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.

Knockback

383 posts / 0 new
Last post
JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
I liked the knock chance

I liked the knock chance suggestion listed above.. I don't know if it would be tied to crits or a seperate roll. But I really like the idea of slotting for it..

If it's tied to a %chance rating how would you measure the magnitude? Stat system?

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
I never saw anybody kicked

I never saw anybody kicked from a team simply for having KB, I did see people who couldn't stop using it to the detriment of the team kicked. I'd expect it to work similarly if you had the "no KB" button. One of the features of CoH was that stuff was actually (in 8 man content rather than incarnate) easy enough that specific teams were rarely required, so there was a lot less build elitism than there was in other games I've played.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
A thought that's been kicking

A thought that's been kicking around my brain is that, from the sound of it, nearly everyone who tended to be annoyed by KB was so because several enemies would be knocked back/away. IIRC, those sets that did have KB had one or two powers that would affect more than one target. If CoT goes a similar route, surely (good team) players can be counted on not to use one or two powers if those are likely to prove disruptive to the team?

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Redlynne wrote:
Brand X wrote:
No. You think a toggle to turn on/off KB puts power in your hands, but what it does it put power in your teams hand.

Brand X, perhaps you were unclear on the concept? Having the capacity granted to the Player to ADAPT to meet the needs/demand/expectations of a Team ON DEMAND is a social courtesy.
Brand X wrote:
"What you have KB? Turn it to KD or we kick you from team."

So you'd rather not have the --> OPTION <-- to comply? You'd prefer the following scenario?
"What you have KB?"
You have been kicked from team.
I fail to see how giving players the OPTION to coordinate (better) with their Teams is something that needs to be prevented at all costs. That's like saying that Supersidekicking is overpowered because it makes finding groups too easy to play with.

I do prefer that option. Because those players who'd kick you from the team for having KB are the same players who'd kick you from the team (using CoH terms here) for being... Force Fielder?! Storm Control?! What?! You're not Radiation, Dark or Kinetics?!
Best to find out who those players are early on and possibly put them on ignore for being basically terrible people :p

so basically you want the option removed, because even if it wasn't there, people would still be jerks...
That is how I read it.

If you can't team with the KBer, because it ruins a bit of Herd/AOE Combo then meh :p Why limit the theme that relies on KB from doing their KB just because other players are like "You're theme ruins my herd and burn, no teams with you!"

Then the KBer can find a team who's "YAY! We're frikken superheroes!"

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Minotaur wrote:
Minotaur wrote:

I never saw anybody kicked from a team simply for having KB, I did see people who couldn't stop using it to the detriment of the team kicked. I'd expect it to work similarly if you had the "no KB" button. One of the features of CoH was that stuff was actually (in 8 man content rather than incarnate) easy enough that specific teams were rarely required, so there was a lot less build elitism than there was in other games I've played.

It was my experience that if someone with AOE KB was killing most of your team, the problem was often the team needed to improve their enhancements.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
I've never seen KB ruin my

I've never seen KB ruin my gaming experience. In Fact, Adding distance (and time the opponent cant attack usually) does nothing but help the team.

To the devs I simply say.. avoid Herding AI. If players want to herd enemies it should be from the player's actions not because the enemy AI works on a hive mind of pathing.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

So ... you'd prefer to play a Massively Single Player Online game?
gangrel wrote:
side note: people will be jerks no matter what.
So ... basically your problem is with people who can be jerks, and you'd rather be a jerk yourself rather than having an OPTION to be an accommodating Team Player.
Good to know.

I have been supporting you all the way through this.

I was trying to get across that no matter what people who will be jerks, will be jerks if the option is present or not.

Personally, I have had a few occasions where being able to *restrain* your knock back would be handy.... ie if you are playing a bit over your odds and want to avoid aggroing extra mobs (ie to not knockback the mob into others), maybe you just want to pull your blow a bit.

*shrugs*

Hell, if Superman can pull his blows and not send people flying (or Batman, or any other superhero), then why the hell CANT WE?

An option like this makes sense.

If people are going to complain and say "but we will be forced to use this option in teams".... Chances are you *Would* get kicked from the team if the option wasn't there.

As I said, people will be jerks if the option was present or not.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

I liked the knock chance suggestion listed above.. I don't know if it would be tied to crits or a seperate roll. But I really like the idea of slotting for it..
If it's tied to a %chance rating how would you measure the magnitude? Stat system?

The idea of this was to come up with a compromise between the two groups.

For me, the vet nemesis staff *didn't* always knock the mobs back, it worked a lot of the time, but not 100% of the time (when it hit that is).

So, I was thinking of basically tying the two together, and seeing what effects and restrictions you could put down with how the knockback worked (just going from personal playing experience in CoX, which to be fair I didn't have a lot of *playing* variety, but I had quite a bit of *teaming* variety.

I am not going to go into the whole knockback system itself, Its something that I dont have confidence in doing.

However, I felt that being able to "pull your blows" with various success levels would be an option (not ALL powers could be "pulled" to prevent knockback, but maybe you *could* reduce the amount of knockback you had for a hit when needed.

So even if you were playing with a 100% guaranteed knockback power, you could *Self limit* the distance if the need arose (to avoid knock back into other mobs/prevent bonus aggro etc).

Considering that the developers have turned around and said that they *want* to make the NPC's "smarter", I can see this working with more "stealthy" setups predominantly.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Twisted Toon
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 months ago
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

So ... you'd prefer to play a Massively Single Player Online game?
gangrel wrote:
side note: people will be jerks no matter what.
So ... basically your problem is with people who can be jerks, and you'd rather be a jerk yourself rather than having an OPTION to be an accommodating Team Player.
Good to know.

I don't mind a little accommodation with the team I'm on. However, if I really enjoy knockback on a particular character, that character would be no fun to play on a team that demands that I change what makes that particular character fun (for me) to something less fun. Despite the fact that I can accommodate their wish of not spreading the entire group of foes all over the map with my KB. My accommodation to the team is using less AoE KB.

If they want me to accommodate their wishes, they had damn well be willing to accommodate my wishes as well. If they are going to insist that I make my character un-fun to play because they despise KB in any way, shape or form, then they're not really people I would want to be teaming with in the first place.

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Izzy wrote:
Izzy wrote:

Brand X wrote:
...
"What you have KB? Turn it to KD or we kick you from team."
Nevermind that some powers would knockback conceptually, not knockdown just so you can avoid the issue of taking two steps to hit an enemy with you melee attack.

Most likely, but its better than being discriminated agains (auto kicked) for just being you. ;)
At least, now, you can PROVE that you CAN Hack It! ;)

Redlynne wrote:

Brand X wrote:
No. You think a toggle to turn on/off KB puts power in your hands, but what it does it put power in your teams hand.
Brand X, perhaps you were unclear on the concept? Having the capacity granted to the Player to ADAPT to meet the needs/demand/expectations of a Team ON DEMAND is a social courtesy.
Brand X wrote:
"What you have KB? Turn it to KD or we kick you from team."
So you'd rather not have the --> OPTION <-- to comply? You'd prefer the following scenario?
"What you have KB?"
You have been kicked from team.
I fail to see how giving players the OPTION to coordinate (better) with their Teams is something that needs to be prevented at all costs. That's like saying that Supersidekicking is overpowered because it makes finding groups too easy to play with.

I'd rather tell the team 'k, thx, bye" than play with the willfully ignorant.

And I already CAN prove that I can hack it. But there's no cure for someone who won't even attempt to overcome their prejudices.

CoH was a highly tactical game for me, that was my enjoyment in playing the game. The way I used KB was a benefit to the team. If the team is so ignorant of the capabilities of KB, and so unwilling to be educated as to want to kick me, I'll happily play with others or solo.

This is much like the old "Healer wars" in the CoH fora. It took a couple of years for people to figure out that Defenders were good for something besides healing. By which time most of the non-Empath Defenders were fed up with everyone elses attitude. Finally people started sending invites to Defenders once they realized this wasn't a Trinity based game, but by then it was too late. Most people who played Defenders extensively already had formed SGs and had friends lists, and weren't really interested in PUGs.

Well guess what? KB is one of the things that ranged characters bring to the table that is a potent benefit to the team (when played well). Sorry about your Super Strength melee character. Maybe there's some use for what you're asking for on a melee character. But given (in CoH terms) that melee characters already had every single last advantage in the game, it's my opinion that they can deal with the drawbacks of a single set or just not play the set.

