[All] Positional Disrupt Strikethrough

[SmackdownNinja]

The disrupt problem started with the defensive stat change. Specifically with the willpower stat. I think the simplest way to alleviate this would be tone back the amount of disrupt that can be gained through WP. This will allow casters to have an easier times against healers. But we must also remember why it was changed in the first place.
Sense the beginning of this game RDPS has reigned supreme simply because they could burst down people at range. This could go in with a risk/reward type gameplay. MDPS should have a greater a reward for the increased risk and with RDPS it should be the opposite. For balancing its always better to take baby steps so we don't have another discussion like this a couple weeks later.

TL/DR- simply tone back the amount of avoidance that the WP stat gives and allow the community to test it for a couple weeks to see the issues have been fixed. Then from there we can finely tune it. Any large changes can cause even more more problems down the road. Thank you everyone for taking the time to read this.

[Flavorburst]

I honestly don't understand who this suggested change is supposed to benefit and why.

The only times I can see this change being meaningful is:

A) Casters being able to easily "clean up" fights after winning.

B) Casters arriving to fights in already favorable positions (whether by virtue of flanking, or just flat out adding/jamming).

C) Caster on the side walls defending a keep.

What would be the reason to apply bonuses to those parties that already have an inherent advantage in the situations listed above or other ones? To incentivize poor positioning by casters?

[dansari]

I honestly don't understand who this suggested change is supposed to benefit and why.

The only times I can see this change being meaningful is:

A) Casters being able to easily "clean up" fights after winning.

B) Casters arriving to fights in already favorable positions (whether by virtue of flanking, or just flat out adding/jamming).

C) Caster on the side walls defending a keep.

What would be the reason to apply bonuses to those parties that already have an inherent advantage in the situations listed above or other ones? To incentivize poor positioning by casters?

As an example, you're fighting in a scenario (6v6 or 12v12) and you are facing 2mdps and 2 magical rdps. The mdps engage and turn you around so that your back is to their casters. Do you turn and engage the casters or do you back up to reposition the mdps and casters both in front of you again?

There's no proposal being made. It's simply a hypothetical that we wanted to gather thoughts on.

[charlysixb]

I dont really think this a solution, dont see how this gonna work with dots ( most affecting abilities with new disrupt changes ).
Things that can be done is revert check defenses on each dot tick for example or evaluate each class ( that one is the hardest one ) because all casters aint the same. There're classes with undefendable spells or strikethrought tactics while others got none.

[Flavorburst]

I honestly don't understand who this suggested change is supposed to benefit and why.

The only times I can see this change being meaningful is:

A) Casters being able to easily "clean up" fights after winning.

B) Casters arriving to fights in already favorable positions (whether by virtue of flanking, or just flat out adding/jamming).

C) Caster on the side walls defending a keep.

What would be the reason to apply bonuses to those parties that already have an inherent advantage in the situations listed above or other ones? To incentivize poor positioning by casters?

As an example, you're fighting in a scenario (6v6 or 12v12) and you are facing 2mdps and 2 magical rdps. The mdps engage and turn you around so that your back is to their casters. Do you turn and engage the casters or do you back up to reposition the mdps and casters both in front of you again?

There's no proposal being made. It's simply a hypothetical that we wanted to gather thoughts on.

I understand there is no proposal being made. That's why I phrased it as "suggested change".

That aside, I don't see why casters should be "rewarded" for being at ranged in that scenario. Mdps reaps benefits from positional combat because of the risk involved. Casters in your hypothetical aren't risking anything.

[dansari]

I understand there is no proposal being made. That's why I phrased it as "suggested change".

That aside, I don't see why casters should be "rewarded" for being at ranged in that scenario. Mdps reaps benefits from positional combat because of the risk involved. Casters in your hypothetical aren't risking anything.

Which is what I stated here

[Ramasee]

Alright so myself on an archmage and a guildmate on a magus have been testing this for the better part of an hour out in eataine. He shot me, I healed myself, didn't cleanse, and didnt bubble. The following block is unformatted notes not translated for consistency/spelling but it is understandable. (Hits actually means counts of attempts)

Spoiler:

====test1=====
1002 will power +28% disrupt vs 955 int, 2% st
agonizing torrent: 30 hits, 53% disrupt
baleful: 97 hits, 52% disrupt
glean magic: 81 hits, 51% disrupt
infernal blast: 46 hits, 63% disrupt
pandemonium: 106 hits 52%
seed of chaos: 76 hits, 63% disrupt
withered soul: 70 hits, 43% disruot
269.73 / 506 = 53.31% average disrupt (horse formula = 47.61)
=====test2=====
842 willpower +28% disrupt vs 955 int, 2%st
agonizing torrent: 33 hits, 30% disrupt
baleful: 114 hits, 50% disrupt
glean magic: 83 hits, 42% disrupt
infernal blast: 51 hits, 55% disrupt
pandemonium: 106 hits, 44% disrupt
seed of chaos: 87 hits, 47% disrupt
withered: 85 hits, 39% disrupt
250.49 / 559 = 44.81% average disrupt (horse formula = 42.58%)
=====test3=====
840 willpower +0% disrupt vs 955 int 2% st
agonizing torrent: 34 hits, 24% disrupt
baleful: 84 hits, 19% disrupt
infernal blast: 60 hits, 25% disrupt
glean magic: 70 hits, 29% disrupt
Pandemonium: 112 counts, 23% disrupt
seed of chaos: 80 hits, 20% disrupt
withered: 76 hits, 18% disrupt
114.86 / 516 = 22.26% average disrupt (horse form = 22.00)
=====test4=====
840 willpower +0% disrupt vs 795 int 2% st
agonizing torrernt: 36 hits, 11% disrupt
baleful: 86 hits, 19% disrupt
glean magic: 78 hits, 21% disrupt
infernal blast: 52 hits, 25% disrupt
pandemonium: 114 counts, 26% disrupt
seed of chaos: 66 hits, 30% disrupt
withered soul: 84 hits, 26% disrupt
120.96 / 516 = 23.44% average disrupt (horse formula = 23.02%)
=====test5=====
840 willpower vs 268 int 2% st
agonizing torrent: 34 counts, 47% disrupt
Baleful: 89 counts, 28% disrupt
glean magic: 64 counts, 28% disrupt
infernal blast: 48 counts, 50% disrupt
pandemonium: 108 counts, 29% disrupt
seed of chaos: 96 counts, 30% disrupt
withered soul: 69 counts, 28% disrupt
162.26 / 508 = 31.94% average disrupt (horse formula = 27.22)

