on the receiving end, regardless of where you fight. If not for the chainable root, then most certainly for the bodyblock that comes with it - if you have a tank, run into a moving blob and pop your root, watch how that single root that is capped at 9 people essentially roots the entire blob due to collosion, you do not want that to happen with more or less unbreakable roots which aren't tied to morales; a high CD, a short duration or immunities.

A bit of unnecessary theorycrafting:
Alternatively, apply GF as proposed (and with mirrored CD; 26s, with WW at 21ish seconds) to, lets say, a 3rd floor funnel (where WOI is hardly applicable due to the displacement)... you wouldn't even need a tank (tangentially relevant: one <proper> deftard tank is enough to entirely shutdown the ramp via bodyblocking and requires morale bombing to be effectively removed) to secure the funnel, just have your (4+, organized WB and pugs) RPs rotate the new GF and get your opposition to bodyblock for you... while your tanks sit in relative safety on the sidelines of the funnel.

Regardless of how the original implementation of GF is changed, nothing has more potential to break ORvR than a rooting mirror of WOI with all its exceptions - without its exceptions it however is either just pug-magnet-engi 2.0 handing away immunities, or places RPs in direct competetion with magnet engis (unlike zealot and rift magus if WOI would invoke immunities; pull/root vs pull/punt); either turn out to be redundant or thanks to bodyblocking still too potent.

TLDR:
What for WOI is the interruption, is for the proposed GF the applicability in all environments; relocating your warband to avoid WOI outside of funnels/general CQ environments > wiping because your warband is rooted or stuck due to bodyblocking.

Undefendability of abilities and the exceptions to immunities should be toned down and not build up, imho.

[dansari]

On the topic of ORVR leaders, I was using proponents of the proposal as evidence that not every player with game knowledge and experience in premade warbands is against the idea. In an effort to simply keep it on topic, just know that I acknowledge the points you make and recognize you just want a fairly moderated space, free of bias. If you'd like to chat about it, we can certainly continue elsewhere.

I guess I simply disagree that the ability would be devastating, if implemented with the right variables in mind. One runie (or a chain of runies) isn't going to stop warbands any better than a tank wall would, in a normal choke situation. And if the runie is channeling the ability they're not healing/dealing damage (at least the way I envision it).

[catholicism198]

We're getting off topic, but everyone has already made their concerns know as to why it's an oped, completely random, ability. -you guys do have to remember that regardless of whatever bias there may or may not be in the balance forum, the discussions will probably have little to no influence to what the balance dev decides to do. Just because certain topics magically make it to the discussion forum doesn't mean he will ever even consider it.

ability:
engineer pull ---> bomb---> engineer turret stun--->bomb--->RP root--->bomb--->dead wb.
Mythic added immunities for a reason.
Being permanently cced one way or another is no fun.

[Darosh]

I guess I simply disagree that the ability would be devastating, if implemented with the right variables in mind. One runie (or a chain of runies) isn't going to stop warbands any better than a tank wall would, in a normal choke situation. And if the runie is channeling the ability they're not healing/dealing damage (at least the way I envision it).

A)
Now, it would be immensely helpful if you would elaborate what you envision, and more importantly what constitutes 'right variables' ~ is it a format you have in mind, drawbacks or raw limitations (e.g.: tied to RP dps toggle)?

B)
If you have RPs with the proposed GF sitting behind corners in keeps or other chokepoints, you do not need tank walls - tank walls (made up of YOUR tanks) are generally a risk you shouldn't take if you can avoid it.

Best case scenario (e.g.: 1st floor funnels):
You do not have anyone in LoS - no one gets pulled, no AoE to be anchored, no one melts to first-instance/fluff morale bombing, none or only few of your tanks get morale drained -, opposition moves into the funnel and melts before they get through, or atleast before they get too far to apply pressure/CC (e.g.: Stagger/Bad Gas)/morale drains.

Even better scenario (e.g.: 1st to 3rd [by virtue of either a sacrifical deftard or the proposed GF]):
You do not have anyone in LoS - no one gets pulled, no AoE to be anchored, no one (but the sacrifical deftard) melts to first-instance/fluff morale bombing, none or only few of your tanks get morale drained -, opposition moves into the funnel and gets stuck (read: is unable to move through) and burns M4 inside the funnel to die without it once it fades - at best while still, and afterall, being stuck in the funnel.

C)

You stand your ground, calling upon the power of Grimnir to etch battle runes into all enemies within 30ft. The runes pulse every second, inflicting X damage and rooting players in place with an unbreakable binding, bypassing their immunities. Targets cannot be rooted more than once every 1.5 seconds. 20 AP/sec, 26s cooldown, 6s channel. The spell may be toggled off to regain your movement.

Pop your AP ritual, pop Rune of Battle (either on you or a member of your warband) and even if you don't envision GF capable of critting, you are now providing iHDs whilst channeling away ~ if GF is meant to be capable of critting you provide iHDs in a larger area, around yourself and around whoever you casted RoB on.
If you are now rotating GF and can count on bodyblock to do the rest you are down one healer every 6-26(/21 with WW) seconds, considering your opposition won't stream into the funnel 24/7 but will approach the funnel in intervalls.
(Provided you run iHD tactic, which atleast the RP in your utility group should do ~ too good to miss out on...)


Imho, the proposed GF just bottles up all the reluctance of order pugs and infuses destro pugs with it, I am pretty sure everyone can relate to the following:
ORvR circlejerk rages on for hours, finally one of the realms is sieging the keep... opposition funnels, pugs miserably fail to push through the choke (~ in 9/10 times only push without morales and a few seconds before oil can be popped again) and those that try to push through the choke are being bodyblocked by personified reluctance.

Now imagine an ability that helps you emulate that:
You try to push and get rooted - you are free'd up again, now you are being bodyblocked because the guy on your left is being rooted and the guy on your right is just a reluctant pug - you manage to wiggle out of it, you are again being rooted - you die... if you don't die and wiggle out of it once you are free'd up again to move back and out of the funnel as you are now a broken man, ... you die to oil, welcome to RoR ORvR.


On a sidenote:
Maybe edit your prosposal á la Daniilpb to keep the basis of this discussion up to date, I think that would save everyone - including you, and I guess Torque - alot of time.

[dansari]

Sure, or you are on the front line and you get melted by a morale dump because you're channeling your suppression. There are a lot of scenarios that could occur. The right variables are kind of the point of the discussion, as I'm not sure. I outlined some of how I think it should work on page 1...