As I stated before, there were a few sets that I didn't play as a Def/Cor/Con/MM because I didn't like them. There's no law that says the devs have to make every set so Redlynne will enjoy playing it, not even every set for one AT.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
I think there's a lot of

I think there's a lot of merit to this %Chance idea. Assuming getting knocked into the environment (Walls, Objects, Other Enemies, or Hitting the ground) causes damage.. I could see knocks replacing crits for some builds who want to add damage.

This also helps with Melee Combos where you want the finisher to be a big blow but their character isn't particularly about "precision" as critical hits would imply.

I really like the idea of making more percent chance offenses besides critical hits.

Then players have a choice between a "Chance" based mechanic or a "Constant" based mechanic.

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
After sleeping on the matter

After sleeping on the matter it occurs to me that SS/Might does its damage through impact. Given Newton's 2nd Law I'd have to say that reduced KB would result in reduced damage.

OTOH, a KB mechanic I've always wanted to see is for the target to take more damage if KBd into an obstacle. So get smart, position yourself to KB your target into the wall and get a bonus 30% damage! :D

It's a win all around.

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Minotaur wrote:
I never saw anybody kicked from a team simply for having KB, I did see people who couldn't stop using it to the detriment of the team kicked. I'd expect it to work similarly if you had the "no KB" button. One of the features of CoH was that stuff was actually (in 8 man content rather than incarnate) easy enough that specific teams were rarely required, so there was a lot less build elitism than there was in other games I've played.

It was my experience that if someone with AOE KB was killing most of your team, the problem was often the team needed to improve their enhancements.

It wasn't so much killing the team unless the KBer was just a really bad player and KB was the tool that showed it. The number of times somebody came in and knocked people out of the area of more damaging AoEs like rain of arrows before they hit, thus actually slowing the team down was considerable. And get better enhancements may be reasonable at 50, less so at 25-30 when blasters aren't softcapped.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Minotaur wrote:
Minotaur wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Minotaur wrote:
I never saw anybody kicked from a team simply for having KB, I did see people who couldn't stop using it to the detriment of the team kicked. I'd expect it to work similarly if you had the "no KB" button. One of the features of CoH was that stuff was actually (in 8 man content rather than incarnate) easy enough that specific teams were rarely required, so there was a lot less build elitism than there was in other games I've played.

It was my experience that if someone with AOE KB was killing most of your team, the problem was often the team needed to improve their enhancements.

It wasn't so much killing the team unless the KBer was just a really bad player and KB was the tool that showed it. The number of times somebody came in and knocked people out of the area of more damaging AoEs like rain of arrows before they hit, thus actually slowing the team down was considerable. And get better enhancements may be reasonable at 50, less so at 25-30 when blasters aren't softcapped.

Sorry BrandX, I have to agree with Minotaur on this one.

The reason there is such an outcry against KB is because of the number of people who are.... Well you know how you get that Blaster on the team, and the Empath was standing right next to the Blaster, but after the Blaster got to half heal they ran off and died instead of staying standing by the Emp who would heal or rez them as needed?

Yeah, well... Some things can't be healed. Mostly IQ points.

KB is a really powerful tool. But like most powerful tools it gets dangerous if it gets out of control.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

I have been supporting you all the way through this.
I was trying to get across that no matter what people who will be jerks, will be jerks if the option is present or not.

I know, Gangrel, which is why I was replying to Brand X and quoting your reply as supporting evidence for my position.

Col. Kernel wrote:

I'd rather tell the team 'k, thx, bye" than play with the willfully ignorant.

Excuse me, but you seem to have missed something very important.

If City of Titans includes a +Keybind/++Keybind allowing players to control their Knockback ON DEMAND ... would that somehow eliminate your ability to tell a team of the (as you so artfully put it) willfully ignorant "k,thx, bye" and keep you from dropping out of such a group of players? Are you trying to say that you'd somehow be prevented from taking such an action?

I fail to see how increasing the options a Player has actually reduces the options that Player has in this case. That's like saying that drinking water makes you thirsty ... or pouring water on things dries them out instead of making them wet. Black is white, up is down, forwards is backwards. Need I go on?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Ah fair enough, I just found

Ah fair enough, I just found it kinda strange, seeing as your post had both mine and hers in it, so i thought you were replying to me with the 1st part. Sorry :(

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
I have been supporting you all the way through this.
I was trying to get across that no matter what people who will be jerks, will be jerks if the option is present or not.