Each test was only about 500 hits so there is room for error. Lefze and I don't have forever in order to get the 10k+ hits per test that would make this the numbers more precise. Best way would be to have a dev give us the formula around strikethrough. Another way would be to have bots run the 10k+ hit tests (which we aren't allowed to do). Anyways, the numbers from this test seem to verify the formula given by our guildmate, Horse, and his previous tests. I'll repeat that formula here:

Spoiler:

((willpower / 26.25) + (%disrupt - disrupt striketrough)) / (100 + (intelligence / 26.25))

Using that formulas we get the following:
at 1050 wp and 1050 int = 28.57% disrupt
at 200 wp and 1050 int = 5.44% disrupt
at 1050wp and 200 int = 37.17%

With this knowledge and the comparisons available with it, I think increasing str/bal/int's strikethrough values for parry/dodge/disrupt by 50% would be the best first step. (aka make the divisor by 17.5 instead of 26.25)

[live4treasure]

We’re not playing tabletop game try a melee and realize if you need to that you’ll change direction all the time.

Sure, but most of the time you'll be hit in the face by spells. The point isn't that it doesn't have any effect, it's just that it's not very impactful and is extremely random.

[Arteker616]

I honestly don't understand who this suggested change is supposed to benefit and why.

The only times I can see this change being meaningful is:

A) Casters being able to easily "clean up" fights after winning.

B) Casters arriving to fights in already favorable positions (whether by virtue of flanking, or just flat out adding/jamming).

C) Caster on the side walls defending a keep.

What would be the reason to apply bonuses to those parties that already have an inherent advantage in the situations listed above or other ones? To incentivize poor positioning by casters?

As an example, you're fighting in a scenario (6v6 or 12v12) and you are facing 2mdps and 2 magical rdps. The mdps engage and turn you around so that your back is to their casters. Do you turn and engage the casters or do you back up to reposition the mdps and casters both in front of you again?

There's no proposal being made. It's simply a hypothetical that we wanted to gather thoughts on.

the solution to this and u being a sw should be aware to this, was always strafe, a mdps on your back gonna bodyblock ur backpedaling so the natural form to move out was always strafe to left or right.

Aswell this server handles prety bad strafe wich prety much garante u 360% block parry .

In the case u mention if all that happened, so what, how much time would take the rdps to reposition themselves, 3 or 4 secs? is that time for rdps rotatyion to go off for full effect? the answer is not.

The whole changes on disrupt were on general a nice attemp to try to break the dominance of rdps meta , and it did succed,
The changes here proposed even if they work gonna be even worse for mdps since now a mdps or tank since now not just they gonna have to watch the enemy mele line but be aware when they try to win the sides rear of enemys they gonna be even more vulnerable.

Would not be just be more accesible on general to bring back trivial blows and remove all together the disrupt changes made?
I mean if devs dont mind what we have to lose, we are a test server they can always gather data from that experience and see what happen,

[dansari]

Spoiler:

I honestly don't understand who this suggested change is supposed to benefit and why.

The only times I can see this change being meaningful is:

A) Casters being able to easily "clean up" fights after winning.

B) Casters arriving to fights in already favorable positions (whether by virtue of flanking, or just flat out adding/jamming).

C) Caster on the side walls defending a keep.

What would be the reason to apply bonuses to those parties that already have an inherent advantage in the situations listed above or other ones? To incentivize poor positioning by casters?

As an example, you're fighting in a scenario (6v6 or 12v12) and you are facing 2mdps and 2 magical rdps. The mdps engage and turn you around so that your back is to their casters. Do you turn and engage the casters or do you back up to reposition the mdps and casters both in front of you again?

There's no proposal being made. It's simply a hypothetical that we wanted to gather thoughts on.

the solution to this and u being a sw should be aware to this, was always strafe, a mdps on your back gonna bodyblock ur backpedaling so the natural form to move out was always strafe to left or right.

Aswell this server handles prety bad strafe wich prety much garante u 360% block parry .

In the case u mention if all that happened, so what, how much time would take the rdps to reposition themselves, 3 or 4 secs? is that time for rdps rotatyion to go off for full effect? the answer is not.

The whole changes on disrupt were on general a nice attemp to try to break the dominance of rdps meta , and it did succed,
The changes here proposed even if they work gonna be even worse for mdps since now a mdps or tank since now not just they gonna have to watch the enemy mele line but be aware when they try to win the sides rear of enemys they gonna be even more vulnerable.

Would not be just be more accesible on general to bring back trivial blows and remove all together the disrupt changes made?
I mean if devs dont mind what we have to lose, we are a test server they can always gather data from that experience and see what happen,

You misunderstand. I'm just providing an example, not arguing for one position or another.