That was precisely what started the flame war. I won't bore folks rehashing my stance, I will leave that to others :P

kitsune9tails wrote:

On Knockback: what if knocking foes back did collision damage? Would that help mitigate the negative way in which this comic book staple is viewed?
Granted, this is an MMO and not a movie, but a supers movie with no knockback feels much less super to me.

What if the damage taken was based on how far they still had to be KBd, this encourages people to knock foes into nearby walls rather than human cannonball them across the map.

kitsune9tails wrote:

On Knockback: what if knocking foes back did collision damage? Would that help mitigate the negative way in which this comic book staple is viewed?

Probably not. On the one hand, people will start playing pinball, trying to use the bonus collision damage. On the other hand, the extra damage isn't worth the fact that they're now outside a hold/knockdown/slow patch, or outside a PBAoE effect that was controlling them and/or holding their aggro, and are back to full capability. IMHO the best current proposal to mitigate the "knockback screws up crowd control and team strategy" problem is still to use anti-knockback auras like Tannim suggested elsewhere.

That said, I think it would be interesting if there were collision damage, though to be fair it should be constrained like falling damage (e.g. in CoH you couldn't die from it; you'd have at least 1 HP afterwards). So keep that in mind: if flying five feet into a wall does more damage than falling fifty feet onto concrete, you might be doing it wrong.

Elsewhere I had a proposal that knockback be a side effect of Smashing (or Kinetic or whatever) damage. To make this work really well, you'd give each mob (including PCs) [b]Mass[/b] and [b]Balance[/b] stats. Damage divided by Mass determines how much the mob is knocked back, and Damage divided by Balance determines if they stay on their feet (knockdown).

Then you could have martial arts stances, "immovable rock" powers, reaction thrusters, or other toggles that buff Balance and/or Mass. And you can have oil slick, ground-to-gravel, contragravity sphere, foot sweep, and other powers that debuff Balance and/or Mass.

I like this concept because it removes the need for some arbitrary threshold between knockdown and knockback, because it's tactically interesting and visually cool to see the tank remain standing, but getting pushed back a bit, when this giant dragon was just whaling on him (this happened a lot in Tera), and even if you decide to have a different mechanic from the damage-to-stat ratios above, you can have powers that can have "high mag" of either knockdown or knockback or both. It also makes "what does this do to a flier?" easier to answer.

Minotaur wrote:

What if the damage taken was based on how far they still had to be KBd, this encourages people to knock foes into nearby walls rather than human cannonball them across the map.

Already [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/34761#comment-34761]ahead of you[/url] on that idea, Minotaur.

If you're on a character that requires lots of mobs to build defence and someone knocks them back away from you, why aren't we looking at changing defence?

Say you're on a team or with at least one other person who kb's your herd. You tell them not to do it again. They generally don't.

Say you're in a situation where some kb would be really useful. Tough, it got nerfed.

Really not seeing why kb was so detrimental to the whole game, learning how to use it and when to use it is all part of learning to play. If anything, a really important part as you're learning to listen, learning not to be annoying, learning to be positional, situational.

As a ranged character I think we should nerf melee, it gets in the way of me shooting things from a distance.

Defense increasing with number of attackers always seemed a bit whacky to me. From a reality standpoint, at any rate. Your Defense is your Abitlity to Defend Yourself. I never could see how that went UP, with more attackers. I know it's a game mechanic, but it just sort of encourages the game mindset, rather than an intuitive response to real conditions. Just sayin'.

Thinking about it, I could see an extremely skilled martial artist being able to keep a large number of attackers at bay by keeping a small number of attackers close to them and using them like a shield. But that would be a different math problem. I know for a fact that it's harder for five guys to attack one, than it is for two, or even three. But up to that number it's just harder to track all attacks. And after a certain point, it's not about attacks, it's just about being buried in numbers and subdued.

I refer mainly to the usual Tank tactic of standing in a crowd and taunting as many as possible, ala' the F4 Thing or X-man Colossus, not the sort of "move-through" tactic like a Batman or Daredevil, for instance. Note the first two use Damage Resistance, as much as Defense in game terms

Drawing upon WarBird's and Fireheart's point then ... so long as the game avoids Friendly Fire (and all the Griefing THAT can bring!) ... what about setting things up such that Friendly Hit Boxes [b]block Line of Sight[/b] ... and doing the same to Foe Hit Boxes as well. Essentially, instead of letting attacks "pass through" any intervening Mobile Obstacle Blocks, whether they be Friend or Foe ... enforce a requirement that there needs to be a clear Line of Sight between attacker and target [i]when the attack is launched[/i] that has no intervening Friends nor Foes in it.

In other words, if you're on the ground (as opposed to hovering) and the Tanker is surrounded by a huge dogpile of enemies on all sides, YOU as a Ranged Attacker can only attack the Foes on [i]your side[/i] of the dogpile ... as opposed to attacking the Boss on the other side of the dogpile with the entire dogpile (plus Friendly Tanker) between yourself and that Boss. In other words ... positioning MATTERS for Line of Sight, because Line of Sight can be blocked/interfered with by mobile obstacles. An interesting side effect of this phenomenon, where you can't attack "through" Hit Boxes to attack a target beyond an intervening Hit Box, is that an Aggro Magnet that gets surrounded by Foes is effectively "screened" from incoming Ranged Attacks by the Foes the Aggro Magnet is confronting.

This idea DEFINITELY has the potential for Griefing (re: classic Top Gun movie scene of Iceman blocking Maverick's shot on the bogey that ultimately results in Goose getting killed on ejection) by Players getting in each other's way, thus "blocking" attack opportunities ... but it also creates circumstances that can involve "screening" depending on how effects are defined. For example, a shockwave styled "explosion" could be set up to ignore Hit Box Blocking but respect Terrain Obstruction Blocking, meaning that in order to not take damage you need to take shelter behind "hard" cover (ie. terrain) as opposed to the "soft" cover of an Ally or Enemy. But then you could have another sort of AoE that's more of a "beehive" styled shrapnel/fragmentation sort of thing, or loaded with flechette needles or ninja shurikens or whatever, and in that case you could take shelter either behind "hard" cover -OR- behind a "helpful" Foe or Ally who acts as "soft" cover and absorbs the attack but isn't "penetrated" by it to reach your own Hit Box, effectively "shielding" you from the attack.

Indeed, I could easily see having AoEs ranked as "penetrating" of Hit Boxes or not be an important consideration in how those AoEs get balanced, such that the "non-penetrating" AoEs in which Hit Boxes are allowed to block Line of Sight are compensated in some form or fashion for this Limitation. Also note that if Hit Boxes are allowed to Block Line of Sight AT ALL ... {significant pause to emphasize importance of point} ... that the ancient tactic of "bumrushing the Player(s)" so as to surround them in melee might ultimately wind up being counterproductive, tactically speaking, from a Foe NPC AI behavioral model point of view. Now wouldn't THAT be interesting?

Brand X wrote:

McNum wrote:
JayBezz wrote:
Minotaur wrote:
kitsune9tails wrote:
On Knockback: what if knocking foes back did collision damage? Would that help mitigate the negative way in which this comic book staple is viewed?
Granted, this is an MMO and not a movie, but a supers movie with no knockback feels much less super to me.

What if the damage taken was based on how far they still had to be KBd, this encourages people to knock foes into nearby walls rather than human cannonball them across the map.

Huzzah. I like this idea..
But does this mean knockdowns get the largest damage boost in said scenario?

In that case, knockdown would be knockback with a distance of 0, I'd imagine. So it would do no damage, unless there's a base damage that all knocks would do.
The most damaging knockback would be something that would fling the enemy really far, but used right next to a wall instead.

I think the idea is more of...so Hover above the target and KB them into the ground which turns it into KD.

But if your movement power is Superleap or Teleport you're out of luck? No.

Comicsluvr wrote:

WarBird wrote:
At any rate, ahem, yes Red. Making things more tactically interesting, yet easily explainable to neo-phytes: "Yo, don't stand in front of the Blaster, dude." I would approve of. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if this game could pull that philosophy off, it would be a huge leap over most other MMO's I've played.

Yeah...I'd go along with what he said!

One caveat that I probably should have made to my supposition of Hit Boxes blocking Line of Sight ... is that there will undoubtedly be attacks (and probably buffs, too) that [b]ignore Line of Sight[/b] in order to deliver their effects. The most obvious ones I can think of for this would be [url=http://tomax.cohtitan.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Pool.Teleportation.Teleport_Foe]Teleport Foe[/url] and [url=http://tomax.cohtitan.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Pool.Teleportation.Recall_Friend]Recall Friend[/url] ... and one could make the argument that [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Manticore]Manticore[/url]'s signature power of Teleport Arrow would also qualify. Indeed, anything that involves teleportation and "wormholes" that allow you to ignore the intervening space between points A and B would seem to make prime candidates for being allowed to ignore Line of Sight issues. Of course ... that effectively then becomes something of an "advantage" for the Powers allowed to do that, since it is not "normal" behavior for most attacks ...

Exactly. Kind of like how a lot of the Powers in the [url=http://tomax.cohtitan.com/data/powers/archetype.php?at=2#Controller_Control.Mind_Control]Mind Control[/url] powerset didn't have Melee/Ranged/AoE attack type tags on them, preventing powersets like Super Reflexes from effectively defending against them because they weren't "physical" attacks but rather mental (ie. Psionic) attacks.

JayBezz wrote:

a lot go games have "special mechanics" per character or character type. For instance in Marvel Heroes, Cyclops has (had) command points that added something specific to how the character plays. In CO they are passives but are innate bonuses instead of special gameplay..
I would love a character specific power that would let me aim my ranged control powers (not damage) through walls.

Xray or Microwave Attack? :o

Or Advanced Thermal imaging...

Fireheart wrote:

Well, too many attackers start interfering with each other, but it does seem inverted.

That's mostly for melee combatants; I have trouble seeing where five other people shooting at your target makes the target inherently more difficult for you to hit. It would be more of a debuff on the attackers -- if you have more than [b]X[/b] number of mobs making melee attacks against the same target, each of the [b]N[/b] attackers gets a debuff on their ToHit that starts at 0 for [b]X[/b] attackers and goes up with each additional attacker. I'm not sure that the overhead for this check would be worth the increase in 'realism', though.

The intent, I always thought, was to give the effect that adding attackers does not make the target easier to damage. A 'numbers mean nothing' power. Without something like this, adding attackers would eventually overwhelm a Resistance user because they aren't allowed to reduce damage to zero. It would also overwhelm evasive targets, because 5% of twenty swings means you are still getting hit. But with adding foes actually buffing your defenses, going from 1 guy attacking you to 20 guys attacking you doesn't mean much by itself.

Effectively, there are no chinks in your armor for a barrage of attacks to sneak through: bring more raw power or go away.

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

jag40 wrote:
Abnormal Joe wrote:
Not a fan of "line of sight" being implemented as a general gameplay mechanic where friendlies can block a target so a power won't execute, however.....
Giving some foes, particularly high ranking ones, a power (think ST hold) where they can take a hostage/human shield might be interesting.
Wholesale friendly LOS blocking would be a polarizing effect between ranged and melee players imho.
-joe

This is a good point.
Would be sad for melee players to be kicked from the team because they lowered the dps of the range attacker by getting in the way or someone purposely doing it just to be "funny".

Or maybe the ranged guy could wait for a shot, or reposition...

Of course he COULD. But I bet he would resent having to. And given the nature of melee play this would happen multiple times every spawn.

-joe

Ranged attacker can target and queue the attack, but has to jitter about, looking for a clear LOS?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Well one thing that will generate movement is OPEN HALLWAYS! Seriously, fighting in some of those office buildings was murder! Why don't we see that in the comics? Because in the comics the terrain is almost always destructible!

Here's another thought: Minimum movement for enemy Bosses and EB/AVs. Minions and Lts can be totally locked down just like before but Bosses and on up will have a minimum of say 10% movement (flight can be canceled...walking only) because they just don't stop. At that speed they'll stagger about, trying to avoid kill patches the team puts down but be slow enough that such patches will still be viable. However if they make it through a doorway hoo boy the team will have to scramble or they may lose him!

Jay, what I'm suggesting would actually PROMOTE control/debuff in the endgame which is where it seems to be the most useful and at the same time somewhat exclusive.

Travel back with me to those heady days of the 8-man teams in CoH. Whenever I was playing in the teens and 20s a really good team consisted of 1 tank, a couple of Blasters, 2-3 controllers and the rest of the party as buffers/debuffers in any mix you wanted. It was typical herd and bake tactics that we all know. The Tank herded, the controllers locked the spawn down, the buffers made the team stronger, the debuffers made the enemy weaker and the blasters made them die faster. Having more than one of most things meant backup if someone missed or some power hadn't recharged yet. Even in these early levels a Scrapper didn't bring much to the table that the Blasters couldn't do better.

Now fast-forward to the post-30s game. Now the same team is rolling faster. Between the controls and buffs/debuffs the Tank (any melee really) is an afterthought...someone to hold aggro if half the team disconnects for some reason. At this level of play there's no reason for more than 2 Controllers because they've got everything locked down. The same thing goes for buffs/debuffs because once the target's Acc, Defense and Resistance are floored there's nowhere to go. The team rolls in, the controllers lock down the spawn (including the EB/AV), the buffs and debuffs fly and then any sort of damage wins the day. Tanks, Scrappers and even Blasters become superfluous. The CoH endgame was the Controller/Debuff show starring those two classes and nobody else except for GMs and Incarnate content.

Pretty boring really. What I'm suggesting is something that will make that 4th or even 5th Controller on a team actually MEAN something as opposed to just another guy that the team can live without.

This applies ONLY to Bosses and above, not to Lts and Minions. I think that there should be a minimum level of activity from Bosses, EBs and so forth. Sort of like what Blasters had there at the end of CoH. If a Boss has 5 attacks and he's been 20% Mezzed then he's either slowed so his attacks fire less often or he simply loses some of his abilities. Design them so a single Controller CAN reduce them to a T1 or T2 attack and a minimum level of ground movement but can't halt them entirely. Higher level Bosses need more Mez to get the same effect and so on.

Will this nerf Controllers? Not really because the first few levels of Mez, the ones that didn't do anything in CoH, will actually DO something in CoT. More Mez means a weaker bad guy just like always which will promote teaming. A bad guy who can ALWAYS move at least a little promotes less static play. However at the highest end of spectrum the Controller who's hopped up to the max and can lay out 12-15 levels of Mez on a target by himself will have an enemy crawling on the floor feebly defending himself with his T1 attack.

The binary way Mez worked in CoH is too static. Either you had nothing or the enemy was doomed. I think something in between could promote more fun play at all levels. The Global Slotting idea means that Controllers and Debuffers can still be just as awesome as they were because they can specifically slot for whatever they want for added effect. You want to be the guy who locks down everyone? Slot for that. You want to be the guy who locks down the little guys but still does good damage? You can slot for that if you want. Yet at all levels there will not be the tendency to say 'no we don't need any other ATs around...we can Hold everything on our own.' Other ATs will always have something to contribute.

I didn't read through the entire thread, so it may have been mentioned already. Instead of a game option to turn off KB, Why not just make a boost a-la CoH's Overwhelming Force: Damage/Chance for Knockdown/Knockback to Knockdown IO, make it non-unique, and let each player decide if they want to use it or not.

Heck, with multi-builds you could have a KB solo build, and a team KD build if you really wanted to.

I like the idea of KB causing 'fall damage' too.

The alternative is what.. some kind of mechanism to turn it off and on? It's not an aura.. it's a power choice you are making.
Should I enhance my heals? NO! That would use up slots!

er that's what they're there for. If you don't like KB then don't play a character that has it.
I would second the enhancement to control the minimal amount of KB that there may be in the game.

GH wrote:

If you don't like KB then don't play a character that has it.

And once again, the "I got mine, screw you" mentality rears its selfish head again. Please stop perpetuating this nonsensical point of view. It doesn't solve anything when you attempt to absolve yourself of all responsibility for advocating the unfair penalization of others.

There are certainly technical things we can do on our end to give players options with regard to knockback.

But the most important piece of the puzzle will be players cooperating and communicating so that a person joining a team knows how best to work with that team.

Community is the key.

Redlynne wrote:

Because that is still costing the Knockback powerset a (precious?) Slot. It's a bit like saying "now make 3 right turns instead of turning left" when you could have just turned left in the first place and saved yourself the extra distance traveled. Sure, in a lot of cases, 3 right turns effectively makes 1 left turn and you can wind up in the same place after all is said and done, but the 3 right turns solution is the "long way round" of doing what the left turn in the first place accomplishes faster, better and cheaper

The "just slot a unique Enhancement" answer only "works" if you've got an overabundance of Slots to burn ... which is something of a mistake to make.

While I agree with your sentiment. you also failed to quote (read?) this:

Xander Cross wrote:

make it non-unique, and let each player decide if they want to use it or not.
Heck, with multi-builds you could have a KB solo build, and a team KD build if you really wanted to.

that IO also enhanced Damage. So it wasn't necessarily a waste of a precious slot. At the very least, not any more than any of the other "special" IOs that were available (i.e. Chance to Stun, Chance to Immob, Chance for X damage) of which none had an actual enhancement value to damage or anything else, they were all -just- procs.

The Overwhelming Force IO was CoH's answer to everyone who asked for a way to "turn KB off" or "change KB to KD". After which, players had the option to choose for themselves. I see no reason why it couldn't work here, and personally I see it as a better solution than making an "off switch" for KB in game options.

Conversely, If we're going to make a console option to turn off KB, as someone previously stated, KB is a form of mitigation... so if it's turned off, there needs to be some kind of compensation, most likely in the form of higher damage from all KB powers. Much like if one asked for a way to turn off the Fire DoT... the DoT damage would need to be added to the power as spike damage, otherwise you're just willingly nerfing yourself, and in a far greater fashion than adding a Damage/X enhancement to some of your powers would be.

Xander Cross wrote:

The Overwhelming Force IO was CoH's answer to everyone who asked for a way to "turn KB off" or "change KB to KD". After which, players had the option to choose for themselves. I see no reason why it couldn't work here, and personally I see it as a better solution than making an "off switch" for KB in game options.

People keep using the Overwhelming Force IO as reason why we should not put a KB-KD switch in the game.

I ask you, did you actually HAVE one of these IOs? Because the only time I ever SAW one, it cost a billion inf. The thing was Not so ubiquitous that everyone who wanted one, could get it!!!

I don't want to be rude, but you make me want to shout in your face. Just shut up and give me the danged switch. It's not going to affect YOU at all.

Why do you care? If this ability exists in the game, what do you lose? Why is it a threat to your existence? You and others in the same camp keep saying, "It's bad. You're bad for wanting it. I don't want it, it's BAD!" And no one has been able to give a valid reason for this inherent badness.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Brand X wrote:

It's lack of existence doesn't hurt you in the slightest. So what do you lose by not having it?
Something you're forgetting is, while KB may have been hated by some, a few to the point of saying, can't be on the team. To many, it became accepted, because there was no real option to not stop the KB.
Putting in that option means, some would have to go against their own player wants.
Not to mention, it just doesn't make sense for some KB powers to do KD. :p Hurricane...KB! Just KD makes no sense.

Of course I'm 'hurt' by not being able to switch my KB to KD. People call me bad names because I KB things. I can't use my powers because they KB things. But, if I have the switch, then I can choose when to KB things.

And, obviously, certain powers would not respond to the switch. Hurricane rarely picked up an enemy and Hurled them back. Most of the time, it was a 'push'. Still, Hurricane could absolutely and believably knock an enemy off their feet and push them away. Why do you insist it could not?

How about if I mention some better examples? Tornado. It's a Pet. Moreover, it's an Uncontrolled pet. My own knock-setting would probably not apply to Tornado. But, if it did... What's the worst that might happen, then?

But, you're saying that KB was 'accepted', like stink in a swamp. There's nothing anyone could do about it, so it was accepted.

Putting in the Option makes it optional. The power would always do what the character wanted, unless it was a power that ignored the switch, in which case... it would be accepted. Like stink.

Again, I ask you: If my request were granted and I could choose the magnitude of my KB, what would it hurt? What is so desirable about KB that it should preclude me from having the choice?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Fireheart wrote:

Brand X wrote:
It's lack of existence doesn't hurt you in the slightest. So what do you lose by not having it?
Something you're forgetting is, while KB may have been hated by some, a few to the point of saying, can't be on the team. To many, it became accepted, because there was no real option to not stop the KB.
Putting in that option means, some would have to go against their own player wants.
Not to mention, it just doesn't make sense for some KB powers to do KD. :p Hurricane...KB! Just KD makes no sense.

Of course I'm 'hurt' by not being able to switch my KB to KD. People call me bad names because I KB things. I can't use my powers because they KB things. But, if I have the switch, then I can choose when to KB things.
And, obviously, certain powers would not respond to the switch. Hurricane rarely picked up an enemy and Hurled them back. Most of the time, it was a 'push'. Still, Hurricane could absolutely and believably knock an enemy off their feet and push them away. Why do you insist it could not?
How about if I mention some better examples? Tornado. It's a Pet. Moreover, it's an Uncontrolled pet. My own knock-setting would probably not apply to Tornado. But, if it did... What's the worst that might happen, then?
But, you're saying that KB was 'accepted', like stink in a swamp. There's nothing anyone could do about it, so it was accepted.
Putting in the Option makes it optional. The power would always do what the character wanted, unless it was a power that ignored the switch, in which case... it would be accepted. Like stink.
Again, I ask you: If my request were granted and I could choose the magnitude of my KB, what would it hurt? What is so desirable about KB that it should preclude me from having the choice?
Be Well!
Fireheart

Reread. I said Hurricane wouldn't do KD. I never said it wouldn't do KB. Which is what it did.

And if you can't handle being called bad names on the internet, it's time to get off the internet.

As to your question...what does it hurt? I go to all the effort in picking powers that are all about KB! This is the theme of the character! I even name the character THE KNOCKBACKER!

I get on my team, and all of a sudden I'm told, use the toggle or get kicked. Never mind that the powers are built and themed to do KB!

And seeing you all against the idea of limiting healer types in game because someone might want to play a healer concept, you seem more than willing to limit the concepts of knock back.

Fireheart wrote:

Of course I'm 'hurt' by not being able to switch my KB to KD. People call me bad names because I KB things. I can't use my powers because they KB things. But, if I have the switch, then I can choose when to KB things.

So, if the team blaster complained and called you bad names because your tank was surviving all the mobs and the blaster kept dying, would you turn off your armor toggles to make him happy? Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you would be doing by turning off KB... you're disabling your inherent protection. At least with the IO suggestion, you wouldn't be -losing- mitigation, you'd just be changing it to a different form of the same type of mitigation. The problem here isn't KB, it's people. You can't change people with mechanics, or lack thereof.

Also, To touch further on the previous point you made about the cost of the Overwhelming Force IO in CoH... this is -not- CoH, it is a game in development. There is no reason that an option like this couldn't be made available for a static price at an in-game vendor.

Fireheart wrote:

Again, I ask you: If my request were granted and I could choose the magnitude of my KB, what would it hurt? What is so desirable about KB that it should preclude me from having the choice?
Be Well!
Fireheart

It would hurt -you- and -me-, because those players that won't team with you because you have KB, will still not team with you because you bring nothing to the team aside from lower damage powers with no mitigation. Fire blast powers had an extra DoT that made their damage above average. What do your powers have other than KB? Why would they want to pick you over that fire blaster? your secondary? why not just take the other guy that has the same secondary -and- fire blast? I don't want anything available to welcome these kinds of players into the game.

You're focusing on a specific problem with blinders on. Not seeing the bigger picture. I don't think a change like this will -help- anyone, rather the opposite.

Xander Cross wrote:

To answer your question, Yes... I actually had about 4 of them. And they were fairly easy to get during the Summer blockbuster event, I didn't pay a cent for them.
Honestly, Im not sure why you're upset. I was simply making an alternative suggestion to the issue at hand. What I post here is my own solitary opinion... I'm not in a 'camp' or 'group', and my opinion on the subject isn't influenced by others one way or the other. I didn't even read through the entire thread, So I'm sorry but I had no Idea that IO solution was already suggested.
I care, because I'm stubborn enough that If I'm playing a character who uses KB, they are -going- to use KB. period. I feel that having a game option to 'scale KB down' or 'turn KB off' would cause extra unnecessary conflict when teaming. First of all, If there is an option to remove KB via a game setting, I see it as submitting to the idiots who "don't want KB on their team". My gameplay should not have to submit to another players preference, and neither should yours.

I agree! I'm stubborn enough that I refuse to let you decide how I'm going to use KB. The people who have a problem with my choice about KB can go play with someone else. I'm asking for the freedom to choose. I don't want KB taken out of the game, I want to be in control of it.

Quote:

Let's say you get your option. well, now you can team without worry, right? How about when you're blasting stuff and somehow mob X gets aggro'd to you... your awesome teammates are all handling other mobs, and you keep blasting it with your lower-than-average-damage powers that no longer have -any- mitigation... you fail and die because you couldn't mitigate the damage the way you should have been able to. next mission, same thing happens... next, same. Team leader kicks you because "you keep dying, the rest of the team is carrying you".

I don't understand, what does KB have to do with the power of my attacks? What part of 'turn KB on and off at will' would cause me to be without mitigation when I want it? This argument only applies if I DON'T have the switch, but am forced to use your IO solution. I only fall and die if you win... Why are you trying to kill me?

Quote:

If someone doesn't want to team with you because you have KB, it's the same as if they don't want to team with you because you don't have "healz" or some other BS. If there's a game option that can make you submit to another's play preference, it will become enforceable and abused by others, and will just lead to other options to alienate and discourage people from playing things the way they are meant to be played by design. Then you will suck to them anyway for any number of other reasons.

You imply that I will be 'forced' to play by someone else's rules and I just don't see how that is possible. I have the Choice to do as I will. Just like you do.

What part of KB is so valuable that you would 'force' me to use it? I mean, that's what you're doing here. Pre-emptively forcing me to play your way.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Brand X wrote:

Your choice would be there as well. Pick powers that do knockdown instead of KB. You seriously think those who have KB concepts wouldn't feel forced to use the toggle by every team once it became an option, if the team decided..."You're KB disrupts are perfectly happy herd and burn mentality"?

Why limit my choice of powers, presuming that an AT/Powerset based game would even give me multiple choices in what powers are available? This isn't CO, where I could Freeform any power I wanted.

Also, this plan means that I can't change my mind on the fly. Instead, I'm locked into your 'Knockbacker' model, or locked out of it. That would mean that the Devs would be forced to make two versions of every powerset, one with and one without full KB.

I don't know about you, but I've never been on a team in CoH, where I couldn't as easily find a new team, or solo. Frankly, every team I was on (that I wanted to Stay on) would not have booted me just for my powers. Any team that Would boot me, just because of my powers, is Not a team I would want to play with.

That's why I don't agree with any 'the team will force you' arguments. The team will not force me to anything. I get to choose.

Brand X wrote:

Yay for you! Now look at the mass of players who will feel like they won't have a choice if they want to team.
You may not like PuGs. PuGs never seem popular on forums. But get in game (in CoH at least) they were a big part of the game.

Um, what mass of players, where? Are you one of those players? Will the 'mass of players' please step forward to be recognized? No point in summoning phantom players, they're not involved in the discussion.

I've joined many PUGs and found them delightful... Well, except for this one time when the team leader, spammed Guild invites to all of us and booted anyone that refused to join his guild. However, that had nothing to do with my powers.

What part of KB is so valuable that you would 'force' me to use it? I mean, that's what you're doing here. Pre-emptively forcing me to play your way.

Be Well!
Fireheart

The sheer level of hyperbole has risen to the point of sinking the original topic people. Opinions have been expressed, evidence (I use the term loosely but factual data WAS quoted) has been presented and I'm pretty sure the Devs couldn't miss this topic if they'd studied at the Stormtrooper Gunnery School. Why not put a pin in it for now and see what they come up with before we go inciting a revolution over something that hasn't happened, may not happen and may be enjoyed when it DOES happen?

Darth Fez wrote:

An idea that appeals to me is to give certain power sets one or two powers that have guaranteed knockback, as opposed to a small chance to do so with each (or most) attacks. That way the mitigation is guaranteed but not necessarily always available, and the powers could potentially be slotted to make them knockup/down for those people who would rather not act as travel agents.
Comicsluvr wrote:
...the Devs couldn't miss this topic if they'd studied at the Stormtrooper Gunnery School.
Sheesh, people really need to cut the storm troopers some slack. They were shooting at the main characters, after all! That's kinda like laughing at a martial artist for not being able to take down Batman. :P

Will agree there. I think part of the problem with KB was it was not always 100% Which was worse for the AOEs.

I'd be concerned for anything that can get broken and a toggle strikes me as a point of failure.

However funny it would be to me, in the years to come, to look back at this thread and compare it with your current thread of "waaah my toggle is stuck in the ON position, I KB everything and my character is unplayable now".. no wait, what am I saying? It would be incredibly funny. Let's go with the toggle.

Then let's make it an option for the team leader to decide on as this is mostly a team concern, right?

kitsune9tails wrote:

Some good thoughts here; lets keep the signal to noise ratio useful.
My point is this:
- If you are the type of team leader who is going to boot someone for using KB the way they see fit when you disagree, that person having the ability to turn off KB is not a factor.
- If you are the type of team member that will join a team and use KB when the team leader asks you not to, having the ability to turn off KB is not a factor.
This is where things are out of the dev's hands.
On the other hand:
- Having powers not have a random chance to do KB is an idea
- Some kind of stance or toggle that turns off KB is an idea
- Having Boosts that muzzle or convert KB is an idea
- Making sure that sets that have KB also have non-KB powers at proper levels is an idea
Ideas good.
If you are going to use "illustrative hyperbole", please tag it as such :)

I used to LOVE Energy Manip for Blasters. Out of the gate I get Power Thrust (otherwise known as GO AWAY!). Later on I have options for several Melee attacks, an added layer of Stun and Boost Range which can easily be made perma.

kitsune9tails wrote:

- Having powers not have a random chance to do KB is an idea
- Some kind of stance or toggle that turns off KB is an idea
- Having Boosts that muzzle or convert KB is an idea
- Making sure that sets that have KB also have non-KB powers at proper levels is an idea

I like that you break down the options like this. I just wanted to tell you poster to poster that it's very much appreciated.

kitsune9tails wrote:

Ideas good.

Agreed. Keep the ideas coming. Keep expanding on them. I fully trust the devs to find what works best in their combat system.. but the more options and choices they see available the better.

I still put my weight behind "Knock Chance" model where if you don't want knock you simply shouldn't slot for it. Its the one I like best of the ones being discussed. ESPECIALLY if Knocks will have the potential to provide Damage points. But I know there are even MORE solutions out there for creative thinkers so I welcome the next idea to change my stance.

- -

Question: Should environmental damage (like Knock/Fall Damage) points be attributed to the caster ?

I've come to accept that damage done by confused foes does not count toward the damage of the caster.. My solution to this problem was to create a "Mez Points" system where controllers can still get quantifiable character credit toward enemy defeat. How then can one quantify Knocks to give enemy defeat credit? I know in Champions Online it knock damage was a % of enemy health.. and thus is hard to quantify and thus was not counted toward enemy defeat. IF devs want knock damage to continue to be percentage based instead of points based then I think it can't be allowed to be counted toward enemy defeat. Personally (while I see the thematic reason for percent based damage) I want the knock damage to be Damage Point based. It would work much like a Critical Hit that had higher magnitude and lower frequency.. a big spike of damage.

Brand X wrote:

Okay. If you're going to go that route, then let's not worry about those classes without a defense powerset get hurt, because they may or may not get mezzed or be a glass cannon, or just glass.
If they don't like it, they can always roll a new character that is tougher. Nothing says all powersets have to be equal.

What does this have to do with anything?

Quote:

The problem isn't a Knock Control Option, the problem is there will be players who force it on people. There will be players who don't want to use it but feel forced to use it.
-snip-
If you don't think putting this control option in will have the masses not trying to force it on some new player who wants to KB and that we WANT to stay in the game supporting it, I say put it in. If you think that's just silly and of course the masses will try to enforce their way on other team members, giving new players a bad experience with the game, leaving it and thusly not supporting it, then leave it out.

I still don't believe in this phantom army of yours.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Xander Cross wrote:

BTW Red, there ARE reasons aside from social aspects to why a -disable- toggle alone would be a poor implementation. One of which would be along the lines of being balanced in the "kb on" state vs. balanced in the "kb off" state. Powers with secondary effects are intrinsically balanced against their secondary effects, which can result in longer recharge times, reduced damage, or a number of other balancing tricks.
The end result being that if you're able to "turn off" the secondary effect at will without any additional benefit to turning the power off and losing the secondary effect... it then leaves the power "below average" across the scope of the balance scale since it's now behaving differently from other powers that have no inherent secondary effect.
Which leaves the question "what options do you have to keep the powers balanced when they're in the "kb off" state?"

I haven't seen any instances in CoH where damage output was balanced against KB, such that an attack would be less powerful than some other equivalent power, if it did not have KB. Would you provide an example, please?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Excellent! You've just shown that Fire Blast's secondary effect was Damage, rather than Status.

Now, if my toggle simply removed .20 Mag from Power Bolt, the target would fall down, instead of fly backwards.

Be Well!
Fireheart

"The end result being that if you're able to "turn off" the secondary effect at will without any additional benefit to turning the power off and losing the secondary effect... it then leaves the power "below average" across the scope of the balance scale since it's now behaving differently from other powers that have no inherent secondary effect."

This is a completely and totally subjective viewpoint.

Blast A does 50 damage with 4 End cost, 100 range and a 4 second recharge. It also imparts a Mag 1 Immobilize for 8 seconds.

Blast B does the same damage with the same End cost, range and recharge. It imparts a mag 3 KB. The player chooses to use the (whatever mechanic we decide) reducing the KB to KD.

This only makes the power "below average" across the scope of the balance scale since it's now behaving differently from other powers that have no inherent secondary effect." if the PLAYER thinks it does. The presence or absence of KB has NO bearing on the damage of the power whatsoever.

The only person who can truly judge how 'effective' a power is is the player using it. How many players had 'sub-optimum' builds that they LOVED to play? As far as they were concerned, their powers were very effective...and fun too.

Xander Cross wrote:

I said this with the following in mind, which I've personally experienced as both a spectator and the perceived antagonist (i.e. the one thought to be using kb poorly):
-players who demand "QUIT WITH THE KB" in the middle of a fight, when discussions afterward with the entire team determined that the kb was being used in a beneficial manner to the team. (usually everyone but the complainer was unanimous in this)
-players who immediately kick others from teams just because they have a powerset with kb. or refuse to invite them alltogether.
On the flip side, any time a teammate -asked- in a non-idiot fashion to reduce/stop using kb, I complied without question or retort... sometimes even when they weren't talking specifically to me, but because I had KB powers.