I know, Gangrel, which is why I was replying to Brand X and quoting your reply as supporting evidence for my position.
Col. Kernel wrote:
I'd rather tell the team 'k, thx, bye" than play with the willfully ignorant.
Excuse me, but you seem to have missed something very important.
If City of Titans includes a +Keybind/++Keybind allowing players to control their Knockback ON DEMAND ... would that somehow eliminate your ability to tell a team of the (as you so artfully put it) willfully ignorant "k,thx, bye" and keep you from dropping out of such a group of players? Are you trying to say that you'd somehow be prevented from taking such an action?
I fail to see how increasing the options a Player has actually reduces the options that Player has in this case. That's like saying that drinking water makes you thirsty ... or pouring water on things dries them out instead of making them wet. Black is white, up is down, forwards is backwards. Need I go on?

You are correct, it does not impact my ability to leave a team who wants to interfere with my ability to position the mobs.

OTOH, such an ability should come with tradeoffs. Let me quote an earlier post of mine for an example;

Col. Kernel wrote:

After sleeping on the matter it occurs to me that SS/Might does its damage through impact. Given Newton's 2nd Law I'd have to say that reduced KB would result in reduced damage.
OTOH, a KB mechanic I've always wanted to see is for the target to take more damage if KBd into an obstacle. So get smart, position yourself to KB your target into the wall and get a bonus 30% damage! :D
It's a win all around.

Powers and abilities are balanced when they are designed. What you are asking for is a switch to destroy that balance. Energy Blast was not that powerful a set... without the KB. The damage was mediocre. What made it a great set was the ability to position the mobs. If you didn't notice at least half the nerfs to Hurricane were to reduce the KB, and the Storm community was pretty hacked off over it

And if you have a keybind to turn off KB, what happens to powers like Gale and Energy Torrent whose sole purpose was KB?

I guess people who've never played any AT but the melee ones wouldn't understand that the three most important factors in a battle in CoH were location, location, location. And this at the same time you're screaming about having to chase the mobs. So let me help you understand something else about the game we loved. The convenience of the melee player is irrelevant when compared to what's best for the team. And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.

On a personal note, spare me the reductio ad absurdum and other such foolishness if you please. Keep civil fingers on your keyboard and I'll do the same.

Since you felt the need to comment on my choice of the words "willfully ignorant" let me attempt to explain them to you. I am referring to a person or persons who are unwilling to learn that there may be a different way to successfully play the game than they are used to. Think of the players in CoH who wouldn't go anywhere or do anything until they got a healer as one example. Especially after the game had been around for 6+ years.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Col. Kernel wrote:
Col. Kernel wrote:

You are correct, it does not impact my ability to leave a team who wants to interfere with my ability to position the mobs.
OTOH, such an ability should come with tradeoffs.

So we're back to the "you should have to PAY A PENALTY" position again?

Col. Kernel wrote:

And if you have a keybind to turn off KB, what happens to powers like Gale and Energy Torrent whose sole purpose was KB?

At the risk of insulting your intelligence ... the answer is obvious. They become dramatically less effective because the --> Player <-- chose to make them less effective ON PURPOSE.

I have a catch phrase that covers this sort of wooly thinking you're engaging in right here that seems very appropriate right about now:

"I'm not real good with Cause and Effect. Why is that?"
- Me


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
cybermitheral
cybermitheral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/21/2013 - 20:54
Quote:
Quote:

And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.

Unless your KB knocks them OUT of the AoE patches. In your example if all enemies are in one tight group you then, by your own context, cannot attack as you will knock them out of the patches. Of course that is assuming you only have KB attacks but if I like playing a KB/KD based toon (ie: Nrg/Nrg using CoH parlance) then Im stuffed. Im basically leaching. Door sitting. Sure if a mob DOES run away I can try and position myself to KB them back but then all im doing is tidying up the loose ends. Woooooo.....

Quote:

And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.

So whats best for the team is for me to help keep the mobs from not escaping by keeping them knockedDOWN using Energy Torrent/Gale/Explosive Blast/etc.

The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Col. Kernel wrote:
You are correct, it does not impact my ability to leave a team who wants to interfere with my ability to position the mobs.
OTOH, such an ability should come with tradeoffs.

