Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

These proposals have passed an internal review and are implemented in some way on the server. Review for specific implementation details.

Moderators: Balance Forum Mod, Developer, Management, Game Master, Community Manager, Moderator, Web Developer

Blorckever
Posts: 71

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#51 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:13 am

Penril wrote:
bloodi wrote:That is the point, if the skill is so powerful, then lets balance that power, not just let them use it sometimes due to RNG.

If pulls are so good vs ams, what fun ams will have being pulled sometimes while others disrupting it? Imagine the fun and joy of playing and just relying on that guy failing his pull for you to be able to play.

Give them a 100% pull and then balance around that.
Ok. If i understood you correctly, and according to the issues we are discussing, you are in favor of a Str-based check for TE (or making it have a 100% success rate, ie Undefendable), making it a reliable skill against any target, and balance its power instead.

Don't know how it could be balanced though; the only thing I can think of to balance an Undefendable pull would be a longer CD (1 minute, maybe even more). And this would be a nerf to Maras/Destro since they already have a hard time catching good rDPS/healers. So unless you have some other way to balance the power of an Undefendable pull, i'm gonna say i still disagree with that suggestion.
Spoiler:
Damn you are serious when you asking to put 1min CD on TE ? Its 1 of the best abilitie for a mara to apart a target from a party to kill it fast healer or rdps like BW or SW for exemple. You have already nerf the KD from 3sec to 2sec . If i'm playing mara because this class have a loot of tools against some situation some class and TE is one of the tool to pull kiting class healers rdps behind mdps and tank etc etc !

And there is another class whit a pull and a pounce whit a Lion if i can say.
Scrubbed by Azarael (strawman attack - Penril did not say that adding a 1 min cooldown to Terrible Embrace was a viable option)

Ads
User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 4442

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#52 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:07 pm

Azarael wrote:What that means is that there are 3 checks on an ability:

Start (LOS/range)
60% of the way through cast (range only)
End of cast (LOS only)

The client also sends a packet to interrupt the cast for certain casts if the target goes out of range on the client.
why the mid check do not have a los check?

they should all have a range+los check , same for last check there should be a range check with compensation as other casting have.

If it work like now you can have currently the target forced to hide waiting all casting end, it should instead interrupt as long you go los.
Los check should happen more frequently, range check should be introduced but with compensation. Or you really get pull by astronomical distance. That's why there is compensation in first place to allow a softer range check.
Last edited by Tesq on Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Nazgul--> ambitious but rubbish, cit Blast :D

User avatar
Azarael
Posts: 5349

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#53 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:08 pm

I'm pretty sure the client sends F_PLAYER_INFO by itself when any cast ability should be broken by loss of LOS. This is why channels broke back when we didn't have any LOS checking on the server.

Anyway, the mechanics of LOS checking are outside of the scope of this topic about TE, which has now been resolved in favour of it working as it did on Age of Reckoning.

User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 4442

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#54 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:11 pm

Azarael wrote:I'm pretty sure the client sends F_PLAYER_INFO by itself when any cast ability should be broken by loss of LOS. This is why channels broke back when we didn't have any LOS checking on the server.

Anyway, the mechanics of LOS checking are outside of the scope of this topic about TE, which has now been resolved in favour of it working as it did on Age of Reckoning.
that's k then it bothered me regarding the los, but what about the range check at the end? i dont get the currently implementation , for what you wrote there is no range check at the end (and so of course no range + compansation) this way you cannot actually exit from the range or i miss something? it was one of the point that gone along the thread ( the end check). For what i got there was an end check(fixed value) you then removed didn0t live had a range check + compensation? to avoid get pull by abnormal distance but still allow the pull?
Image

Nazgul--> ambitious but rubbish, cit Blast :D

User avatar
Azarael
Posts: 5349

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#55 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:17 pm

Neither AoR nor RoR enforced a range check when the cast completed. There are two range checks - one at the start of the ability and one mid-way through.

User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 4442

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#56 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:20 pm

would not be a little op? i mean you can basically pull ppl by 100 feet then for real. A form of max range should be introduced not so hard as before maybe.
Image

Nazgul--> ambitious but rubbish, cit Blast :D

Penril
Posts: 4366

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#57 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:26 pm

Tesq wrote:would not be a little op? i mean you can basically pull ppl by 100 feet then for real. A form of max range should be introduced not so hard as before maybe.
Take a look at this post from Aza (and the previous one by Bretin).
Spoiler:
Azarael wrote:No one actually made it clear before now that Charge! was breaking on ability cast and not ability start. This has been fixed, and due to this, I will remove the end-cast check.
It was pointed out that it is very easy to avoid being pulled just by having a tank perma-snaring the mara. If you are a rdps/healer (with skills that have around 100-150ft range) and still manage to be in range of TE (65ft) even when the Mara is snared, then you deserve to be pulled.

Unless someone can debunk that, i believe that point is settled.

I believe we are now discussing if TE should be based on STR and not disruptable.

User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 4442

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#58 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:43 pm

I was just pointing out after what robin said, tough a bit exagerating (300s feet O.o), it fell odd not have a max distance that's way i said there should be a range + compensation check(and compensation it's important because is what allow exatly the pull while moving and/or with snare upon you), anyway your tank can snare that tank and punt him away(or you can use immunity), i dont see as a playing issue should avoid the pull to have a certain range limit.
Anyway just feeling odd, if in game work and ppl judge it fine then i guess it really is.
Image

Nazgul--> ambitious but rubbish, cit Blast :D

Ads
Landaren
Posts: 238

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#59 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:50 am

if you decide to make it a str check, you might as well just remove the check all together.

It will basically become undefendable, I'm sure you have the numbers in a spread sheet already.

I would find it interesting to see how many times TE has actually been disrupted on the server total over a 2 week period.

Then switch it to str check for like 2 weeks and check how often it is defend against in that form.

65 feet is pretty insane as a distance for an ability that is this strong.

Cimba
Posts: 260

Re: Terrible Embrace (range check, defensibility)

Post#60 » Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:52 pm

Penril wrote:It was pointed out that it is very easy to avoid being pulled just by having a tank perma-snaring the mara. If you are a rdps/healer (with skills that have around 100-150ft range) and still manage to be in range of TE (65ft) even when the Mara is snared, then you deserve to be pulled.

Unless someone can debunk that, i believe that point is settled.

I believe we are now discussing if TE should be based on STR and not disruptable.
a) Not every skill of every rdps has 100ft range. E.g. imo the currently most viable BW builds include FFB which has 80ft range. With some tolerance you're standing at 75ft which is just two small steps away from being in pull range. I'm not too sure about the most common SW/Engis builds but skill range wise they could be even more effected.

b) The assumption that you can just walk away because the marauder is snared and you are not doesn't hold up in larger scale fights (9vs9+, your average SC). There are plenty of ranged snares available and the occasional def tank running around among the healer/rdps.

On a general note I like the current implementation. It can punish misplays or risktaking maneuvers but isn't anymore a free kill on a softtarget that was once within 65ft of a marauder.
krautcontrol

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests