Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Between Accuracy and Evasion ... might RANGE matter?

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Between Accuracy and Evasion ... might RANGE matter?

The following is in reference to a question I raised in the Augments thread over here.
I'm pulling these quotes for context of my question to follow.

Tannim222 wrote:

The Range Refinement tells the originator how far it can reach to activate the power. It affects the originator.

Tannim222 wrote:

Your assumption about Accuracy being a nonessential factor is mostly true. Accuracy only matters when Evasion is involved.

Tannim222 wrote:
OathboundOne wrote:

So, can we take that to mean that in a vacuum, no debuffs or evasion (or other possible effects) involved, powers always hit?

Correct.

Redlynne wrote:

If the default assumption of the game mechanics is ... Everything Hits, UNLESS ... then the "onus" of not getting hit/hurt/affected falls on the target, not on the attacker.

Now, back in City of Heroes, Powers had a Range factor to them. The purpose of this factor was to determine whether or not you could "reach" the $Target with your Power. It was for all intents and purposes a boolean factor in use of Powers. Either something was within range or it wasn't.

Furthermore, EARLY on in City of Heroes there was an assumption made (and propogated by the Devs) that "range" ought to be thought of as a form of protection for Blasters. The basic notion was that the farther away you were from the target, the less accurate attacks would be (in both directions) meaning more MISS results and possibly even less damage throughput delivered onto targets (in both directions). The balancing factor here was supposed to be that Blasters would get longer ranges on their Powers and that the "range penalties" would be reduced for Blasters relative to everyone else, such that range disparities would favor Blasters more than other archetypes.

Unfortunately, that later turned out to simply NOT BE TRUE when the assumption was tested. Accuracy and Damage were demonstrated to be completely unaffected by range factors, meaning that there were no "range bands" influencing outcomes (the classic Melee/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme modifier categories seen in so many games). This meant that the only way for range to "favor" an Archetype like a Blaster was to essentially Hover Snipe from beyond the range of the enemy's attacks. If you had an attack that could reach 100 yards while your enemy could only attack out to 70 yards, all you had to do was maneuver yourself into a position where your enemy could come no closer than 71-100 yards in order to attack them with absolute impunity without threat of retaliation ... and the easiest way to do this was to Hover above hostiles that couldn't fly (or jump up onto something to get closer to you).

So in City of Heroes, Range was just a boolean factor that amounted to "can I attack it or not? (Y/N)" that applied to both PCs and NPCs, and it only "worked" as a protection scheme when the answer was Y for yourself and N for your $Target(s). Being able to outrange your adversaries became a very simple way to trivialize content and challenges ... so the City of Heroes Devs responded by giving the NPCs ridiculous ranges on all their attacks (thrown rocks and snub nosed revolver pistols routinely reached almost 90 yards with silly amounts of accuracy).

So here's my thought.

What if, in City of Titans, the Range to your $Target MATTERED?
What if, in City of Titans, ranged attacks had what amounts to "range band" modifiers to them?

Basic idea is that at Short Range, every ranged attack is baseline accurate ... but at longer ranges (Medium/Long/Extreme) the chances to MISS your $Target increase (by adding bonus Evasion to the $Target perhaps?). Net result being that you can "expect" to hit things pretty reliably at Short range, but things start getting "iffy" at Medium range and beyond. You can still attack just fine, but the MISS chance increases the farther away your $Target is.

And just to keep things fair, MOST Melee attacks would have Melee range only, with no Short/Medium/Long/Extreme extension beyond Melee range. However, some "special" Melee attacks might have a Short range beyond Melee, but still no Medium/Long/Extreme range bands.

Likewise, MOST ranged attacks would be usable within Melee range at no penalty, however SOME ranged attacks (I'm thinking Snipe type attacks, for example) would not "have" a Melee range band, meaning that the attack could only be used on targets outside of Melee range.

Anyway ...

By creating a system of Range bands like that (Melee/Short/Medium/Long/Extreme) and building a set of Accuracy/Evasion penalties into the system, you then create an opportunity for different ways to mitigate those penalties, creating an asymmetric advantage for some of the archetypes ... AND you create the necessary space for Accuracy Refinements to make a difference in.

So by way of illustrating the concept here, let's say that every Range band beyond Short comes with a stacking -2 penalty on it for ranged attacks that would look like this (I'm keeping this dirt simple for clarity of illustration of concept):

  • Melee: -0
  • Short: -0
  • Medium: -2
  • Long: -4
  • Extreme: -6

Okay, so if that's the baseline assumption, how might that be modified for different archetypes?

Well ... the Ranger archetype group, with a Ranged Primary, might have their range penalty cut in HALF as their starting point, resulting in a range band set that looks like this:

  • Melee: -0
  • Short: -0
  • Medium: -1
  • Long: -2
  • Extreme: -3

This would mean that longer ranges "favor" the Ranger archetype over other archetypes, since that's one of the things their class specializes in. Basically, longer ranges penalize Rangers less, giving them an advantage.

Furthermore, you could implement the Accuracy Refinements in a number of different ways ... from straight up +1 modifiers (to all range bands) to alternatively "shifting rows" down the chart to determine what penalty gets applied at different range bands.
So instead of doing -0/-0/-2/-4/-6 from Melee to Extreme ranges, you instead have 1 Accuracy Refinement shift the range band modifiers to be -0/-0/-0/-2/-4 instead ... where you basically get Short range modifiers all the way out to Medium range.
Doing the same thing for a Ranger archetype would take them from -0/-0/-1/-2/-3 to a range band modifiers set of -0/-0/-0/-1/-2, maintaining their "half reduction" from range penalties relative to other ranged archetypes.
Which brand of modification of range band penalties you'd want to use depends on how you want to define the bounds of performance in the game.

Now for me, as a game theorycrafter, what makes these options interesting is that ideally speaking you'd want Accuracy Refinements to offset the penalties for attacking at longer ranges, AND ALSO Range Refinements to increase the overall "reach" of your ranged attacks. This would then create a competing priorities situation in which the "best" modifer for your ranged attacks depends substantially on how you want your ranged Power to be configured ... for greater "reach" or for improved accuracy ... and that subtle difference (or combination) could help drive a variety of different build choices and options, depending on how you want your character to "play" inside the game.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
jtpaull
jtpaull's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 01/27/2015 - 15:00
Upvote.

Upvote.

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 19 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
This sounds like a solid idea

This sounds like a solid idea!

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
This would be detrimental to

This would be detrimental to players who don’tmplay With a Refinements, giving them into closer range bands to be effective.

It also makes really messy math since Evasion is determined by the Output of the evasion, which makes range bands a modifier to Evasion outputs based on the person who is targeting you and their Accuracy.

Which also means we have to set up a check so “highest evasion output” takes precident ovenrothers otherise having multiple people target one person could boost their evasion through the roof.

It also means that there are CR arias where someone else’s accuracy and range can make things better or worse for others.

It also can mess with Evasion buffs being applied since buffs use stacking output.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Thinking on this further, to

Thinking on this further, to pull this off, we would have to make a separate effect from Evasion and Miss with its own output channel. Which would also require changing the math in our to-hit system.

And would require some additional rules to implement effectively.

Even then, the idea makes ranged attacks for Operstores (which use many ranges controls), and can require changes for how we design NPCs (because of player pets that would rely on range).

So while it is possible to do, the work involved is quite extensive and not realistic for us.

And I don’t think the pay off is quite worth overhauling the to hit system at this time.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Forgive me for being abrupt, but this is the most backwards game design rationale I've ever heard. The whole reason people play with refinements is to create a more beneficial experience. So to say that not playing with refinements would be detrimental compared to those who do is a given, is it not?

I'm not disagreeing with or arguing against your decision not to incorporate range effects on hit probability, I am just pointing out the extremely flawed statement you just uttered.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
I actually completely

I actually completely disagree. Without getting into an incredibly long-winded answer I'll try to keep it short:

Missing feels like shit. There are already mechanics to miss in this game, and it's a very safe presumption that those chances increase the higher combat level you are. As a person that will likely play mostly as a range class, having an increased chance to miss because I'm further away also sounds like it would feel like shit. Even with your shoehorned exception for ranged classes.

I loved City of Heroes. It was a GREAT game. But even its ToHit system was very, very flawed. It felt terrible to pop Aim and Build Up, then miss while using a power that also had an extra bonus of 45% accuracy due to the "lol 5%" chance. Even the City of Heroes developers said the next game they made (possibly Co* 2, or their Island Survival game) would not have the ToHit system because of how bad it was. Having a chance to miss, "Just because." in itself is bad, which I know you're not directly suggesting, but having a chance to miss "Just because 'ranged'." sounds just as bad to me.

The current system, that none of us have tried but MWM has talked to us about, sounds WAY better. The fact that attacks will hit *unless* something else comes into play will probably work. just. fine.

I'll gladly come back to this thread and admit I was mistaken and claim I was wrong if this should ever change, but I doubt it will.
Bookmarking.

MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Forgive me for being abrupt, but this is the most backwards game design rationale I've ever heard. The whole reason people play with refinements is to create a more beneficial experience. So to say that not playing with refinements would be detrimental compared to those who do is a given, is it not?

I'm not disagreeing with or arguing against your decision not to incorporate range effects on hit probability, I am just pointing out the extremely flawed statement you just uttered.

My take on this is that Tannim has to think about every possible interaction a person can have with the game, including all extremes. Talking about the opposite of min/maxing, for instance. Someone with nothing.

A good example would be in City of Heroes if you're in a team for a few hours and all of your enhancements have turned red because you out-leveled them, but you keep playing and now you're effectively playing without any, it definitely IS possible to keep playing... but:

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Forgive me for being abrupt, but this is the most backwards game design rationale I've ever heard. The whole reason people play with refinements is to create a more beneficial experience. So to say that not playing with refinements would be detrimental compared to those who do is a given, is it not?

I'm not disagreeing with or arguing against your decision not to incorporate range effects on hit probability, I am just pointing out the extremely flawed statement you just uttered.

What I meant was that currently he base line combat loop does not account for misses based on range. Putting this in place with no other changes affects ranged users more adversely, placing greater emphasis on the need for Accuracy Refinements to return to the base line.
Hence it is detrimental.

Of course delving into Refinements will improve upon the base line - as it is intended. We don’t intend for it to be necessary.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 19 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Forgive me for being abrupt, but this is the most backwards game design rationale I've ever heard. The whole reason people play with refinements is to create a more beneficial experience. So to say that not playing with refinements would be detrimental compared to those who do is a given, is it not?

I'm not disagreeing with or arguing against your decision not to incorporate range effects on hit probability, I am just pointing out the extremely flawed statement you just uttered.

What I meant was that currently he base line combat loop does not account for misses based on range. Putting this in place with no other changes affects ranged users more adversely, placing greater emphasis on the need for Accuracy Refinements to return to the base line.
Hence it is detrimental.

Of course delving into Refinements will improve upon the base line - as it is intended. We don’t intend for it to be necessary.

Ahhh, that was much clearer for me. I get your point and agree with you it wouldn’t work well at all as the mechanics are set up. Thx Tannim

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

What I meant was that currently he base line combat loop does not account for misses based on range. Putting this in place with no other changes affects ranged users more adversely, placing greater emphasis on the need for Accuracy Refinements to return to the base line.
Hence it is detrimental.

Of course delving into Refinements will improve upon the base line - as it is intended. We don’t intend for it to be necessary.

Thank you for the prompt response.
I don't think Redlynne was talking about an effect that would make anything so detrimental as to make refinements "necessary", so that does seem a bit of an extreme interpretation. Of course, what one person calls better another will call necessary, so I suppose that's a subjective opinion. And we haven't even addressed how the min/max peer pressure will judge it.

But no one even discussed Masteries yet. I could imagine that masteries like RESOLVE or STRIKER could also have an effect on accuracy (in that they make the attacks harder to evade?), without ever having to touch refinements.

From a game balance point of view, making range affect the evasion ability of the target would be an additional complication, I'll grant you. But it is a complication that would permit better/more creative fine-tuning the power levels of the various classes, should the need arise.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
OathboundOne
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: 03/06/2016 - 16:15
My only issue with it is that

My only issue with it is that Redlynne only seems to be considering projectile-type attacks. What about non-projectile attacks, where range has little or no bearing on whether they would hit? Nothing in the Mind Control set was a projectile, so the idea of missing because your target was 50 feet away instead of 20 feet away is just silly.

You can't set it up to only affect projectiles either. Since the aesthetics of a power are divorced from the functionality of the power, you can't set it up so that using a projectile animation makes it more likely to miss at long range, where a non-projectile animation doesn't. That would simply be unfair, and would ultimately just result in most people using non-projectile animations even if they don't like them because they don't hurt their performance.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Thinking on this further, to pull this off, we would have to make a separate effect from Evasion and Miss with its own output channel. Which would also require changing the math in our to-hit system.

And would require some additional rules to implement effectively.

So while it is possible to do, the work involved is quite extensive and not realistic for us.

And I don’t think the pay off is quite worth overhauling the to hit system at this time.

At the present time, all we know on the outside is that your to hit system is basically going to look like this:

Chance to Hit % = Accuracy - Evasion
Accuracy defaults to 100.
Evasion defaults to 0 (absent Power effects).

The modification I was proposing amounted to basically this:

Chance to Hit % = Accuracy - Evasion - Range Penalty
Accuracy defaults 100.
Evasion defaults to 0 (absent Power effects).
Range Penalty runs off a lookup table that references current range to $Target for the Power being used to generate predictable values for a variable. This lookup could be run by simple formulas using information that the game will already "know" and have access to, natively.

But Tannim says that's too complicated to be even be considered.
I'm, of course, skeptical of this claim ... but I don't have access to the game code.

However, at this point I have to wonder why Accuracy Refinements even exist as something that is planned for, since it seems like everything possible is being done to make them deliberately superfluous. Are they just misnamed? Should they be called something other than ACCURACY Refinements?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
MeSoSollyWan
MeSoSollyWan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/18/2014 - 00:54
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Thinking on this further, to pull this off, we would have to make a separate effect from Evasion and Miss with its own output channel. Which would also require changing the math in our to-hit system.

And would require some additional rules to implement effectively.

So while it is possible to do, the work involved is quite extensive and not realistic for us.

And I don’t think the pay off is quite worth overhauling the to hit system at this time.

However, at this point I have to wonder why Accuracy Refinements even exist as something that is planned for, since it seems like everything possible is being done to make them deliberately superfluous. Are they just misnamed? Should they be called something other than ACCURACY Refinements?

Cool hyperbole, but no. It seems to me they call them "Accuracy" Refinements because they increase your accuracy. From everything that Tyche and Tannim have said about their combat system, it seems like once you get out of the lowbie levels, most enemies will have some form of protection meaning that most attacks will need accuracy to hit them. Where are you seeing a disconnect?

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
MeSoSollyWan wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Where are you seeing a disconnect?

Tannim222 wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Of course delving into Refinements will improve upon the base line - as it is intended. We don’t intend for it to be necessary.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Thinking on this further, to pull this off, we would have to make a separate effect from Evasion and Miss with its own output channel. Which would also require changing the math in our to-hit system.

And would require some additional rules to implement effectively.

So while it is possible to do, the work involved is quite extensive and not realistic for us.

And I don’t think the pay off is quite worth overhauling the to hit system at this time.

At the present time, all we know on the outside is that your to hit system is basically going to look like this:

Chance to Hit % = Accuracy - Evasion
Accuracy defaults to 100.
Evasion defaults to 0 (absent Power effects).

The modification I was proposing amounted to basically this:

Chance to Hit % = Accuracy - Evasion - Range Penalty
Accuracy defaults 100.
Evasion defaults to 0 (absent Power effects).
Range Penalty runs off a lookup table that references current range to $Target for the Power being used to generate predictable values for a variable. This lookup could be run by simple formulas using information that the game will already "know" and have access to, natively.

But Tannim says that's too complicated to be even be considered.
I'm, of course, skeptical of this claim ... but I don't have access to the game code.

However, at this point I have to wonder why Accuracy Refinements even exist as something that is planned for, since it seems like everything possible is being done to make them deliberately superfluous. Are they just misnamed? Should they be called something other than ACCURACY Refinements?

As I said, if it messed with Evasion it deals with output which has all sorts of issues with stacking output.

I also said itt is possible but would require a new effect with its own output channel and changing the math on the to hit calculation to include the new effect range. Something we are going to do our best to avoid is redoing the to hit calculation (we’ve gone through something like 4 or 5 versions already).

It also impacts all ranged users such as Operators.

Accuracy helps with dealing with evasion and it also has another benefit we haven’t disclosed.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
MeSoSollyWan wrote:

Where are you seeing a disconnect?

Tannim222 wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

This would be detrimental to players who don’t play with refinements

WHAT!?

Of course delving into Refinements will improve upon the base line - as it is intended. We don’t intend for it to be necessary.

I think you are misrepresenting that a bit, just because MWM won't make accuracy necessary does not mean that enemies will never ever get protection/evasion buffs.

As Tannim said, adding this range modifier would lower the baseline performance so they would have to either add some form of compensation or make accuracy "necessary" to get them back up to their baseline.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

As Tannim said, adding this range modifier would lower the baseline performance so they would have to either add some form of compensation or make accuracy "necessary" to get them back up to their baseline.

Not to put too fine a point on things ... either Accuracy is "necessary" ... or it isn't.
Tannim is already on record, repeatedly, saying that the design intent is for Accuracy to NOT be necessary.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

As Tannim said, adding this range modifier would lower the baseline performance so they would have to either add some form of compensation or make accuracy "necessary" to get them back up to their baseline.

Not to put too fine a point on things ... either Accuracy is "necessary" ... or it isn't.
Tannim is already on record, repeatedly, saying that the design intent is for Accuracy to NOT be necessary.

Right, it either is necessary or it isn't but then the question is "necessary for what".

That is that accuracy won't be needed to perform at baseline levels but it will most likely be necessary to perform at max possible/optimal level. If accuracy won't be necessary for anything then what would be the point in having it at all.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

As Tannim said, adding this range modifier would lower the baseline performance so they would have to either add some form of compensation or make accuracy "necessary" to get them back up to their baseline.

Not to put too fine a point on things ... either Accuracy is "necessary" ... or it isn't.
Tannim is already on record, repeatedly, saying that the design intent is for Accuracy to NOT be necessary.

Right, it either is necessary or it isn't but then the question is "necessary for what".

That is that accuracy won't be needed to perform at baseline levels but it will most likely be necessary to perform at max possible/optimal level. If accuracy won't be necessary for anything then what would be the point in having it at all.

Look at it this way: In the start of the old game for the first 19 levels of play there was Beginner’s Luck which gave everyone a tohit buff giving character’s a base 90% chance to hit. On top of this was the Streak Breaker code to raise the tohit after a number of misses. Making slotting Accuracy practically unnecessary for this stage of the game.

We are starting of in much the same way - Accuracy is largely unneeded at the base line level of play. As you level and encounter tougher enemies, they will have protections increasing the. See line combat loop.
People will still be able to play with Basic Augments that have no Ref Sockets. They will have potential access to powers that provide a temporary buff to accuracy within their attack sets, from certain support powers, temporary powers, or reserves for when they come up against evasive enemies and want to make sure they get those hits in.

People who expand their character’s capabilities with Augments and socket Accuracy will not have to rely on such clutch moment powers and have steadier performance (among some other benefits from Accuracy).

What it boils down to is, yes you can play the game with just basic Augs at the basie difficulty of the game. You can improve your hero with Planned Augs using Refs and if you desire, increase your difficulty to match your more efficient, better performing character.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Look at it this way: In the start of the old game for the first 19 levels of play there was Beginner’s Luck which gave everyone a tohit buff giving character’s a base 90% chance to hit. On top of this was the Streak Breaker code to raise the tohit after a number of misses. Making slotting Accuracy practically unnecessary for this stage of the game.

We are starting of in much the same way - Accuracy is largely unneeded at the base line level of play. As you level and encounter tougher enemies, they will have protections increasing the. See line combat loop.
People will still be able to play with Basic Augments that have no Ref Sockets. They will have potential access to powers that provide a temporary buff to accuracy within their attack sets, from certain support powers, temporary powers, or reserves for when they come up against evasive enemies and want to make sure they get those hits in.

People who expand their character’s capabilities with Augments and socket Accuracy will not have to rely on such clutch moment powers and have steadier performance (among some other benefits from Accuracy).

What it boils down to is, yes you can play the game with just basic Augs at the basie difficulty of the game. You can improve your hero with Planned Augs using Refs and if you desire, increase your difficulty to match your more efficient, better performing character.

Tannim, you're going to have to define some terms here.

Base Line Level Of Play
What are you referring to here? Are you referring to Level 1 performance? Are you referring to Level Cap performance? Are the performance profile expectations/demands of Level 1 going to remain consistent and true all the way to the Level Cap? Remember, YOU'RE the one saying that people ought to be able to play JUST FINE with no loss in performance with NO Accuracy Refinements at what sounds like ANY "level" of play in the game, from 1 to Level Cap. Do you understand why that sounds like you want to give people Beginner's Luck from Level 1 to 50 in order to make that (even remotely) true?

People will still be able to play with Basic Augments that have no Ref Sockets
I'm sure that they'll be ABLE to play, in the sense that the game won't crash to the desktop on them ... but, not to put to fine a point on things, won't they be GIMPED for doing that? Won't use of zero Refinement Augments be a form of self-gimping?
Or do you have an alternative scenario involving CHALLENGE MODES where you artificially limit how many Refinements are "operational" in your Augments ... from zero to three? That way, even if you've got 3 Refinements for every Augment you've got slotted, you can CHOOSE to play on "hard mode" where all of those Refinements are disabled so as to yield an "Augments ONLY" mode of play despite what you've got slotted.

I'm sorry, but this keeps coming back to what I'm thinking is a rather fundamental mistake on your part. You've put Accuracy into the Refinements and not into the Augments ... thereby "necessitating" that you build a system in which Accuracy enhancement is OPTIONAL ... and the only way to accomplish that is to design a system in which you ALWAYS HIT, UNLESS ... and you've overtuned your To Hit System to such an absurd degree that it's so finicky it can't be disturbed by something as simple as the concept that pretty much anything and everything is more accurate at close(r) ranges than they are at far(ther) ranges. Or to put it another way, you've painted yourself into a corner and are unwilling to admit you have made a mistake. At the very least, you've developed something that is Difficult To Modify (-5 Flaw) rather than something that is Easy to Modify (+10 Perk), going by your answers here.

But then ... what do I know about these things, eh?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Base line level of play is

Base line level of play is completing encounters at the base difficulty setting at all levels of play. If you can't extrapolate how adding protections to npcs, or how adding increased chance of missing your target at range affects your combat loop, I don't think I have the time to help you in that regard.

So no, they won't be "gimped" at the base line level of play with no refinements. They will be within the expected bounds of performance.

And no the tohit system isn't "finicky".
Your original premise was that having the range to target increase the target's evasion therefore creating a chance for the attacker to miss at range. And then giving the Ranger Archetype a special bonus that no one else has to reduce this range modifier which affects every other ranged power use in the game and not just for damage attacks because the tohit system is for every kind of attack, not just damage, But to continue. I then stated that isn't going to work well because every effect in the game, such as Evasion uses Output to determine the result of the ingame value. It also messes with the baseline combat loop at all levels of play, making combat take longer than we expect if we don't change values of powers to compensate for the variance of miss rates.

Ok, so let's forget about Evasion, and look at Miss Rate. Where range to target increases the Miss Rate of the attacker instead. This too has an output channel, and getting hit by a debuff to your Miss Rate or your Awareness which increases Miss Rate could end up with some funny values. Like say at extreme range the Output of Miss Rate resulted in a 25% Miss Rate. And someone hits you with a Miss Rate debuff of say 10%. The output total comes in and now the debuff is only worth an additional several %, making the debuff not really useful.

Worse yet, increasing your Accuracy won't matter for anything if you have a Miss Rate. Accuracy does not reduce your Miss Rate in the tohit calculation. So if we went with in range bands increasing miss rate, slotting Accuracy won't do squat for you anyway.

Which brings us back to what I said earlier, to do this, we would have to create a new effect that creates a form of a way to miss, let's call it Aim Reduction, that uses its own Output channel. Then we have to go back to the tohit formula and include this additional band to check for Miss rate, evasion (when it is present) and Aim Reduction.

And then we have to go back and change every ranged attack to compensate for how Aim Reduction effects the basic combat loop to retain the basic intended level of play. On top of that, it basically forces players who don't use Accuracy Refs to play in shorter ranges. And for some reason it is a good idea for every ranged Archetype but Rangers to have to rely more on Accuracy to be able to play at the range where their powers activate. We also have to add an additional effect to all forms of Accuracy in the game that essentially debuffs the Aim Reduction.

As to what you don't know about these things? A lot. Because you are relying on simple additive and subtractive math for a formula that results on multiple fractions based on what effects are used and have completely ignored the fact that all effects we use in the game rely on an Output channel to provide an ingame value. You've also have said nothing about how this affects every single ranged attack power (not just damage ones), nor have you acknowledged how this would affect basic gameplay in terms of a basic combat loop.

But then ... what do I know about these things, eh?


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Mic drop.

Mic drop.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

Mic drop.

More like a mic spike, amirite?

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Well then Tannim, maybe it's

Well then Tannim, maybe it's time you actually explained how this is supposed to work ... in a show your work fashion ... rather than leaving it all up to hand waving and jargon like you just did. CLEARLY I haven't got the first clue how the system you've built is supposed to process anything that gets put into it (it's a total black box right now). We use the same words and mean completely different things with them, resulting in the two of us talking right past each other. Not only do I not know what page you're on, I don't even know what book you're holding (or if you're even using a book for that matter). That means that I can't "speak your language" ... which immediately causes problems of the Left Hand No Talk Right Hand variety. Now whether you consider that a problem or a feature is up to you to decide, but it also means that there is ample opportunity for confusion and misinterpretation, up to and including everything you just posted.

Bare minimum, without a common language and points of reference that are mutually understood and recognized, no conversation (let alone negotiation) or analysis of alternatives is possible.

And even if you aren't ready to "explain" what's involved with this yet, the day will come (preferably in less than a year) when you're going to need to explain it to every single Player of the game such that in-game performance parameters can not only be anticipated but understood so that people can make informed choices about the investments they make into their characters. Right now, I don't have that touchstone reference to work from ... nor do I have the slightest idea what factors and elements you're putting into the combat system, aside from the fact that RANGE WON'T MATTER beyond the In/Out boolean question.

So, if nothing else, I've gotten a definitive answer from this thread already. So long as you're "In Range" ... RANGE DOESN'T MATTER.
And while that makes the math a lot easier on the computing/game mastering side of things, by deleting stuff to worry about, it does leave a little to be desired on the realism/immersion side of things, because it means that Point Blank extends all the way out to Maximum Range.

And we also know that at this point, that behavior is Not An Accident, since it's by design ... and you have no intention of changing it, so don't bother trying to be persuasive about it, because it's just too much work to deal with, as you've already made clear.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I’ve said this multiple times

I’ve said this multiple times / we aren’t seeking to make combat entirely about “realism’ by simulating real world experiences in every matter of combat.

You keep thinking attacks in common terms:
A ranged attack is one character “aiming” and firing down a range to their target.

While the mechanics simply state you can select and attack a target in a range of “x”. It doesn’t mean it has anything to do with the character aiming at another character.

When you can take a ranged power and make it look like a gun and the same power can be a mental attack, or a swarm of bees summoned where the target is standing, the “realism/immersion” favor of having to “aim” goes out the window.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
rookslide
rookslide's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 19 hours ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 10:26
Not to interrupt this

Not to interrupt this otherwise highly entertaining repartee between the two of you but my impression is that one may want to understand if there are any mechanics at hand that affect the potential "chance to hit" the target from point blank up to the extent (distance) of a selected power.

I believe the answer has been stated numerous times already so the next question in my mind is, will the mechanics at hand be fully divulged prior to a beta testing period or only if unexpected issues arise?
My guess is it will remain a mystery as, well frankly it is part of the game and learning how the game works is kinda part of the fun even if it may be frustrating to those segments of the gaming community that prefer to have every nugget of information with which to develop their playstyles.

Personally, I don't need this info as I just don't want to do the work of calculating all of these sorts of details out. But I recognize the desire is strong among several members of the community to do so and without knowledge of the mechanisms at hand they are frustrated at not being able to even communicate effectively about the matter which lies more or less entirely out of their hands. What I am hoping is that there are newly designed mechanics at hand that the Devs want to try and believe will give a good experience so no they don't want to spoil that learning experience but without a clear "yes that is it" or "no here it is" this will remain an ongoing debate style discussion.

My sympathies to both parties.
Play fair, be nice, and...
Good luck!

"A sad spectacle. If they be inhabited, what a scope for misery and folly. If they be not inhabited, what a waste of space." ~ Thomas Carlyle

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

a swarm of bees

Please let this be a prop/emanation point and ranged attack aesthetic.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Empyrean
Empyrean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/16/2014 - 07:51
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

When you can take a ranged power and make it look like a gun and the same power can be a mental attack, or a swarm of bees summoned where the target is standing, the “realism/immersion” favor of having to “aim” goes out the window.

I mean, to me this does make perfect sense due to aesthetic decoupling. Would you be that much more likely to "miss" with a swarm of bees at range, or with a mental attack? Maybe, maybe not. But it shouldn't all function like a bullet. So... if you have to pick something, pick something generic (read--not pigeonholed) and easiest to manage for the sake of individual customization and development.

I honestly wouldn't like a range-based system to apply to my, oh... say, mystical vampyric soul stealing power.

FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)

Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
It's funny that you say this.

It's funny that you say this.

Tannim222 wrote:

...to do this, we would have to create a new effect that creates a form of a way to miss, let's call it Aim Reduction, that uses its own Output channel. Then we have to go back to the tohit formula and include this additional band to check for Miss rate, evasion (when it is present) and Aim Reduction.

And then we have to go back and change every ranged attack to compensate for how Aim Reduction effects the basic combat loop to retain the basic intended level of play. On top of that, it basically forces players who don't use Accuracy Refs to play in shorter ranges. And for some reason it is a good idea for every ranged Archetype but Rangers to have to rely more on Accuracy to be able to play at the range where their powers activate. We also have to add an additional effect to all forms of Accuracy in the game that essentially debuffs the Aim Reduction.

...You've also have said nothing about how this affects every single ranged attack power (not just damage ones)...

But then ... what do I know about these things, eh?

Range based accuracy and even damage adjustments are a neat idea, and you may well find yourself exploring it in the future. It may be good to keep your words above as notes on the subject. That being said, it certainly isn't a release item given your description of design so far.

Your point about other, non-damage, effects is profound.

I recall that multiple accuracy buffs were absolutely necessary towards the end of COH. It seems that you are trying to make sure it's an option instead of a requirement in COT. Thank you.

As far as what we know... Well in real life distance introduces lag and signal loss in almost any transmission. Lag creates an evasion opportunity and signal loss creates a reduction in effectiveness. Certainly COT can, will, and must derivate from reality, but the theme is so ubiquitous that it is reflected in nearly every comic situation I can think of. Only the most absolute powers such as the infinity gauntlet seem to be above such issues.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

So, if nothing else, I've gotten a definitive answer from this thread already. So long as you're "In Range" ... RANGE DOESN'T MATTER.
And while that makes the math a lot easier on the computing/game mastering side of things, by deleting stuff to worry about, it does leave a little to be desired on the realism/immersion side of things, because it means that Point Blank extends all the way out to Maximum Range.

What next for increasing immersion/realism, advocating that movements and lighting conditions affect accuracy?

When you want to add in more immersion/realism ask yourself if it's actually fairly represented within the existing systems, especially in regards to the aesthetic decoupling. Needing every mechanics wise ranged attack to be have to be "aimed" is not really a fair representation, personally I would say it's a less fair representation than that ranged attacks don't have to be "aimed". There are so many ways to represent a way to not need to actually "aim", or even some where it would be ridiculous to have to "aim".
The best example (imo) to illustrate where having to "aim" would be ridiculous would be the speedster type "ranged" attack of running up to the target, throwing some quick punches, and then run back. From a mechanics perspective it's clearly a ranged attack but from an immersion/realism perspective is it a ranged or melee attack?
If ranged, why?
If melee, why would it have a "ranged attack"-penalty attached to it?
Personally I would set it a a melee attack and thus not need this "ranged attack"-penalty.

When having a clear separation between mechanics and aesthetics it becomes very tricky to use immersion/realism as an argument to include or not include or even remove something. For CoT specifically when introducing more mechanics in an attempt increase immersion/realism you have a fairly high chance of actually reducing it since there are so many areas where it would clash and/or pigeonhole people into specific explanations/"world settings". Since they haven't released a list of ranged attacks aesthetics we can't know for sure but I bet you that there are, and continue to be, more ranged attack aesthetic options where aiming would not be needed or make sense compared to ones where it would be needed or make sense.

What all of your arguments look like to me is that you got an idea into your head, pushed for it as something that was a given that it would work, and when it was fairly clear it wouldn't work threw out immersion/realism as a last ditch argument without having thought it through of how it would actually affect immersion/realism on the whole.

StellarAgent
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 11 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/25/2013 - 13:48
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Well then Tannim, maybe it's time you actually explained how this is supposed to work ... in a show your work fashion ... rather than leaving it all up to hand waving and jargon like you just did. CLEARLY I haven't got the first clue how the system you've built is supposed to process anything that gets put into it (it's a total black box right now). We use the same words and mean completely different things with them, resulting in the two of us talking right past each other. Not only do I not know what page you're on, I don't even know what book you're holding (or if you're even using a book for that matter). That means that I can't "speak your language" ... which immediately causes problems of the Left Hand No Talk Right Hand variety. Now whether you consider that a problem or a feature is up to you to decide, but it also means that there is ample opportunity for confusion and misinterpretation, up to and including everything you just posted.

Bare minimum, without a common language and points of reference that are mutually understood and recognized, no conversation (let alone negotiation) or analysis of alternatives is possible.

And even if you aren't ready to "explain" what's involved with this yet, the day will come (preferably in less than a year) when you're going to need to explain it to every single Player of the game such that in-game performance parameters can not only be anticipated but understood so that people can make informed choices about the investments they make into their characters. Right now, I don't have that touchstone reference to work from ... nor do I have the slightest idea what factors and elements you're putting into the combat system, aside from the fact that RANGE WON'T MATTER beyond the In/Out boolean question.

So, if nothing else, I've gotten a definitive answer from this thread already. So long as you're "In Range" ... RANGE DOESN'T MATTER.
And while that makes the math a lot easier on the computing/game mastering side of things, by deleting stuff to worry about, it does leave a little to be desired on the realism/immersion side of things, because it means that Point Blank extends all the way out to Maximum Range.

And we also know that at this point, that behavior is Not An Accident, since it's by design ... and you have no intention of changing it, so don't bother trying to be persuasive about it, because it's just too much work to deal with, as you've already made clear.

Sorry Redlynne, I disagree with you. THEY OWE YOU NOTHING in terms of Game Mechanic explanations!
It is STILL in development, it is STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE, based on internal/alpha, then beta testing.
Step Back, Take a DEEP Breath, and relax a bit.

When they have it nailed down, then we can, POLITELY, ask for an explanation of how it all works.

'til then, CHILL. PLEASE.

Beeker
Beeker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 04/06/2015 - 17:30
Perhaps this should go to the

Perhaps this should go to the hair update but I judt thought a bee-hive hairdoo would be great for the effects as well.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Beeker wrote:
Beeker wrote:

Perhaps this should go to the hair update but I judt thought a bee-hive hairdoo would be great for the effects as well.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Cobalt Azurean
Cobalt Azurean's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 16:39
StellarAgent wrote:
StellarAgent wrote:

Sorry Redlynne, I disagree with you. THEY OWE YOU NOTHING in terms of Game Mechanic explanations!
It is STILL in development, it is STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE, based on internal/alpha, then beta testing.
Step Back, Take a DEEP Breath, and relax a bit.

When they have it nailed down, then we can, POLITELY, ask for an explanation of how it all works.

'til then, CHILL. PLEASE.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

The best example (imo) to illustrate where having to "aim" would be ridiculous would be the speedster type "ranged" attack of running up to the target, throwing some quick punches, and then run back. From a mechanics perspective it's clearly a ranged attack but from an immersion/realism perspective is it a ranged or melee attack?
If ranged, why?
If melee, why would it have a "ranged attack"-penalty attached to it?
Personally I would set it a a melee attack and thus not need this "ranged attack"-penalty.

Ask an honest question, I'll give you an honest answer.
What you're describing sounds very much like a (combined) ... gap closer ... melee attack ... return to start ... functionality. The only part of the sequence involving "range" of any kind are the gap closer/return to start parts of it, and those movements or motions are the attacker affecting SELF ONLY for those components, rather than doing any kind of Affect Other to achieve them. So on balance, I would argue that any Power configured as a (move Me) gap closer, melee attack, (move Me) return to start sequence of events ought to be classified as a Melee attack, rather than a Ranged attack because the actual "offensive action" is being undertaken by the attacker at melee range. In the event of a MISS result, the attacker moves into position, misses/whiffs their melee attack, and then returns to their starting location.

Contrast this with a "reverse" situation, where instead of moving the attacker to the target, instead you move the target to the attacker.
So to use City of Heroes terminology, the sequence starts with a Teleport Foe to function as the gap closer ... followed by a melee attack ... followed by a Teleport Foe AGAIN to return them to where they started. In this case, where you're moving the Foe rather than moving Self, this WOULD count (in my view) as a Ranged attack and therefore be subject to what I'm postulating as range band styled penalties. In the event of a MISS result, the target simply doesn't move in the first place, meaning no melee attack at the attacker's location and no teleport to return the target to their starting location. So if the teleport happens, "the whole thing" Hits, because you're not rolling multiple hit chances per part of the sequence and the entirety of the attack resolves as a Hit for each component part. Basically, chuck the dice once for the whole thing to happen.

That's how I would, game mechanically, resolve the question you've presented.

Note also that in a number of tabletop roleplaying games (Champions, Mutants & Masterminds, etc.), this distinction is one of the major differences between Stretching and Telekinesis. Most systems consider Stretching (Fantastic 4 style) to work in a way that move "melee range" outwards from the character, such that if most people can only reach 1 yard with their arms/legs normally, if you've got +4 yards of Stretching available to you, then everything within 5 yards of you is considered within melee range, because that's how far you can "reach" with your Stretching. By contrast, Telekinesis, done as "spooky action at a distance" (using only mental power, as opposed to physical substance) is explicitly defined as a ranged attack/action because there is no (physical) "connection" to the character who is doing it.

I bring this up because MWM Devs are already on record as saying that they're looking at Stretching as a powerset as a "Year 2" goal post-launch. Presumably such a powerset would feature melee attacks which can "reach" beyond the standard (I'm assuming) 2 yard range for characters that can't unspool their limbs like garden hoses. And to make things even more exciting, they've already stated that they'd like to make a character's HAIR one of the possible emanation points for such "stretchy" melee attacks.

Just something to think about ...

blacke4dawn wrote:

What next for increasing immersion/realism, advocating that movements and lighting conditions affect accuracy?

Unknown if MWM wants to apply what amount to Accuracy penalties/Evasion bonuses to targets depending on whether the attacker is moving or not. The simplest and most obvious thing to do in that regard (if anything were to be done at all) would be something like -0 for being stationary when attacking, -1 for "sprinting" while attacking, and -2 for being under a travel power's effects when attacking. At this point it's a good bet that Tannim is not contemplating anything of the kind, where people who are moving around (jousting?) are "less stable" as attackers than those who are stationary. It could be done, but I doubt it will be done.

As for lighting conditions affecting accuracy ... funny you should mention that, because I CAN envision how that sort of thing could easily come into play, although perhaps not by the means you're thinking of.

We already know that Perception is going to be an attribute in City of Titans, and there are going to be Enhanced Senses Powers that will "increase" Perception in various ways. We also know that there will be both buffs and debuffs available to Perception, with flash bang and smoke grenades perhaps being the most mundane/obvious garden variety possibilities. City of Heroes, you may remember, had Flash Arrow in the Trick Arrow powerset which debuffed Perception, although in that case all it really seemed to do was modify aggro radius (and debuff to-hit in that system).

The point I'm after here is that I can easily envision a number of ranged powers (not all perhaps, but many) requiring two things be simultaneously true for your PC to be able to attack a $Target with them ... they must be within range of your Power effects (obviously), but must ALSO be within your Perception. Basic idea being that you can only attack what you can Perceive. So if the range of your attack power is 100 yards, but your Perception has been debuffed down to only 20 yards, you can effectively only target stuff that's within 20 yards of you, since you can't perceive anything beyond those 20 yards. So the Range parameter on the Power(s) isn't debuffed, but your Perception is.

You following me so far?

Now there would be exception to this rule of needing to Perceive in order to attack ... primarily in the realm of Location Targeted Area of Effect attacks, like grenades and deployables and so on. The idea being that you'd still be able to do "recon by fire" using Location Targeting of Area of Effect attacks, with the basic notion being that you can always lob a grenade into the dark (or a thick Dark Astoria fog if you like) without knowing if there's anything over there to hit. So things like Cone and AoE attacks that do not require a selected target could be used out to the respective Powers' actual range, regardless of whether or not your Perception (debuffed or not) can reach that far. But for attacks that require you to have a $Target selected in order to execute the attack, your Perception would factor in to whether or not you can "sense" them (pick your fluff text as to why) in order to attack them.

So I can easily imagine that MWM might come up with a scheme where "the lights are off" in an enclosed instanced map (for whatever reason) and it's DARK IN THERE. That could then qualify as a global debuff against Perception as an environmental quality of that specific map, meaning you can barely see beyond melee range in there.

You then have a few ways of mitigating that environmental debuffing. Various Enhanced Senses Powers could qualify as being able to moderate/mitigate the environmental debuff to Perception, meaning you can "see farther" natively, whether that be some kind of sonar ability or blindfighting or whatever fluff text you can come up with. Alternatively, you could do something that Star Trek Online does (kind of) where you hand out "flashlights" that hover over your PC's shoulder and which cast a cone of light in whatever direction your camera view is facing (so the character could be facing forwards, but the view is looking to the side and the flashlight follows the camera look rather than the direction of movement/facing look), and there's some kind of moderate/mitigate counter to the environmental debuff to Perception within the confines of the Cone of effect of the "flashlight" you've got. Easiest way I can come up with deal with this kind of discrepancy is that rather than debuffing your Perception in 360o in all directions equally, your Perception is being debuffed in only 330o around/away from where your camera is looking, giving you a Cone of un-debuffed Perception while the "flashlight" Temp Power is toggled on.

I don't think that Tannim is going to go as far as enabling such a scheme, let alone there being missions that make use of such a scheme ... all I'm saying is that *IF* you were going to want to build something like that into the game, these are the likely elements you would need to consider/make use of in order to pull that off. And the whole thing starts with the question of whether or not Perception can be made to be a limiting factor outside of/in addition to the actual ranges of individual attack Powers, such that you need both in order to be able to attack freely.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
The idea in general just

The idea in general just seems to be "punish ranged attackers because 'realism'."

Which to balance it out (from a gameplay perspective) you'd need to make it so the closer a melee fighter is to the target the worse their accuracy is.

Otherwise you're just penalizing a type of play.

The idea for ranged characters is that they're -good- at ranged combat but bad in melee. To take away their advantage of range and give them nothing to compensate for it would make for some pretty bad gameplay, especially in PvP. Ranged attack from far away, miss, melee guy lunges at ranged guy, beats them down. Ranged characters wouldn't stand a chance.

In tabletop games that utilizes range bands usually ranged weapons do significantly more damage than melee weapons (2, or 3x as much in some instances). Which doing similar in an MMO would make PvP... Odd. All ranged characters would take stealth powers so if their Uber sniper attack missed they'd just hide and wait to try again, they'd end up just being ranged stalkers.

That and having them -need- to slot accuracy to even be able to do the thing they're supposed to do would force people to play only one way. One true build. Which then I'd have to ask the question of if they'd need to slot accuracy, always and forever, isn't it better to just incorporate the accuracy boost into the class to begin with?

Which then would lead to why even bother with such a system of having accuracy negatives to begin with?

Also also. The idea of trying to snipe a max evasion style character at long range, they might as well not even bother as their chances of hitting would likely be so slim.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The idea in general just seems to be "punish ranged attackers because 'realism'."

Which to balance it out (from a gameplay perspective) you'd need to make it so the closer a melee fighter is to the target the worse their accuracy is.

Otherwise you're just penalizing a type of play.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

The idea in general just seems to be "punish ranged attackers because 'realism'."

Which to balance it out (from a gameplay perspective) you'd need to make it so the closer a melee fighter is to the target the worse their accuracy is.

Otherwise you're just penalizing a type of play.

So you're saying you didn't think up a system that punishes ranged characters.

Ok then.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Just to clarify - we don’t

Just to clarify - we don’t debuff Perception specifically. We have a Debuff to Awareness which reduces your character’s effective Perception range. However, debuffing Awarenss increases your Miss Rate as well.

Now we can place a location wide Awarenss Debuff. And we can add Awarenss buffs to specific super sense powers when they are active.

Now in order to target an anemey it must be within the Perception range of the character. And if you don’t have an Awareness Debuff and have a Super Sense they buffs Awareness Max (not an Awarenss buff), now you can target someone further away because the Perception range will be increased.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Just to clarify - we don’t debuff Perception specifically. We have a Debuff to Awareness which reduces your character’s effective Perception range. However, debuffing Awarenss increases your Miss Rate as well.

Now we can place a location wide Awarenss Debuff. And we can add Awarenss buffs to specific super sense powers when they are active.

Now in order to target an anemey it must be within the Perception range of the character. And if you don’t have an Awareness Debuff and have a Super Sense they buffs Awareness Max (not an Awarenss buff), now you can target someone further away because the Perception range will be increased.

Could be cool to have an event where the map gets dark and everyone's awareness gets lowered.

Maybe have like... Monsters in the dark. Be like silent Hill but with super heroes and more pew pew.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Just to clarify - we don’t debuff Perception specifically. We have a Debuff to Awareness which reduces your character’s effective Perception range. However, debuffing Awarenss increases your Miss Rate as well.

Potato / Pacrater ... we're talking about the same thing using different terminology to mean functionally the same thing in End User experience terms. The difference is that I don't know what terminology you're using internally for all of this, so I can only talk about it in generalities and theoretical principles organized for a "lay person's" understanding of the elements and factors involved.

But bare minimum it sounds like you aren't going to be using Perception/Awareness/whatever as a "double proof" way of limiting the reach of range attacks that require a $Target in order to activate.

Tannim222 wrote:

Now we can place a location wide Awarenss Debuff. And we can add Awarenss buffs to specific super sense powers when they are active.

Now in order to target an anemey it must be within the Perception range of the character. And if you don’t have an Awareness Debuff and have a Super Sense they buffs Awareness Max (not an Awarenss buff), now you can target someone further away because the Perception range will be increased.

Exactly. When conditions vary, rather than staying in a state of "eternal sameness" you can get some pretty interesting dynamics in your gameplay experience and the immersion that gameplay offers. Remember, familiarity breeds contempt and all of that.

Furthermore, these kinds of Perception/Awareness debuffs need not be associated with entire maps or even with (merely) static features within those maps. Temporary duration debuffing via attacks could be pretty potent too. Again, I'll refer everyone to the concept to "stun" or flash bang grenades, which are real world items specifically designed to temporarily overload (and therefore, debuff) Perception/Awareness in ways that renders affected targets temporarily vulnerable. And if that can be done with 1970s technology, it can certainly be done using superpowers.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Why would you think that CoT

Why would you think that CoT won't have awareness lowering attacks?

I mean we're getting illusions and devices as powers. I'd be surprised if between them we didn't have awareness debuffing powers.

Infact...
"Trick of Light (tier 3): You create a field around you debuffing the awareness of any enemy within reach and can cause them to become charmed and attack other enemies for a very short period of time. Recharge Medial"

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

The best example (imo) to illustrate where having to "aim" would be ridiculous would be the speedster type "ranged" attack of running up to the target, throwing some quick punches, and then run back. From a mechanics perspective it's clearly a ranged attack but from an immersion/realism perspective is it a ranged or melee attack?
If ranged, why?
If melee, why would it have a "ranged attack"-penalty attached to it?
Personally I would set it a a melee attack and thus not need this "ranged attack"-penalty.

Ask an honest question, I'll give you an honest answer.
What you're describing sounds very much like a (combined) ... gap closer ... melee attack ... return to start ... functionality. The only part of the sequence involving "range" of any kind are the gap closer/return to start parts of it, and those movements or motions are the attacker affecting SELF ONLY for those components, rather than doing any kind of Affect Other to achieve them. So on balance, I would argue that any Power configured as a (move Me) gap closer, melee attack, (move Me) return to start sequence of events ought to be classified as a Melee attack, rather than a Ranged attack because the actual "offensive action" is being undertaken by the attacker at melee range. In the event of a MISS result, the attacker moves into position, misses/whiffs their melee attack, and then returns to their starting location.

Contrast this with a "reverse" situation, where instead of moving the attacker to the target, instead you move the target to the attacker.
So to use City of Heroes terminology, the sequence starts with a Teleport Foe to function as the gap closer ... followed by a melee attack ... followed by a Teleport Foe AGAIN to return them to where they started. In this case, where you're moving the Foe rather than moving Self, this WOULD count (in my view) as a Ranged attack and therefore be subject to what I'm postulating as range band styled penalties. In the event of a MISS result, the target simply doesn't move in the first place, meaning no melee attack at the attacker's location and no teleport to return the target to their starting location. So if the teleport happens, "the whole thing" Hits, because you're not rolling multiple hit chances per part of the sequence and the entirety of the attack resolves as a Hit for each component part. Basically, chuck the dice once for the whole thing to happen.

That's how I would, game mechanically, resolve the question you've presented.

I keep forgetting that I need to be overly specific and to not assume everyone remember the things I do. I thought that since I talked aesthetics right before that that I talked aesthetics in regards to speedster would've been pretty clear.

The devs have posited the possibility of having a speedster type aesthetic for standard ranged attacks where they run up, throw a few punches, and then run back. Nothing to do with mechanics, just a standard ranged attack. So how would having a "ranged penalty" increase the immersion/realism for those who choose that aesthetic?

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
At the risk of repeating

At the risk of repeating myself ... who is moving as the gap closing component ought to matter for the purposes of the question you're asking. Furthermore, you're "narrowcasting" your question for a uniquely specific case ... superspeed ... while I'm answering the question more broadly.

As far as I'm concerned, and I should hope as far as the game mechanics are concerned, exactly HOW the gap gets crossed is largely a case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other" in a great many ways. Going from HERE to THERE so as to make a melee attack and then return from THERE to HERE like you've been describing isn't something necessarily limited superspeed only. It could also involve teleportation, or flight, or jumping, or ... you get the idea ... and at that layer of game mechanical meta the basic functions of what happens are as described.

The attacker moves THEMSELF to the $Target, the attacker performs a melee attack, and then the attacker moves THEMSELF AGAIN back to their starting point.
Exactly HOW that movement happens (superspeed, teleportation, flight, leaping, etc.) can vary as needed, but that's the necessary functions to execute the attack from a game mechanical viewpoint (which, incidentally, doesn't "care" too much about appearances, because, Aesthetic Decoupling).

So ... start by asking yourself this all important question ... which PARTS of that sequence of events are Affect Self, and which PARTS of that sequence of events are Affect Other?

Here are my answers ... because your mileage may vary.

The movement components, of moving TO and moving FROM the target are Affect Self ... obviously. Stuff that is Affect Self does not require To Hit rolls (duh).
The melee component, of attacking the target is Affect Other ... obviously. What range is the melee attack happening at when it executes during the sequence? Melee range (duh).
Therefore ...
The only time that a To Hit roll is required during the sequencing of events is when the melee attack is performed while in melee range during the execution of the power.
Therefore ...
Even though there is "movement" component to the attack sequence, meaning that you're able to attack stuff "beyond arms reach" ... that does not ipso facto mean that the attack must be (and can only be) a ranged attack. Instead, you've got a Move+Melee+Move attack against a selected target, meaning you need to have a $Target already selected in order to execute the power.

This is why I already gave you the counterfactual case of doing the reverse.

When you move your target to YOU, rather than moving yourself to your target, that is an Affect Other rather than an Affect Self.
Moving your target to your YOUR position, melee attacking them, then sending them back where they came from would be an Affect Other, Melee, Affect Other sequence of events. The initial Affect Other to move your target into melee range would be a RANGED attack ... and whether you teleport them, wormhole them through space, "pull" them towards you using gravity or a vaudville stage shepard's crook is largely immaterial to the game mechanics of what's happening. The To Hit check would be made on the initial Affect Other to move your target into melee range of yourself.

So, to be explicitly clear, here are the two options.

MELEE attack type
Move Self. Melee attack (To Hit roll). Move Self.
If to hit roll is failed, only the melee attack fails to connect. Move Self components execute successfully regardless of to hit roll.

RANGED attack type
Move Other (To Hit roll). Melee attack. Move Other.
If to hit roll is failed, entire attack fails. The target does not move and the melee attack does not execute.

Note that HOW the movement happens is largely immaterial to the game mechanics. It matters to the Aesthetics (and presumably to the Player), but at the "chuck the dice" level it really doesn't matter "how" the move is accomplished ... merely that it gets done "somehow" in either case. This then gives you a baseline mechanic which can be used with multiple movement types, so long as the artists are able to justify the appearances of the respective movements.

Ideally speaking, the way I'd want to implement such a combination of powers to attack thingie would be ... a 1-2 step execution of powers.
Basically, in your Travel Powers Pool there would be one of these two types of Move/Melee/Move "setup" as an available option as a power to take. The way it works at the UI and man-machine interface level is that first you need to have a $Target selected. Then you click the Move/Melee/Move power for that specific Travel Pool as Step 1 to ENABLE the follow on Step 2 of choosing which melee attack you want to combine with the Move/Melee/Move. For a variety of reasons, I'd recommend allowing only the first 2 Tiers of Primary and Secondary powersets, as well as the first 1 Tier of Tertiary powersets, plus the "universal" Brawl power (available to all archetypes), to be allowed to be used as the Step 2 selection of choosing which MELEE attack you want to use for the Move/Melee/Move combo. That way, you aren't locked into this type of attack being unique and "singular" in how you'd want to use it (or how it animates).

So in the Superspeed Pool, you'd have the Melee version of the Move/Melee/Move combo enabling power. Same for Flight and Leaping (presumably), and possibly even what Kinetics will translate into in City of Titans.
In the Teleport Pool, you've have the Ranged version of the Move/Melee/Move combo enabling power. You could even add a version of this to Manipulation powersets such as Gravity.

Furthermore ... this entire framework still functions just fine for a Move/Melee/done setup, where you simply omit the "return to start" part at the end of the sequence.

Parkour and Swinging (whee! swashbuckling!) could therefore have a Move/Melee/done combo enabling power of the Melee type. Likewise, this could possibly be included in a "Shield" themed powerset for a Shield Rush/Slam. This would be a "gap closer" type of combo attack to move yourself into melee range.
Grappling Hook ("Get over here!") would use the Ranged type of Move/Melee/done combo. This would also be a "gap closer" but one that moves your target instead of yourself.

At least, that's how *I* would structure stuff to do this kind of thing in City of Titans. As already mentioned, Your Mileage May Vary.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
He's saying it'd just -look-

He's saying it'd just -look- like he's moving. There would be no melee component.

Attacker uses power, attacker seemingly vanishes (just a visual effect, would still be able to be targeted at starting point and damaged), an image of the attacker moves towards the foe (much the same as a fireball animation), would show image of attacker hitting the foe (exactly the same as a fireball impact), would show image of attacker moving back (but again this is just a power effect, they are not actually there), attacker "reappears" (they have been there the whole time)

It's a simple ranged attack. With an aesthetic that makes it -look- like you're moving to the target and attacking them. To change a simple ranged attack into a complicated melee attack is folly.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
When is a melee attack not a

When is a melee attack not a melee attack ...?
When you insist, despite everything, that it is not.
Duh.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

When is a melee attack not a melee attack ...?
When you insist, despite everything, that it is not.
Duh.

When it's not a melee attack. It is a ranged attack that just looks like a melee attack.

An attack that is made from a range and does not bring the character into melee range is what I'd qualify as not a melee attack.

It's as much a melee attack as shooting a rocket powered fist at someone is a melee attack.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
At the core, the original

At the core, the original point of this thread was that it would be nice for glass cannon types to use their range to be less squishy, right? Traditionally options were either limited to characters inherently being more durable or removing the enemy's abilities to hurt you (by kiting or controlling enemies), but using range itself as a way to mitigate damage instead would allow for some additional defense while still being vulnerable to other sniper types or when engaged up close.

Most games including CoH tried some version of this, and as was previously mentioned sometimes ran into the opposite problem of people being able to make enemies too weak by removing their ability to fight back. So some games gave enemies better range options or made them invulnerable if you removed their ability to fight back.

The idea of using range itself as damage mitigation is an interesting one on paper. It could give more flexibility in design. It doesn't have to be all about missing and dodging either. Damage reduction based on range is nothing new to games. Perhaps this would be an easier way to utilize the idea of range = defense. This doesn't have to be just for blaster types either, it could be worked into tanks and controllers. One could argue it might even be more important for tank/controller types since their whole job is surviving and locking down bad guys.

If there is concern that such a system would make glass cannons too sturdy, you could even make such mechanics specific to certain powers or archetypes if you wanted. Or you could dial back the defense on those powers and dial it up for more sturdy characters.

That being said, this whole discussion might be premature. We haven't really gotten a chance to get our teeth into the combat in this game yet. Even if the devs only want to use more traditional methods of balancing combat things could work out just fine as long as the end result is similar. If basic mooks are limited to weaker range attacks but can always have some chance to fight back without being completely useless then you end up with the same result without needing additional mechanics. That could be a tough sweet spot for balance to hit, as evidenced by the fact that this thread exists. I'd like to get a chance to digest the flow of combat before worrying too much about it though.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
What was described earlier

What was described earlier was animations (aesthetics) that execute from range to simulate the visual appearance of moving to the target, hittting it; and returning back to your position.

It can be made to look like super speed, teleporting, a jump, and so on. It is an aesthetic skinning.

Now as for vector changing attacks (self or target), or lunge style attacks (self to target, self to location) or pulling your target, all of those can be skinned in all manner of ways.

We don’t have to make separate powers for each “travel pool”. In fact travel pools don’t exist the way they did in the old game.

Hence why eventually there’ll be a mobile combat Tertiary set that contains these types of powers.

Now we can set up Lunge attacks as a Melee style attack if we wanted to. Typically though, we have them assigned as ranged attacks - because they can execute an effect to a target outside of Melee range. The same for target pull attacks. Adding Range Refinements can affect the Range parameter of the power unlike I’d the power were melee where Range Refinements won’t work.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
TheInternetJanitor wrote:
TheInternetJanitor wrote:

That being said, this whole discussion might be premature. We haven't really gotten a chance to get our teeth into the combat in this game yet.

Problem is, you can also run into the opposite problem ... where the system is already "made" and it's too late to change anything ... which is what I would call the Usual State Of Affairs. My point being that of the two, being too early or too late, the problems associated with either are asymmetrical (in that too late is way more of a problem than too early). Furthermore, I sincerely doubt you're ever going to be able to land on the sweet spot of Just The Right Time™ for discussing any of this short of the Devs (say, Tannim, in this case) coming onto the forums and requesting input ... which as I'm sure you've noticed by now, doesn't happen all that much.

Insert folklore wisdom about how hard it is to unbake a cake here.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
TheInternetJanitor wrote:

That being said, this whole discussion might be premature. We haven't really gotten a chance to get our teeth into the combat in this game yet.

Problem is, you can also run into the opposite problem ... where the system is already "made" and it's too late to change anything ... which is what I would call the Usual State Of Affairs. My point being that of the two, being too early or too late, the problems associated with either are asymmetrical (in that too late is way more of a problem than too early). Furthermore, I sincerely doubt you're ever going to be able to land on the sweet spot of Just The Right Time™ for discussing any of this short of the Devs (say, Tannim, in this case) coming onto the forums and requesting input ... which as I'm sure you've noticed by now, doesn't happen all that much.

Insert folklore wisdom about how hard it is to unbake a cake here.

We do ask for input from time to time. Usually from backers.

However, we are well, well past the point where every decision, over every topic is rehashed over and again on public forums. We were there years ago.

Then we went into preproduction. The scope of the game was shaped, the systems structured, simulations run, something changes, meeting occur, the scope is narrrowed in some places, expanded in others. Repeat ad nauseum

Once you enter into production, you rarely rarely go and add new features and new mechanics.
If anything, feature and mechanics get stripped away or shelved.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself ... who is moving as the gap closing component ought to matter for the purposes of the question you're asking. Furthermore, you're "narrowcasting" your question for a uniquely specific case ... superspeed ... while I'm answering the question more broadly.

...snip...

At least, that's how *I* would structure stuff to do this kind of thing in City of Titans. As already mentioned, Your Mileage May Vary.

As Tannim eluded to, that's an over complicated way of just stringing a lunge, melee attack, and "retreat" together.

This would also create several classes of "ranged powers" depending on the exact sequence, and it would still not adress the original point I was trying to make. That of where an aim penalty would not make sense in any way shape or form. it looks like you are trying to convince me (and us) that the main problem of your initial proposal can be fixed by making the system more and more complex and by extension more and more restrictive in terms of what powers can have what aesthetics.

From what I can see your system would necessitate 4 "main classes" of ranged powers:
Standard one where neither of you move.
Self-move that has the sequence of lunge, attack, retreat. Variant with no retreat.
Enemy-move that has the sequence of pull, attack, push. Variant with no push.
Long-melee (for a lack of a better term). This one would cover those attack where you send something (animal drone or similar, possibly even some throwing ones) to deliver the actual attack. And no I'm not talking about actual pet powers but those that has the aesthetics of using one.

Not only would the underlaying system(s) need to be done but also the balancing so that they perform as equally as they can get them, and then they have to divvy up the aesthetics between them so that there is no disconnect between aesthetics and mechanics, making the choices per power significantly go down. All that just so that they can implement aim penalty for standard ranged powers?

It was never about if or how it can be done mechanically, but rather if they should do it in the first place (and I'm still talking about the initial suggestion of an aim penalty for ranged attacks). Considering what I know about the design goals I would have to say no since it would not be within that scope, especially not if they have to create several classes of ranged attacks so that mechanics and aesthetics can "align".

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

That of where an aim penalty would not make sense in any way shape or form. it looks like you are trying to convince me (and us) that the main problem of your initial proposal can be fixed by making the system more and more complex and by extension more and more restrictive in terms of what powers can have what aesthetics.

I can only tell you the same thing repeatedly so many times.

blacke4dawn wrote:

From what I can see your system would necessitate 4 "main classes" of ranged powers:
Standard one where neither of you move.

In other words, the "standard" Ranged attacks.
As a Ranged attack, if the system includes Range Bands then attacks of this type would be subject to Range Bands.

blacke4dawn wrote:

Self-move that has the sequence of lunge, attack, retreat. Variant with no retreat.

Move self, melee attack, move self (optional).
If I were building the system, this would be classified as a Melee attack, not a Ranged attack and therefore not subject to Range Bands ... even though you'd be able to attack something using a Melee attack at longer than "melee" range BECAUSE OF the Move, Melee, Move structuring of the attack. So congratulations, 1 of your Ranged attack types has been repeatedly explained to NOT BE A RANGED ATTACK and you continue to refuse to accept either the evidence or the reasoning behind why I say I would want to structure things that way. The MOVEMENT components, and I know I need to type slowly for people playing the home game here ... ARE NOT A RANGED ATTACK. The Movement components are, as has been repeatedly stated, SELF ONLY effects. Only the Melee attack is an actual attack component.

And contrary to what Tannim has intimated, Range Refinement would still be relevant to such a power (or combination of powers as I explained previously), since the MOVE components would have a defined range factor to determine how far you can move before doing the melee attack ... just like how Teleport had a maximum range per 'port. This is in fact why I recommended doing this sort of thing as a 1-2 combo of power Clicks, so that you can do the Move without needing To Hit (because the movement affects Self Only), execute the Melee attack with a (melee) To Hit roll, and then Move again back to where you started (again, movement that affects Self Only, so no To Hit required) ... AND ... the character has some options as to what attack power they want to combo into this Move, Melee, Move.

After that, it's just a matter of making this specific "combo setup" power available in Travel power groupings where it's appropriate (for powers that move the caster, rather than the $Target).

blacke4dawn wrote:

Enemy-move that has the sequence of pull, attack, push. Variant with no push.

Move other, Melee attack, Move other (optional).
Already explicitly explained to be a Ranged attack and therefore subject to Range Bands.
And as already explained, also best done as a 1-2 combo with a limited range of Melee attacks so as to increase options beyond singular. And again, it would be appropriate to make this specific "combo setup" power available in Travel power groupings where it's appropriate (for powers expected to move the $Target, rather than the caster).

blacke4dawn wrote:

Long-melee (for a lack of a better term). This one would cover those attack where you send something (animal drone or similar, possibly even some throwing ones) to deliver the actual attack. And no I'm not talking about actual pet powers but those that has the aesthetics of using one.

Again, not a Ranged attack but rather a Melee attack that can be done at distances greater than 2 yards.

=====

So, congratulations. You've listed 4 Ranged attacks and I've already told you (at least twice?) that I would make 2 of those 4 Melee attacks rather than Ranged attacks subject to Range Bands ... and that information just sailed right over your head so you basically ignored it and continued to assert the WRONG interpretation with confidence.

As Megatron would say, "This does not inspire confidence, no."

blacke4dawn wrote:

Not only would the underlaying system(s) need to be done but also the balancing so that they perform as equally as they can get them, and then they have to divvy up the aesthetics between them so that there is no disconnect between aesthetics and mechanics, making the choices per power significantly go down. All that just so that they can implement aim penalty for standard ranged powers?

Sigh.
If you want something done, you've got to do it yourself.

Okay, so ... I'm going to make this REALLY EASY. Is everyone sitting comfortably and paying attention? Minds open (yes, I do need to ask this apparently)?

So let's assume, purely for the purposes of illustration and making things easy that Melee range is *typically* going to be 2 yards worth of "reach" to a target. That's not a constant, that's a variable (pay attention, this will be important later!), but for MOST powers in the game, 2 yards will be what the Melee range variable is set for. Again NOT A CONSTANT ... a variable, that will usually be filled in with the the same value every time (so it's constant-ish, but is actually modifiable). In other words, use the Easy to Modify (+10 Perk) rather than the Difficult to Modify (-5 Flaw) formulation from the get go.

Now, for the Range Bands themselves, they would function as a multiple of a (variable) value stored in the database. The "arrangement" of those bands could be any of a number of different things, such as the classic AD&D system of being x1/x2/x3(/x4) so you do something like 25/50/75/100 ... or it could be something done as a more progressive scheme (of triangle numbers) where you have x1/x3/x6/x10 which would yield 10/30/60/100 instead. Whatever the method chosen for how the Range Bands "progress" from Short to Medium to Long to Maximum, it should be consistent across ALL powers in the game, so there's only a single table lookup to determine "how far away is in which Range Band?" in a way that is predictable and consistent across all powersets.

So, the way this would work is that powers would have 2 variables attributed to them ... the Melee Range variable value and "Ranged" Range variable value. This would allow these two parameters to be modified independently of each other. In MOST cases, the Melee Range value would be set at a common value (say, 2 yards) and just not be modified by Range Refinements (which is why you want this to be an independent variable) ... BUT ... in some special cases, such as a Stretching Tertiary powerset for example, the Melee Range for powers COULD potentially be modifiable. The important point here is that instead of assigning a CONSTANT to what Melee Range "is" you instead assign a variable that just so happens to typically behave as a constant but which can potentially be modified later on down the line because it is, in fact, actually a variable. After that, you just have to be judicious about limiting what factors are allowed to influence what the Melee Range value can be, and you're good to go.

So Melee Range is, in this example I'm giving, 2 yards ... unless it's more than 2 yards {for Insert Reason(s)}. This value is stored in the database of information for each Power in the game, and probably for 99% or more of them, it's just going to be "2" and that's that.

On the "Ranged" Range side of things, you simply have the database store another variable, which would be the Maximum Range for Ranged attack powers (basically stuff that needs a To Hit roll). That Maximum Range variable is then simply multiplied by the necessary constants to determine how far a particular Range Band covers to determine if the distance to $Target falls into that particular range band for that specific power. I recommend multiplying for this, rather than division simply because multiplication tends to be "cheaper" (and sometimes quicker) on processing resources than division tends to be, particularly floating point division (even though modern computers are pretty darn powerful in this regard these days).

So for a power with a 100 yard Maximum Range (after Refinement is factored in), if using a x1/x2/x3/x4 progression for range bands, simply do a x0.25/x0.5/x0.75/x1 multiplication to determine the "width" of the Range Bands relative to distance from the attacker to the selected $Target (the game engine will "know" this information, and if it doesn't you need to fix your game engine!). If using a x1/x3/x6/x10 progression of range bands, simply do a x0.1/x0.3/x0.6/x1 multiplication to determine the "width" of the Range Bands relative to the distance from the attacker to the selected $Target. You then cross compare the in-game range to $Target against the "widths" of the Range Bands to determine "which band" (Short/Medium/Long/Extreme) the $Target is in for an (actually) Ranged attack. Note that if the range to $Target exceeds Maximum Range, then the attack power is "invalid" and cannot be executed (duh).

Once you have determined which Range Band a $Target is in relative to the Maximum Range variable for the power being used to attack that $Target ... you then go to a Lookup Table to determine what the modifier to the accuracy/evasion/miss rate/cat yowling/whatever factor is going to be for that attack due to Range. Different archetypes would simply use different Lookup Tables determined by what their Primary and Secondary powerset is.

Archetypes with Ranged as their Primary Powerset would have the "best" Range Band modifiers.
Archetypes with Ranged as their Secondary Powerset would have "good" Range Band modifiers.
Archetypes with Melee as their Primary or Secondary Powerset would have the "worst" Range Band modifiers.
Archetypes with Non-Melee as their Primary and Secondary Powersets would have the "middling" Range Band modifiers.

The idea being that it's better to be Ranged/Support than it is to be Support/Ranged, for what should be obvious reasons, when it comes to reductions due to Range Bands. Just simply go down the list from top to bottom to determine which Lookup Table to use for that character's Range Band modifiers and stop when you get an answer. So a Ranged/Melee archetype, for example, would use the "best" Range Band modifiers, while a Melee/Ranged archetype would use "good" Range Band modifiers. A Manipulation/Melee archetype would have the "worst" Range Band modifiers while a Manipulation/Support archetype would have "middling" Range Band modifiers.

So ... the game engine knows the distance/range between the attacker and the $Target.
That distance information can be compared against the Range Bands of a Ranged attack power (Melee attack powers skip this Range Bands stuff entirely) to determine which Range Band the $Target of that power falls into.
The Lookup Table for Range Bands is determined by the choice of Primary and Secondary powersets and remains "fixed" until modified by a respec action that lets you change your powersets.
Using the the Lookup Table for Range Bands appropriate to the Primary/Secondary powersets of the attacker, find the value to plug into the variable exported to be included in the To Hit function for determining the outcomes of Ranged attacks. A duplicate To Hit function for Melee attacks would basically just remove the variable import from the Lookup Table for Range Bands. Ranged attacks would be coded to call the Ranged To Hit function while Melee attacks would be coded to call the Melee To Hit function.

And there you have it.
And why would you go to all that effort? Well, because it helps avoid this problem ...

When there isn't any variability in combat because you're using things like Range as a boolean (Y/N) variable, rather than as something to INFORM a variety of possible outcomes, then the combat can become rather stale and "cookie cutter" one dimensional. And once that happens, you run into the Familiarity Breeds Contempt result, where the eternal sameness of results removes an entire dimension of possibilities for variation in gameplay.

By contrast, introducing Range Bands into gameplay means that a combat between the exact same opponents --> can have significantly different outcomes <-- depending on the distance between them ... above and beyond one of them simply not being able to "reach" the other (and thus prevented from attacking at all). It would mean that (explicitly) Range powersets have an advantage at longer ranges relative to other powerset combinations, and especially against Melee oriented Primary/Secondary powersets, even if a ranged attack is acquired from a Tertiary powerset (hint, hint). It's the "I may lose a little, but you'll lose a lot" differential that gives a relative advantage to Range powersets in comparison to Support or Manipulation or Protection or Melee or even Pets.

In other words, tactical positioning and relative placement of attacker and target(s) becomes an "important" factor in determining how any given combat will play out. That's because things will play differently in close quarters combat than they will at long(er) ranges, meaning there's more of the game to get good at playing besides merely "Am I in range? Okay, attack." and range being a complete non-issue thereafter.

And just to be scrupulously clear, I'd want such a system as this to WORK BOTH WAYS for the PCs and the NPCs alike.
That way, a PC or NPC with Ranged/Manipulation powersets that can Immobilize Foes at a far distance would have a tremendous advantage over an opponent who has Melee/Protection powersets and is using a Throw Rock or a Shoot Pistol styled Temp Power, or even a Tertiary powerset ranged attack. The Ranged/Manipulation powersets would have the "best" Range Band modifiers, while the Melee/Protection powersets would have the "worst" Range Band modifiers ... just like you'd expect ... and as a result, the Ranged/Manipulation character is at a distinct advantage thanks to Range when trading potshots with their Melee/Protection opponent, in an "I can shoot you, but you have trouble reaching me" kind of way because of the respective Primary and Secondary powersets chosen because the Melee/Protection powersets character is suffering much higher penalties due to Range in the exchange of fire.

blacke4dawn wrote:

It was never about if or how it can be done mechanically, but rather if they should do it in the first place (and I'm still talking about the initial suggestion of an aim penalty for ranged attacks). Considering what I know about the design goals I would have to say no since it would not be within that scope, especially not if they have to create several classes of ranged attacks so that mechanics and aesthetics can "align".

And the whole point is moot, because Tannim has already said "NO" and isn't about to change his mind about any of it.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
The reason I said Refinements

The reason I said Refinements wouldn’t work is because what Redlynne defines as multiple melee type attacks with range components is just completely off with how the system is designed.

Melee, Range, AoE are defined styles of attack.
Point-to-Point (target a location) and Point-to-Target are activation types. They do not natively move the player character.
Why? Because you can have location places effects or you can have effects summoned on a selected target -like a tethered pet.

In order to move the character you have to have a component that selects the target type (self or hostile), has a range component and an effect that changes the target’s vector is in the power’s activation type range.

Range Refinements are designed to hook into Ranged Powers. KISS.
Not Range Powers and the exception of Melee Powers of PrP, PrL activation types.

Red also completely ignored that the tohit system is a result of fractions, not a simple + / - bonus / penalty system. Which also ignores that every effect in the game has an Ourput Channel. And to set up a new form of “male ranged attacks miss) we’d need a new effect and have to include a new output channel for it, and also redo the math on the tohit formula to include this separate “make them miss from range” effect that works with Evasion, Miss Rate, the effect variables of hit rolls as the hit range reduces, and the crit Range.

Oh hey, while we are at it, go back and add new forms of Melee attacks with range to them. And go make some more code for the Range Refinements.

By the way, those range Tertiairs for non-ranged set users, are basically only good in short range. Where almost everyone else but Rangers have to play for the basic combat loop to work.

Go ahead and check the math on the whole game from 1-50 on the basic combat loop and how it is affected for every Archetype that uses ranged effects because a Ranged debuff or control in the primary set won’t be as good as a Ranged health attack set at full range of the power. Because “Rangers are the Ranged specialist”.

Furthermore, go ahead and check the effect on the combat loop for every range band will you?

These are all the reasons I said we wouldn’t be doing this. It wasn’t a superfluous decision.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

These are all the reasons I said we wouldn’t be doing this. It wasn’t a superfluous decision.

I don't want to assert that the reasons for declining were superfluous.
However it is important to note that this cake is already baked, and none of the things I've been talking about in this thread were included in the ingredients.

"If you immediately know the candlelight is fire, then the meal was cooked a long time ago."
- Oma Desala


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

That of where an aim penalty would not make sense in any way shape or form. it looks like you are trying to convince me (and us) that the main problem of your initial proposal can be fixed by making the system more and more complex and by extension more and more restrictive in terms of what powers can have what aesthetics.

I can only tell you the same thing repeatedly so many times.

And it seems you are completely unable to adress the underlying point, that of the disconnect between aesthetics and an aim penalty. Even if we only limit ourselves to "standard" ranged attacks then there would tons of attacks, I'd wager more than not, were an aim penalty would not make sense.

It seems though that your answer has been to introduce even more mechanics and thus reduce the benefits of aesthetic decoupling since now specific aesthetics has fewer power sets at their base. Or it would increase their cost way more than the benefit due to having to make four power sets for the same mechanical theme instead of a single all-encompassing Ranged power-set to make it "fair".
There is also the issue of where to place them, creating new Classifications for them (with associated masteries) of just shove them into the existing melee and ranged Classifications, potentially creating a fair amount of confusion.

Redlynne wrote:

And just to be scrupulously clear, I'd want such a system as this to WORK BOTH WAYS for the PCs and the NPCs alike.
That way, a PC or NPC with Ranged/Manipulation powersets that can Immobilize Foes at a far distance would have a tremendous advantage over an opponent who has Melee/Protection powersets and is using a Throw Rock or a Shoot Pistol styled Temp Power, or even a Tertiary powerset ranged attack. The Ranged/Manipulation powersets would have the "best" Range Band modifiers, while the Melee/Protection powersets would have the "worst" Range Band modifiers ... just like you'd expect ... and as a result, the Ranged/Manipulation character is at a distinct advantage thanks to Range when trading potshots with their Melee/Protection opponent, in an "I can shoot you, but you have trouble reaching me" kind of way because of the respective Primary and Secondary powersets chosen because the Melee/Protection powersets character is suffering much higher penalties due to Range in the exchange of fire.

Unless they take a "ranged melee" set (fourth option I listed above) because then they won't have an aim penalty at all unlike the ranged set who will have some, right?
This would involve fairly large amounts of balancing for very little benefit, if any at all, to get all to perform equally. All to get out of a potential "staleness".

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
blacke4dawn wrote:
blacke4dawn wrote:

And it seems you are completely unable to adress the underlying point, that of the disconnect between aesthetics and an aim penalty. Even if we only limit ourselves to "standard" ranged attacks then there would tons of attacks, I'd wager more than not, were an aim penalty would not make sense.

Actually, aesthetic decoupling should default to a natural state of "most applicable." Do mental attacks hurt robots and plants as much as they do people, you betcha. Why? Because robots and plants are the special cases and it is most applicable to just make every attack affect every opponent the same.

Likewise, it is most applicable to assume that range affects the ability to hit a target. Can you create a scenario in which, for your character, it doesnt? You betcha. But for 95% of character ideas, it is most applicable for range to have an affect on the to-hit roll. And for fear of putting words into Redlynne's mouth, I believe that is all she is trying to say.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
It always bugged me in CoH

It always bugged me in CoH that eyebeams could miss. Like, how does that happen? You look at your target and beam. The beams -should- go exactly where you're looking.

What do the characters get momentarily distracted by something?

Them being dodged is fine, but missing?

Can also see them failing to hit the target if the beamer got hit and it made their head move.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

It always bugged me in CoH that eyebeams could miss. Like, how does that happen? You look at your target and beam. The beams -should- go exactly where you're looking.

What do the characters get momentarily distracted by something?

Them being dodged is fine, but missing?

Can also see them failing to hit the target if the beamer got hit and it made their head move.

You see eyebeam accuracy in all sorts of media from roleplaying games to movies and comic books. In my head-canon I always made it work by imagining that while the beam was active, vision was not occurring.

The same could also be said of lasers. Since targeting systems would use lasers to target, why don't they just throw the switch on the laser to turn the targeting beam into a damaging beam? Same thing, really. Sometimes you just have to create a head-canon that explains things. (actually there are other reasons for lasers, but I don't want to get too technical into ECM strategies, etc.)


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Ironically I think the idea

Ironically I think the idea would have the opposite effect on game play. If the basic level of play results in higher misses at longer ranges, people will tend to learn to stay in a shorter range.

If everyone ends up playing in shorter ranges, they will be at more risk to being hit more often because the NPCs will also be in that range.

Worse yet, our NPC AI is learning.
It will note it misses more often at range and therefor close the gap to hit more often. Which results in nullifying the “defense at range” concept.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

You see eyebeam accuracy in all sorts of media from roleplaying games to movies and comic books. In my head-canon I always made it work by imagining that while the beam was active, vision was not occurring.

Huckleberry wrote:

The same could also be said of lasers. Since targeting systems would use lasers to target, why don't they just throw the switch on the laser to turn the targeting beam into a damaging beam? Same thing, really. Sometimes you just have to create a head-canon that explains things. (actually there are other reasons for lasers, but I don't want to get too technical into ECM strategies, etc.)

For electrolasers, blasters, and other laser-based weapons used by my gadgeteers, the extra force on the trigger switching from "targeting laser" to "OW!" could conceivably move the point of aim a bit.

Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
Foradain's Character Conclave
.
Avatar courtesy of Satellite9 Irezoomie

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:

You see eyebeam accuracy in all sorts of media from roleplaying games to movies and comic books. In my head-canon I always made it work by imagining that while the beam was active, vision was not occurring.

Dammit Foradain, you beat me to it. Though that has probably more to do with that I was at my parents celebrating my brothers birthday. :P

Beamrider
Beamrider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 21:41
Perhaps something more of an

Perhaps something more of an optional ability on a power 'damage affected by range' that is attached so *some* (but not most) powers, effectively as a way of simulating some sorts of weapons (am thinking shotguns).

Although even doing that might require way too much modification to the game mechanics.

Composition Team

Beamrider
Beamrider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 21:41
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:

It always bugged me in CoH that eyebeams could miss. Like, how does that happen? You look at your target and beam. The beams -should- go exactly where you're looking.

What do the characters get momentarily distracted by something?

Them being dodged is fine, but missing?

Can also see them failing to hit the target if the beamer got hit and it made their head move.

The way I recall it, looking directly 'at' something does not mean you really have your eyes pointed at it steady. Everyone has a small cone of much better sight than the average resolution of an eyeball. We just think our vision is mostly uniform because our brain wants to think of it that way. Looking 'right at' something just means it's inside that cone. The eye is going to water around a bit, but as long as what we are looking at is inside the accurate cone, we don't notice. If an 'eyebeam' has a narrower field of effect than the accurate vision cone (if said eyebeam is a constant-radius cylinder, it pretty much as to) then it could easily miss something that you are looking at.

Composition Team

Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Beamrider wrote:
Beamrider wrote:

Perhaps something more of an optional ability on a power 'damage affected by range' that is attached so *some* (but not most) powers, effectively as a way of simulating some sorts of weapons (am thinking shotguns).

Although even doing that might require way too much modification to the game mechanics.

This would not be desirable at all for single-target attacks because of the unintended consequences of player and AI behavior that would result. Kind of like what Tannim was referring to but far more extreme, I think. On the other hand, I think your idea is perfect when it comes to cone attacks which by their very nature imply a more concentrated effluent at the origination point and less concentrated at the range limit.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.
blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Huckleberry wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
Beamrider wrote:

Perhaps something more of an optional ability on a power 'damage affected by range' that is attached so *some* (but not most) powers, effectively as a way of simulating some sorts of weapons (am thinking shotguns).

Although even doing that might require way too much modification to the game mechanics.

This would not be desirable at all for single-target attacks because of the unintended consequences of player and AI behavior that would result. Kind of like what Tannim was referring to but far more extreme, I think. On the other hand, I think

Also add in that most single target attacks don't really loose that much energy while traveling to "properly" represent it via a ranged based damage reduction. Sure there will be a few exceptions to that but I think they will be very few.

Quote:

your idea is perfect when it comes to cone attacks which by their very nature imply a more concentrated effluent at the origination point and less concentrated at the range limit.

Wouldn't this also affect the AI in the same way, but just to a lesser degree?
Though when you think about it it would effectively already have a built in "choice" (for a lack of a better term) in that you could be put in the situation where you have to choose to hit more targets for less damage (per target) or fewer targets for more (per target). So in regards to affecting enemy AI it would most likely bias a bit more towards "melee range" when you go solo but in groups I can't really say.

As for it potentially being a disconnect with aesthetic decoupling I can't think of any cone based attack that wouldn't spread out its damage the farther away it got from the caster.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
The most likely result is

The most likely result is that cone / area damage reducing over the length is that it would encourage players to try herd up their enemies to maximize the damage of the area attack.

It will happen to a degree to maximize the max targets for the area attack.

But again, think in terms of “attack” being anything that effects your enemy: a control, a debuff, Damage.

Imagine if every single one of those effects were only most effective in a short range or when you have the most number of enemies tightly packed together, otherwise you don’t get the full impact effect.

Now extrapolate that to variable effect based on the hit roll. What if the hit roll is on the low end and the enemy was further out in the area’s length? The effect could be negligible or easily mitigated. Which means yet again, in order to ensure that attacks are their most effective would require the tactic of herding as much as possible as tightly as possible.

This creates a general game sense that if you’re not doing this then you’re playing wrong.

I’ve said this before, leave the expectations of increasing the game play to simulate real world combat. It isn’t applicable to how the game is designed.

We have plenty such ideas for possible future games should we be successful in our endeavor with this game.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Phoulmouth
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/09/2014 - 21:35
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

What if, in City of Titans, the Range to your $Target MATTERED?
What if, in City of Titans, ranged attacks had what amounts to "range band" modifiers to them?

Here is my issue with the idea that range should equate to less damage or accuracy. We aren't talking about real world physics or anything. We are talking about a world where people are spewing fire from their hands, casting spells, flying, or moving faster than the speed of sound. We are talking about people that can throw a pebble and hit a fly at 100 yards. SUPER POWERS!!!!!

I would think that if my body was innately able to blast some kind of energy beam out of it I would have as much control of that as I would my hands, legs, arms, whatever. I'm fairly quick, I can catch a fly buzzing around my face 9 times out of 10. If I could produce an energy beam I would think I would be able to use that with the same kind of accuracy, that accuracy being so high that the only time I miss is when I get dodged.

As to less damage, have you ever thrown a ball? You want to throw a ball to someone 10 feet away that's easy. What do you do when you want to throw the same ball at someone 100 feet away? You throw it harder. Why would the same idea not work for powers? You charge it up a bit more to get it to a farther range with the same intensity.

If what you are suggesting were to be put into practice the exact opposite would also be relevant. The closer a blaster is to their target the higher the accuracy and damage right? Now suddenly all blasters are trying to get into melee to annihilate things way faster and to negate dodge completely.

Also, these enhancements and augments are "enhancing" and "augmenting" our powers to make them stronger. They should not have a downside. If I want my blaster to be a sniper I should be allowed to do so because in so doing I am losing out on damage or cd reduction enhancements/augments. If range augments also added a chance to miss at those ranges no one would bother.

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Yes, but Cyclops sees all the

Yes, but Cyclops sees all the time with his eye beam :)

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Ironically I think the idea would have the opposite effect on game play. If the basic level of play results in higher misses at longer ranges, people will tend to learn to stay in a shorter range.

Depends on how (and what) you've invested into your powers then, wouldn't it?
And yes, although it might be advantageous to fight at shorter ranges in some situations, that won't always be true ... and it would be perfectly possible with investment in Augments/Refinements to minimize/mitigate the disadvantage of fighting at longer ranges.
But the fundamental point is that if you have a push-pull dynamic going on with regards to which is better in the current situation, fighting close or fighting far away, you're engaging the thought processes of the Player and encouraging them to work out for themselves what THEY think is optimal for THEM in that situation. Rather than a one size fits all solution, you're instead given a multiple choice in which the incentives can vary based on the terrain and situation. But just giving the Players that DECISION to fight either close or far because how the combat will "flow" for them will be slightly different makes for an interesting incentive structure to always be reaching for the "best fit" for what YOUR character can do in any given moment. That gives the Player a "stake" in being aware of the situation their PC is in, which increases the immersion value of playing the game. The notion being that this sort of mental calculus can figure in to both the character build preferences as well as the playstyle preferences.

And yes, Blappers were a thing, and I'd expect them to reappear as a strategy in City of Titans ... but you also had the "sniper" mentality as well. The trick is that when you can't be "all things" simultaneously in roughly equal measure, the options are to either homogenize or specialize, and different Players will have different preferences and take different paths to success, resulting in a diversity of gameplay and playstyles that enriches the game as a whole.

Tannim222 wrote:

If everyone ends up playing in shorter ranges, they will be at more risk to being hit more often because the NPCs will also be in that range.

IF EVERYONE does that ... but that's the thing, I sincerely doubt that everyone is going to play the game the exact same way at all times.

Tannim222 wrote:

Worse yet, our NPC AI is learning.
It will note it misses more often at range and therefor close the gap to hit more often. Which results in nullifying the “defense at range” concept.

This would only be true is the PCs do not respond in kind by adapting to the actions of the NPCs adapting to the actions of the Players. If all you've got is a One Trick Pony, as soon as the AI figures out that trick and adapts to fight against it, that's it for you. If the only one adapting to what's happening is the NPCs, then the PCs are going to have a rough go of things because the PCs are not adapting in response.

What you need to do is think in terms of the race between Measure versus Countermeasure instead. This means that rather than a "static" strategy to use against the AI, you're better off with a dynamic one. In terms of a game with Range Bands, it could mean opening up with long range attacks, causing the NPCs to draw in closer which then makes them more vulnerable to more powerful, shorter ranged attacks, which the NPCs might want to move away from ... creating a sort of "yo-yo" dynamic where the incentives to be at different ranges to target keep shifting. So instead of having single pattern to attack with, a PC might want to have two or three rotations to handle a variety of situations, rather than just using a single pattern rotation for everything regardless of what happens. Note that the single pattern is "easier" (or "lazier" if you prefer) and is more of a static rotation, as opposed to the more dynamic and shifting dual or triple pattern options ... but when the name of the game is to (in effect) "juggle" the way that the AI is adapting to what you're doing so as to stay one step ahead of the AI the whole time, then you start getting into a deeper gameplay that is more involved and immersive than simply mashing the same buttons in the same order endlessly.

So what you see as a detriment, I see as an incentive for Players to think about dealing with more than a single "optimal" scenario that is never challenged by situations or circumstances.

Furthermore, in team play the entire range incentive dynamic changes when you've got an Aggro Magnet drawing attention, leaving your PC free to find their own personal "sweet spot" and pitch a pup tent to fight from. Depending on what investments you've made in Augments/Refinements and the terrain of your location, that "sweet spot" location could potentially vary rather widely, even for two PCs with the same powers but different investments into Augments/Refinements.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
So players would be forced to

So players would be forced to fight in short range or be forced to augment/refine their powers a certain way so they could fight at a long range.

Great choices.

Cause as it stands without any kind of ranged penalties players can freely choose if they wish to engage close or far and are free to choose how they augment/refine their powers.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Red, they will play in

Red, they will play in shorter ranges because at the basic level of play - something that evennfornthsor wanting to delve deeper into building their hero, they will need to play in those shorternrwnges for over half the levels of the game.

Which is pretty much the majority of ournlaunch experience.

Worse, you still ignore some fundamentals of design.

Prmajry sets are more efficient t than secondary sets as a basic deisgn. When considering just Ranged Damage Sets, the basic combat loop can be slower for the secondary than the primary.

Playing at inefficient Ranged using this idea would place Secondary a Sets even slower isn’t he basic combat loop.

Now here is the funny part. Let’s say the AI stays at range and has an expected Miss Rate of 20%.

Guess what we have to do in order to design the NPC Ranged Powers to still approximate the appropriate combat loop? Increase the damage or increase the rate of attacks.

Basically, you have not achieved what you want. You only have the illusion of range is a Defense because missing will occur more often.

When making a combat loop for NPCs you have a base line dps. If your NPCs have a miss rate to their attacks as standard, the damage per attack and the activation period for those attacks are adjusted to account for their probablity or missing over time.

Nothing you have said has even given an inkling that you were aware of this. Instead you’ve cling to the idea that this somehow makes the game better when unreality, we would have to adjust Ranged Powers to compansate for this miss rate.

The. Players would still end up inncoser ranges because it is better. Because most of their beginning play experience would tell them “close is better”.

You also conveniently ignore the issues with all other Ranged effects, the variables of effect in the hit roll, and how this would affect just about every other Archtetype in the game.

Now to go back to the AI. If players have more powerful closer ranged attacks, so will he AI. Some of the AI is literally designed to be an approximation of enpaluer character. The AI will still want to keep the gap close to be its most efficent.

Resulting in not your yo-yo effect. But of nearly every fight devolving into a short range combat experience.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
ThunderCAP
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/13/2013 - 01:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Basically, you have not achieved what you want. You only have the illusion of range is a Defense because missing will occur more often.

This sentence made me think about the goal of this topic. In fact the final purpose is noble and it's to see the range as a defense, therefore to achieve that the player using range attacks feels slightly safer as he should.

But this could (and should, imho) simply be achieved by making melee attacks stronger than ranged attacks, on the average (based on the power being "tagged" as such, not because of a distance calculation). In fact imho all mmorpgs should always put this rule, since melee is always riskier and therefore needs to be awarded in some way (with more damage or more accuracy, which anyway translates in more dps), while the range attacks mean you're always in a safer position (simply because he cannot be circled and attracts less enemies by keeping himself at a side instead of the middle of the war).
This way range will be a defense, because if the player manages to remain at range it means he is not getting hit by melee attacks and therefore he is receiving less damage on the average; instead if an opponent manages to get close the player will get more damage because may receive melee attacks (assuming the opponent has some melee "skills").

I understand Red would like a true distance calculation, not just the melee-range average difference, so to include all the grey-areas in the middle, like an "half-range" distance (less dps/accuracy than melee but more than true-range) but imho the "melee slightly stronger than range" rule would be enough to achieve the "defense" of keeping your self at distance and the balance with melee-players getting more risks for more reward.
That would translate, for example, in melee-tanks being more damaging on average than ranged-tanks (which is much more safer... the infamous "mage-tank" which in City of Titans will probably exist in some way, while in most mmorpgs it doesn't, for balance reasons).

Tannim is there any chance that this is already a rule in CoT? Melee attacks being slightly stronger/accurate than ranged attacks (simply because they're "tagged" as melee, not because of a distance calculation)?

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Nope. If the power set is

Nope. If the power set is Primary, the differences in output for ranged vs melee result in literally just a few points of output. Which is single digit differences in final values.

The differences are that Secondary Sets are modified to yield less Outout resulting in less value of an effect.

If we were to make a Lifht Damage attack with no other effects, the damage value between melee and ranged would be virtually identical if they are both Primary.

The Secondary versions would be weaker.

Melee Primary and Secondaries are pairs up with Ses that provide protection effect powers. This includes the support secondary for Enforcers as you can select yourself to be the recipient of a buff or heal. This gives their entering melee range the sustainability to wade into close range combat.

What do Sets this game apart is the prevalence of access to protection powers for ranged archetypes. A Support Secondary provides protection, or grabbing one or a few protection tertiaries.

We could hange the Output multiplier for Ranged attacks, making them sufficiently weaker. But we’d have to come up with some really funky math to compensate for the power cost. It would also affect all Ranged powers, not just damage.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
ThunderCAP
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/13/2013 - 01:24
I understand you resolved the

I understand you resolved the balance "melee/ranged" with how you build the classes/sets (and it's fine for me), I just hope you (as a team) always remember to balance the classes as such in future (even years after release).

It's important that melee always get an advantage over ranged in some way, or else nobody will desire to get closer to the opponent. I understood that for now this is a non-issue since to create a mage-tank you must get your protection powers (or ranged powers) on secondary or tertiary, therefore those will be less powerful in all aspects (not just damage or protection it self), I fear in future some new dev gets to decide new sets and throws this away simply because there is really no basic-rule giving a slight advantage to melee in ANY case.

Even a slight 3% more accuracy/efficiency to melee, simply because it's melee, would do the trick to never encounter an issue in future imho. I'd say that if we think about a possible future where the game is not perfectly balanced, if I had to choose which one to get overpowered between melee and ranged, I'd say it's far better to get an overpowered "melee" than the opposite, because ranged still retain a purpose with its character-position advantage (that nothing will ever delete), while melee if underpowered becomes completely useless and non-selectable by players at all.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I believe this comes down to

I believe this comes down to a preferred play style issue rather than a balance issue.

People will play Melee characters because they enjoy being up front in combat. They will enjoy the way Melee powers interact with their Madtery Powers creating a unique play style within their Archetype.

Something did occur to me as I thought about this - another way to make range to target be more meaningful.

Please note that this isn’t a current actual consideration for design. More of a thought exercise:

Instead of having range to target mess with Evadion outout, Miss output, or creating a new effect with its own output, we could use the range between Originator and Destination as a modifier for the health damage output channel.

I won’t put any complicated curve math here to scare anyone off. But let’s say for ease that Melee Range has a modifier of 1 (no change in outiput), and Sniper Range 64m had a modifier if .75 resulting in 25% less iOuput.

Mind you that 25% less output can result in a much larger % drop in actual damage from Melee range comparatively. This is only for example sake. I could just easily say the mod results in 25% less damage at sniper range.

Anyway. Range Refinements both extend the range of the attack and stretch the modifier integers so that the.improved max range still results in the same 25% drop in damage.

Accuracy Refs can reduce the modfier for Range to target.

It is a much simpler approach than what I said earlier up thread.

However, there is a serious down side. Well a couple.

It still favors closer range combat for ranged attacks. Another MMO did this with ranged combat and the result was much the same - rangers fought closer to recur the range penalty. And again, for us this would be the main experience of how to play for launch.

Another problem is variables of effect on the hit roll. It will feel really sucky to score a low hit at long range. Likely as bad as “I could have used by basic ranged powrr and not have lost the power cost for that attack” bad.

Another bad part - Ranged Tertiary Powers will outright stink to use at max range. They could reach DoT levels of digits in damage if at max range and a low hit roll occurred kind of bad.

I would have to go and reduce all the damage debuff powers in the game because getting hit with one of those and attacking from max range would just about result in “my natural regeneration just healed that back”.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
ThunderCAP
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/13/2013 - 01:24
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

It still favors closer range combat for ranged attacks.

That would be an issue, yes. I'd dislike if all players started shooting rays or projectiles face-hugging to not lose damage. You need to avoid this (like you're already doing).
Giving an accuracy bonus to all melee powers would not create this problem, since ranged attacks would get no advantage in getting closer to the opponent (because those are still tagged "ranged").

Tannim222 wrote:

Please note that this isn’t a current actual consideration for design. More of a thought exercise:

I won't get carried away, I know the game is close to be released and changes are unlikely to happen now. I also understand that a game solid in its rules and coherence is much better than a game built on "features" attached to each other randomly.
If you blindly follow a suggestion it may lead to disasters on the coherence of the game.

Tannim222 wrote:

I believe this comes down to a preferred play style issue rather than a balance issue.

Of course there is a preferred play style for several players between melee and ranged (but not all, there are many that simply choose the strongest one in the game), but this shouldn't make you underestimate the balance issue that's instead very present (the fact that most devs tend to avoid the creation of a "tank-mage" class to hide the unbalance between melee and range should be proof enough that such a problem exists). Even more for your game where you cannot avoid the tank-mage existence (we may call the problem "Iron-Man").

I think we can all agree that melee has an intrinsic/innate disadvantage. Therefore something must be done in some way to balance it.
Since the problem is innate, wouldn't be better if the solution was attached to the source of the problem? The classes/sets solution can work, but it's not "intrinsic" nor attached to the source (which is "melee" it self), which means that if you ever forget to make such balance among the future classes/sets or if you ever get substituted by another developer that (like many) underestimates the issue, we'll get the usual "ranged easier and stronger than melee" issue, where the majority of the pve and even more pvp-people select the archers/mages as their end-game characters.

And like I said, even if ranged-attacks get underpowered, the "ranged-player" still gets the innate advantage of positioning far away from the center of the "danger" and will be able to diminish the number of opponents by keeping himself at distance. It means the player still has an "excuse" to follow his preferred play-style even in games where the melee is stronger.
Underpowered melee instead risks much more to be a reason to uninstall a game, because a melee power that does less or the same damage of a ranged one has lost any possible reason to be selected (0%).

That's why I was talking about the 3% accuracy bonus, even if not enough to balance the difference between melee and ranged, it is important that the player always retains the ability to "sell" himself a reason to follow the preferred play-style, even if a weak one.

Some devs balance this by giving increased hp to melee-oriented classes, you're doing pretty much the same. I just wanted to give you another solution which imho would be better due to it being attached directly to the source of the issue: "melee is the problem, melee becomes the solution with an accuracy bonus or a defensive bonus" (instead of health points/defenses based on classes or skills or sets, which can change like the wind during the lifetime of a game while the basic rules tend to endure).

Hero_Zero
Hero_Zero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 03/20/2015 - 11:54
What about heals? For

What about heals? For instance standing right next to the caster on a AOE heal could heal more than standing 20 feet away. Something like this could allow larger size AOE, but less healing on the outer edge. If this is low hanging fruit I'd be for running some tests. Otherwise we could throw it in the bin of possible nice to haves.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Hero_Zero wrote:What about

Hero_Zero wrote:
What about heals? For instance standing right next to the caster on a AOE heal could heal more than standing 20 feet away. Something like this could allow larger size AOE, but less healing on the outer edge. If this is low hanging fruit I'd be for running some tests. Otherwise we could throw it in the bin of possible nice to haves.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"[/quote

We definitely are not doing this. Effects are not being reduced over range, nor are they reduced along the length of AoEs.

Now we can design powers that have stronger effects for AoEs the closer to the center. I’m not saying we are making powers that do this, onlynthat we can do this.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 15 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Tannim222 wrote:
Tannim222 wrote:

Something did occur to me as I thought about this - another way to make range to target be more meaningful.

Please note that this isn’t a current actual consideration for design. More of a thought exercise:

Instead of having range to target mess with Evadion outout, Miss output, or creating a new effect with its own output, we could use the range between Originator and Destination as a modifier for the health damage output channel.

I won’t put any complicated curve math here to scare anyone off. But let’s say for ease that Melee Range has a modifier of 1 (no change in outiput), and Sniper Range 64m had a modifier if .75 resulting in 25% less iOuput.

Mind you that 25% less output can result in a much larger % drop in actual damage from Melee range comparatively. This is only for example sake. I could just easily say the mod results in 25% less damage at sniper range.

Counter-proposal.

Tannim, what if instead of modifying the damage output channel like you were describing based on range, so doing 100 damage at short range and 75 damage at extreme range for example ... leave the damage output of the attack "flat" at all ranges.
However, in terms of protection/mitigation against incoming damage you've got different options in City of Titans ... Evasion (don't get hit), Resistance (reduce damage taken by a %) and what I think you've called Subtraction (which reduces damage by a fixed amount). The point that I'm reaching for here in the context of this discussion is Subtraction, since you have no intention of modifying Evasion due to range factors.

The reason for modifying Subtraction due to range, rather than Resistance, is because Subtraction sets up a threshold below which incoming damage gets negated ... in much the same way that armor which doesn't get penetrated "foils" an incoming attack. The basic notion being that attacks "lose energy" over distance, so the amount of penetration that can be achieved can also vary over distance. For example, an attack that can "punch through" armor at short range to inflict a lethal wound (as seen in archery) might NOT be able to "punch through" that same armor at longer ranges, substantially mitigating and possibly even negating the value of the attack (depending on the armor being worn by the target).

So the counter-proposal would be that if you're using a Range Bands styled schema, rather than modifying the hit/miss rate, you instead add bonuses to the target's Damage Subtraction based on range, such that there is no modifier at short range and some modifier at longer ranges.

As an extra bonus to such an approach, you'd have the option of giving ranged attacks a "flat" bonus to Subtraction due to range that is based on the nature/power level of the attack being used, allowing for some control of variability at the power design level ... but then you'd ALSO be able to add in a multiplier(!) for whatever Subtraction the Target has which could ALSO vary based on the nature/power of the attack being used.

So, for example (and simplicity of illustrating the concept), you could have two different attacks that add a bonus -1 Subtraction per Range Band beyond Short Range built into the attack, meaning there is -0/-1/-2/-3 Subtraction "added" to the damage calculation based on how far away the target is from the attacker. But then one of the attacks has a x1.1 multiplier per Range Band for any Subtraction the target has, while the second attack has a x1.3 multiplier per Range Band for any Subtraction the target has. So the first attack would multiply the Subtraction the target gets by x1/x1.1/x1.21/x1.331 ... while the second attack would multiply the Subtraction the target gets by x1/x1.3/x1.69/x2.197.

So if a target had (say) ... -10 Subtraction natively, and was hit by the first attack, the Subtraction would be -10 at Short range, -11 at Medium range, -12 at Long range and -13 at Extreme range before then multiplying ... yielding -10 at Short range, -12.1 at Medium range, -14.52 at Long range and -17.303 at Extreme range.
And for the same target ... -10 Subtraction natively, but was hit by the second attack, the Subtraction would be -10 at Short range, -11 at Medium range, -12 at Long range and -13 at Extreme range again before then multiplying ... but yielding -10 at Short range, -14.3 at Medium range, -20.28 at Long range and -28.561 at Extreme range.

Using such a system you'd be able to "tune" Subtractions to damage due to Range Bands in a somewhat tailored way, and even be able to create differentials between Single Target attacks (with low bonuses to Subtraction and multipliers for better throughput) and Area of Effect attacks (with higher bonuses to Subtraction and higher multipliers for reduced throughput) over distance to target, representing a focus versus a "spread" of damage. It would also mean that depending on a variety of factors it might be possible for Subtraction to yield a substantial protection value against some attacks but not others, reducing lethality as distance to target increases.

You could even do something as simple as adding -1 Subtraction per Range Band beyond Short to Primary ranged damaging powers, -2 Subtraction per Range Band beyond Short to Secondary ranged damaging powers, and -3 Subtraction beyond Short to Tertiary ranged damaging powers, as a generalized design principle (which can then have unique exceptions, of course). Such a formulation would necessarily bias any relative advantages towards Primary over Tertiary powersets.

You can then do something like assigning a x1.1 Subtraction per Range Band beyond Short to Single Target damaging powers, a x1.2 Subtraction per Range Band beyond Short to Cone damaging powers, and a x1.3 Subtraction beyond Short to omni-directional Area of Effect damaging powers, as a generalized design principle (which can then also have unique exceptions, of course).

Point being that although the damage "output" from the attacker is a constant, the damage "throughput" onto the target after factoring in Resistance and Subtraction can vary somewhat due to distance from the attacker (when the origin point of the attack's damage is from the attacker, rather than from something like a thrown grenade that explodes at a distance from the attacker).

Note that number the number values I've provided here are notional purely for the purposes of outlining the "shape" of the math and are mere suggestions rather than hard and fast recommendations, and like I said, you'd still be free to include "natural exception" modifiers for things like Snipe style attacks and so on. However, I find this formulation somewhat compelling since it basically functions a lot like an "armor penetration falls off over distance" mechanic that is broadly suggestive of ballistics testing results (in which air resistance becomes a larger factor at longer ranges). Even though Aesthetic Decoupling makes air resistance to ballistic physics something of a non-issue in some cases (such as the Speed Of Dark or even psionic attacks which have no physical mass to them), the leveraging of Subtraction in this way would make it FEEL LIKE "range matters" in some form or fashion to most ranged attacks in a way that is somewhat consonant with everyday experience and expectations.

Additionally, such a system of Subtraction Magnification Due To Range would allow Melee and Ranged attacks to be defined in such a way as to have relatively equal damage outputs, unlike what happens in a lot of game systems, simply because the damage "throughput" would vary with range ... and since Melee attacks wouldn't have ranges beyond Short (in effect), Melee attacks would do "full" damage against everything they hit. However, notably, ranged attackers would be able to reap the same benefits (and the same risks!) by fighting in Short/Melee ranges as well, meaning that "Blappers" could not only exist but thrive as a specialization of a ranged attacker. The important thing though is that Ranged attackers are not being penalized on damage output "up front" ... where a Melee attacker would do 100 damage base, but a Ranged attacker would do only 85 damage base at the same Melee range to compensate for the Ranged attacker being able to inflict damage at ranges beyond Melee (for example).

So ... counter-proposal.
Put the damage output of Melee and Ranged attack on an equal footing, but then apply modifiers to the target's Subtraction value of protection against being attacked depending on how far away the target is from the attacker.
Similar results by different means.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 20 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Red, to do that we would have

Red, to do that we would have to do add range values ithe targer ifnthe target and have they modify the Outiput the Subtraction effect.

And we would have to chsnge how values are stored on the character on the Actor level because the Outout of the protection has to different for ever attacker at every range. Essentially it changes whole lot for very little benefit.

And, trust me on this. you’ll not notice much change when it comes to Subtraction being reduced.

It takes a bunch of Output to get significantly high Subtraction - I’m talking Subtract Basic Melee and Ranged Damage Subtraction levels. Otherwise it is only really useful for DoTs.

We can’t do a multiplyer by Range because if the target has no Subtraction Output a multiple of 0 is goose egg.

Adding output at range would have to be ridiculously huge Output valises toneven matter. And, as I said, changing how Output is stored on the character for protections will not work for what you just described.

I had postulated “fun thought” excerise on a simpler way reducing damage at range could be applied. There is zero nance of it being implemented.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Scott Jackson
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 10 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/20/2013 - 20:13
If any range-related

If any range-related adjustments to the combat formula were to be implemented, I'd rather see it as a mastery anyway. If I understand mastery-type optional combat mechanics correctly, doing something like these proposals as a mastery option:

1. Would allow players to decide whether some range-based mechanics should logically apply to their character concept (ordinary guns, non-homing missiles, laser shotgun, etc) or not (vampiric teleport drain magic, psychics, etc).
2. Can be made more significant/extreme and have a variety of benefits and disadvantages, rather than an across-the-board mechanic that would have to be bland to prevent everyone from feeling forced toward melee range, for instance.
3. Won't risk pushing CoT any further into complexity and active combat than has already been designed. There are a number of combat features that make it more complex and active than CoH, which should please most of us while preserving casual play options. I don't see a need for added complexity in combat at this time, especially for any wide swath of archetypes.
4. Is better suited for some post-launch update - paired with the eventual expansion of ranged archetypes, since it requires little to no development effort now and would be safer to do after archetype balancing has passed beta testing.

TheInternetJanitor
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 05/11/2018 - 06:00
Do bad guys generally have

Do bad guys generally have weaker range attacks (especially the more numerous and common enemies) and normally attempt to engage in melee?

If that is the case, then fighting at range is already inherently safer.

Nearly all games naturally do this if they give range attacks to bad guys at all. Sure, some enemies can be sniper types that work in reverse and are more dangerous at range, but they tend to be special exceptions that players are intended to recognize and play around.

It would honestly be surprising if CoT design didn't do this to some degree. A great many games have dealt with this issue before.