So we're back to the "you should have to PAY A PENALTY" position again?
Col. Kernel wrote:
And if you have a keybind to turn off KB, what happens to powers like Gale and Energy Torrent whose sole purpose was KB?
At the risk of insulting your intelligence ... the answer is obvious. They become dramatically less effective because the --> Player <-- chose to make them less effective ON PURPOSE.
I have a catch phrase that covers this sort of wooly thinking you're engaging in right here that seems very appropriate right about now:
"I'm not real good with Cause and Effect. Why is that?"
- Me

You're very good at selectively quoting what I say to make it look bad for your arguments. I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for that as well, I'd say a Straw Man right off the top of my head. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't automatically make me wrong. Try starting from that position and reading all of my comment without getting your panties in a twist, then maybe we'll be able to make some headway here.

You fail to observe the fact that I'm discussing design considerations, and in addition you are ignoring the advantages I suggest for players who use KB well. IOW giving said players benefits for learning to use their powers well.

Why would anyone turn off KB for those powers (Torrent and Gale) then? Or are you suggesting that turning off KB should be done on a power by power basis (obviously if it's done by slotting Boosts)? Or even an attack by attack basis?

As for your continued usage of ad hominems, the only one it makes look foolish is you. There is nothing wooly about my thinking, my question was directed to see what you're thinking. You appear to be too emotionally invested in this discussion to deal with it on a factual basis. You might want to examine your prejudices closely and attempt to set them aside.

Let's start with KB isn't evil or disruptive in and of itself. Perhaps if you can understand that we can move on and maybe even get some productive suggestions out of this.

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
cybermitheral wrote:
cybermitheral wrote:

Quote:
And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.
Unless your KB knocks them OUT of the AoE patches. In your example if all enemies are in one tight group you then, by your own context, cannot attack as you will knock them out of the patches. Of course that is assuming you only have KB attacks but if I like playing a KB/KD based toon (ie: Nrg/Nrg using CoH parlance) then Im stuffed. Im basically leaching. Door sitting. Sure if a mob DOES run away I can try and position myself to KB them back but then all im doing is tidying up the loose ends. Woooooo.....
Quote:
And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.
So whats best for the team is for me to help keep the mobs from not escaping by keeping them knockedDOWN using Energy Torrent/Gale/Explosive Blast/etc.

No, you hover up to the ceiling and shoot straight down so your KB simply knocks them down. Standard technique for a nova form PB.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Minotaur wrote:
Minotaur wrote:

cybermitheral wrote:
Quote:
And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.

Unless your KB knocks them OUT of the AoE patches. In your example if all enemies are in one tight group you then, by your own context, cannot attack as you will knock them out of the patches. Of course that is assuming you only have KB attacks but if I like playing a KB/KD based toon (ie: Nrg/Nrg using CoH parlance) then Im stuffed. Im basically leaching. Door sitting. Sure if a mob DOES run away I can try and position myself to KB them back but then all im doing is tidying up the loose ends. Woooooo.....
Quote:
And what's best for the team is to have the mobs tightly grouped in multiple debuff patches with AoEs raining down on them. I can best help with that by KBing any that escape right back into the soup they ran away from.

So whats best for the team is for me to help keep the mobs from not escaping by keeping them knockedDOWN using Energy Torrent/Gale/Explosive Blast/etc.

No, you hover up to the ceiling and shoot straight down so your KB simply knocks them down. Standard technique for a nova form PB.

But that is using the inherent advantage of the PB (having flight from level 1 though. If you have the ability to move in the vertical plane easily, then you have more scope to be able to direct it better.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that being able to self regulate *some* abilities could be an interesting mechanic (look earlier on to see how I thought about doing it... end of page 2 I believe)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
PB doesn't have nova form

PB doesn't have nova form till level 6, you could pick up hover by then, many blasters picked hover precisely to do this.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Minotaur wrote:
Minotaur wrote:

PB doesn't have nova form till level 6, you could pick up hover by then, many blasters picked hover precisely to do this.

And considering that we may have a travel power at level one a lot of this is moot.

Honestly, you all are like a bunch of kids, arguing who can win a fight between two fictional characters.