All of which proves my point (although I know that wasn't your intent). Just because someone asks you to do something doesn't give them the right to determine for you how you're using your Powers. It's a judgement call. And as you rightly point out, sometimes it's only one person who has a problem, while the rest of the Team wants you to keep doing what you're doing (and the latter is the majority). It isn't something that's cut and dried with only one possible solution. This is no One Size Fits All kind of deal.

Sometimes requests to "knock it off" with the Knockback have merit.
Sometimes they don't have merit and so you shouldn't have to comply (and may even be encouraged to refuse to comply).
It's up to *US* ... as Players ... to figure out which is which and decide for ourselves if a request/demand of this sort has merit or not ... [i]and that's not something the Developers should be deciding FOR US pre-emptively[/i] and baking into the underlying structures of the game mechanics.

Xander Cross wrote:

which is why it is important to try to avoid empowering those situations toward one side or the other, and if at all possible.. reduce them.

The irony here is that you're basically arguing my point for me with this. I would use the exact same words (and have) in arguing that a Control Switch does exactly what you claim to be the point.

Xander Cross wrote:

Having a "toggle" option, implemented, per the suggestion would give those players a leg to stand on and would see an increase in this type of behavior, no "mights' or "maybes" about it.

Once again, the confused and muddled argument that anything with a probability of happening greater than 0% must be treated as if that probability of happening is 100% in ALL cases, ALL circumstances, and is the default assumption at ALL times with NO EXCEPTIONS.

I see a continuum of possibilities while you only see a boolean/binary pair of outcomes, in which if the YES outcome is even [b]possible[/b] then there will never be a NO outcome. That you cling to this belief even after relating your own anecdote in which one member of a Team asked you to stop using Knockback while other Team members defended your use of Knockback and asked you to continue playing exactly as you had been is, shall we say ... remarkable?

Why are you so unwilling to accept that Team dynamics are more nuanced and complex than you're asserting they are?

Xander Cross wrote:

that type of player would now have dev approval, through available game options, that using KB is not required, and therefore would feel it was their right to (try to) impose and enforce others to use said option explicitly on teams. It would cause a measurable increase in these types of behaviors in relation to kb, because that's human nature.

The same could be claimed that being able to put [url=http://tomax.cohtitan.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Defender_Buff.Empathy.Siphon_Energy]Healing Aura[/url] on Autofire and spamming it endlessly had "dev approval" as you put it. That doesn't make doing that socially acceptable in all situations and circumstances. There were times when doing that was legitimately useful and welcome ... and other times when it most certainly was not. Again ... One Size Does Not Fit All.

Xander Cross wrote:

Lets not assume that we'll be the majority population in CoT and able to denounce such claims with ease.

Very well ... but then why should we assume that we'll be the minority population in City of Titans? Even better yet, why should we assume that we'd be the super-minority population in City of Titans? I understand that you're AFRAID that might happen, but haven't seen anything explaining why you'd ASSUME that would happen even before Game Pre-Alpha.

Xander Cross wrote:

We do want to bring in new players, we don't want to bring in the wrong kind of players.

Uh ... who gets to "pick and choose" which Players want to play the game? Is there a vetting process somewhere deciding if Players are "worthy" of playing the game? More specifically, is the some sort of Banhammer that is supposed to fall on people who are "mean" to Knockback wielding characters in Teams?

I can understand the notion of wanting to keep out the "riff raff" but I'm kind of unclear on the Cause And Effect relationship you're trying to build up here.

Xander Cross wrote:

Which leaves the question "what options do you have to keep the powers balanced when they're in the "kb off" state?"

Short answer ... none ... [i]because you don't need any[/i].

No seriously, if a Player [i]voluntarily chooses[/i] to clamp their Knockback such that it only produces Knockdown instead, then no further adjustment or (scare quotes) "balancing" (/quotes) is required, because the desired effect of the tradeoff has been achieved in that the target has not been moved in a way that could potentially be disadvantageous to their overall strategy. It's really that simple. You're [b]voluntarily[/b] surrendering a tactical advantage (on demand) in exchange for a more important strategic advantage, if an when the tactical and/or strategic situation makes such an exchange "valuable" to the Player in some way (and the ways in which this last condition could be true are too numerous and diverse to account for by lock-in advance decisions or pre-programming).

Just because a double edged sword makes it easy to cut yourself doesn't mean you HAVE TO cut yourself on your sword when you use it, or that you HAVE TO use both edges when attacking an opponent. However, having an extra edge on your weapon enables different moves and complexities of swordplay when compared to a single edged sword. How you use a double edged sword is entirely up to the wielder though.

Redlynne wrote:

Xander Cross wrote:
I said this with the following in mind, which I've personally experienced as both a spectator and the perceived antagonist (i.e. the one thought to be using kb poorly):
-players who demand "QUIT WITH THE KB" in the middle of a fight, when discussions afterward with the entire team determined that the kb was being used in a beneficial manner to the team. (usually everyone but the complainer was unanimous in this)
-players who immediately kick others from teams just because they have a powerset with kb. or refuse to invite them alltogether.
On the flip side, any time a teammate -asked- in a non-idiot fashion to reduce/stop using kb, I complied without question or retort... sometimes even when they weren't talking specifically to me, but because I had KB powers.

All of which proves my point (although I know that wasn't your intent). Just because someone asks you to do something doesn't give them the right to determine for you how you're using your Powers. It's a judgement call. And as you rightly point out, sometimes it's only one person who has a problem, while the rest of the Team wants you to keep doing what you're doing (and the latter is the majority). It isn't something that's cut and dried with only one possible solution. This is no One Size Fits All kind of deal.
Sometimes requests to "knock it off" with the Knockback have merit.
Sometimes they don't have merit and so you shouldn't have to comply (and may even be encouraged to refuse to comply).
It's up to *US* ... as Players ... to figure out which is which and decide for ourselves if a request/demand of this sort has merit or not ... and that's not something the Developers should be deciding FOR US pre-emptively and baking into the underlying structures of the game mechanics.
Xander Cross wrote:
which is why it is important to try to avoid empowering those situations toward one side or the other, and if at all possible.. reduce them.
The irony here is that you're basically arguing my point for me with this. I would use the exact same words (and have) in arguing that a Control Switch does exactly what you claim to be the point.
Xander Cross wrote:
Having a "toggle" option, implemented, per the suggestion would give those players a leg to stand on and would see an increase in this type of behavior, no "mights' or "maybes" about it.
Once again, the confused and muddled argument that anything with a probability of happening greater than 0% must be treated as if that probability of happening is 100% in ALL cases, ALL circumstances, and is the default assumption at ALL times with NO EXCEPTIONS.
I see a continuum of possibilities while you only see a boolean/binary pair of outcomes, in which if the YES outcome is even possible then there will never be a NO outcome. That you cling to this belief even after relating your own anecdote in which one member of a Team asked you to stop using Knockback while other Team members defended your use of Knockback and asked you to continue playing exactly as you had been is, shall we say ... remarkable?
Why are you so unwilling to accept that Team dynamics are more nuanced and complex than you're asserting they are?
Xander Cross wrote:
that type of player would now have dev approval, through available game options, that using KB is not required, and therefore would feel it was their right to (try to) impose and enforce others to use said option explicitly on teams. It would cause a measurable increase in these types of behaviors in relation to kb, because that's human nature.

The same could be claimed that being able to put Healing Aura on Autofire and spamming it endlessly had "dev approval" as you put it. That doesn't make doing that socially acceptable in all situations and circumstances. There were times when doing that was legitimately useful and welcome ... and other times when it most certainly was not. Again ... One Size Does Not Fit All.
Xander Cross wrote:
Lets not assume that we'll be the majority population in CoT and able to denounce such claims with ease.
Very well ... but then why should we assume that we'll be the minority population in City of Titans? Even better yet, why should we assume that we'd be the super-minority population in City of Titans? I understand that you're AFRAID that might happen, but haven't seen anything explaining why you'd ASSUME that would happen even before Game Pre-Alpha.
Xander Cross wrote:
We do want to bring in new players, we don't want to bring in the wrong kind of players.

Uh ... who gets to "pick and choose" which Players want to play the game? Is there a vetting process somewhere deciding if Players are "worthy" of playing the game? More specifically, is the some sort of Banhammer that is supposed to fall on people who are "mean" to Knockback wielding characters in Teams?
I can understand the notion of wanting to keep out the "riff raff" but I'm kind of unclear on the Cause And Effect relationship you're trying to build up here.
Xander Cross wrote:
Which leaves the question "what options do you have to keep the powers balanced when they're in the "kb off" state?"

Short answer ... none ... because you don't need any.
No seriously, if a Player voluntarily chooses to clamp their Knockback such that it only produces Knockdown instead, then no further adjustment or (scare quotes) "balancing" (/quotes) is required, because the desired effect of the tradeoff has been achieved in that the target has not been moved in a way that could potentially be disadvantageous to their overall strategy. It's really that simple. You're voluntarily surrendering a tactical advantage (on demand) in exchange for a more important strategic advantage, if an when the tactical and/or strategic situation makes such an exchange "valuable" to the Player in some way (and the ways in which this last condition could be true are too numerous and diverse to account for by lock-in advance decisions or pre-programming).
Just because a double edged sword makes it easy to cut yourself doesn't mean you HAVE TO cut yourself on your sword when you use it, or that you HAVE TO use both edges when attacking an opponent. However, having an extra edge on your weapon enables different moves and complexities of swordplay when compared to a single edged sword. How you use a double edged sword is entirely up to the wielder though.

Better yet. The toggle switch allows you to...not use your chosen secondary effect at all. Not change it on a whim.

I have a blast that can cause rooting, maybe I should have a toggle that turns it into a slow effect, so I can stack it with other slow effects or, I don't want to root the target, so they don't stay outside some PBAOE effect?

Maybe turn that DOT secondary effect into a ROOT effect with a toggle switch because I need more mitigation than extra damage to kill enemies faster?

If we do the toggle, let's just have it turn off KB. No need to have it switch to some other effect or weaken the effect you the player chose to take.

Brand X wrote:

Comicsluvr wrote:
"The end result being that if you're able to "turn off" the secondary effect at will without any additional benefit to turning the power off and losing the secondary effect... it then leaves the power "below average" across the scope of the balance scale since it's now behaving differently from other powers that have no inherent secondary effect."
This is a completely and totally subjective viewpoint.
Blast A does 50 damage with 4 End cost, 100 range and a 4 second recharge. It also imparts a Mag 1 Immobilize for 8 seconds.
Blast B does the same damage with the same End cost, range and recharge. It imparts a mag 3 KB. The player chooses to use the (whatever mechanic we decide) reducing the KB to KD.
This only makes the power "below average" across the scope of the balance scale since it's now behaving differently from other powers that have no inherent secondary effect." if the PLAYER thinks it does. The presence or absence of KB has NO bearing on the damage of the power whatsoever.
The only person who can truly judge how 'effective' a power is is the player using it. How many players had 'sub-optimum' builds that they LOVED to play? As far as they were concerned, their powers were very effective...and fun too.

Okay. If we go this route, why give it KD? Toggle switch that just takes away KB. Why is it people think it should turn KB into KD. Why not just...turn off KD effects.
You still do your damage! All you lost was the secondary effect you don't want to use at the moment. And KD is different than KB which is different than KU.

Ah but you're the one assuming that I don't want to use it. The example was simply for illustration. If my power does KB and the situation calls for it then I'll use it.

Redlynne wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Okay. If we go this route, why give it KD? Toggle switch that just takes away KB. Why is it people think it should turn KB into KD. Why not just...turn off KD effects.

/facepalm
Brand X ... you're overcompensating.
The reason why you want to clamp Knockback into being Knockdown, rather than turning Knockback "off" entirely, is because a Knockdown still forces a "stand back up" animation that is and of itself an important Soft Control. Honestly, I shouldn't need to explain this ... :(

I know exactly what KD is. But you're exchanging one control option for another. It's not overcompensating. It's saying if we go the toggle switch route, why not just make it ON/OFF.