On the one hand we have someone who advocates a mechanic where a player is able to, in some way, turn KB off or turn it down to KD. This is something the PLAYER would choose to do. Remember that soup you want to KB him into? Yeah if he's headed down the hallway using this mechanic would turn a KB (otherwise known as a 'Hey guys there's heroes over HERE!') into a KD which might prevent aggro from spreading to the next mob. If the PLAYER is smart then they will know when to use this and when not to.

The player being smart is the other side of the argument. If they're good, then they won't NEED the anti-KB switch because they'll be able to use their KB in the most effective way possible. I can see your point...right up until the ability exists that they don't have to. I use a car to get to work...know why? Because it's easier that riding my cold ass on a bike! Sure, I could suck it up, leave an hour earlier, ride to work in all manner of weather or use public transportation. But I don't have to because of all this newfangled technology we have. If the Devs put in a KB/KD mechanic, switch, enhancement whatever then the exact same circumstances will exist as existed in CoH. Dumb players will STILL scatter mobs because they won't USE the switch and they'll get scolded and eventually booted which is as it should be. The players who DO know how to use their KB now will thank the Devs for giving them a mechanic that enables them to make a choice.

Choices is always better than no choice. With baked-in KB I have no choice. With some other mechanic I have options.

As for the whole 'hover over the target' argument I agree and that's how I mitigated aggro on my Nrg/Nrg Blaster. However it wasn't such a hot idea for ANY other travel power. Remember Granite? Otherwise known as 'the toggle that dictates that I shall be forced to take Teleportation if I ever want to move again' power? So now you're suggesting that by willingly taking powers that have strong KB I'm either forced to take Flight/Hover or I solo the rest of my career.

Seriously people...this is a no-brainer. If the Devs choose to alter the KB/KD paradigm in some way (and I hope they do) then it's a whole new world and we learn to live in it. If they don't, well I will consider that an opportunity missed to make one of the many improvements I felt CoH needed.

I apologize for the tone but I strongly feel that we have WAY more important issues to be resolved than arguing about how this should work. You either have baked-in KB or not...with a switch or without. If those are the options then put a pin in it and move on. The Devs obviously know how we feel...it's up to them to decide how to handle it. Now I think it would be constructive to turn our attention to other things.

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Sorry, but choice is not

Sorry, but choice is not always better than no choice. It heavily depends on what those choices are and what the consequences of said choices being available will be.

And in this case, the consequences of there being a choice will be that it could become acceptable to demand that someone else nerfs their character so your character can function better. Is THAT the kind of community we want in CoT? This issue might seem rather minor, but we are actually putting the friendly ingame tone of the community that CoH had at risk by including these kinds of options.

So, no. Choice doesn't have to be superior to no choice. I value the friendly tone of CoH's community over any UI elements. This one is just extra-specially sinister, since it looks pretty harmless, but could easily end up as the subject of social player confrontations if it was implemented.

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
The solutions sound like they

The solutions sound like they could easily be retrofit. At least in alpha testing folks can make suggestions without facing bold capitals.

I never kicked anyone for power choices. I play for everyone's fun. The idea that I'll get kicked if I use KB is sickening. If our community was really like this I'd make KB a small chance side effect of every attack then, so nobody can be blamed for the occasional crazy ragdoll all tied up in the scenery that just looks sooo cool. But nah, we were not really like that.

I don't need my slaughter to be perfectly efficient, but I accept that might just be me. The only really pressing issue I read in this thread was Minotaur's painfully shaky screen when in "Follow" mode with a KB'ed target. If that is still a problem with the Unreal engine then perhaps there might be ways to have a smoother "Follow", that might also be a benefit in non-KB situations. A smoother or smarter camera might make for some epic video capture.

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Col. Kernel wrote:
Col. Kernel wrote:

You're very good at selectively quoting what I say to make it look bad for your arguments.

Well, you do make it far too easy for me to do, so it's not as if I'm particularly "good" at it or anything.

Col. Kernel wrote:

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't automatically make me wrong.

That is true ... but when you're wrong, I'm sorry ... you're just wrong ... and quite often you happen to be wrong while you're disagreeing with me. Correlation is not causation and all that, but you have worked hard to establish a pattern on this topic already, so it's getting harder and harder to excuse you in this regard as time goes on and your record piles up around you.

Col. Kernel wrote:

Try starting from that position and reading all of my comment without getting your panties in a twist, then maybe we'll be able to make some headway here.

This from someone who is decrying ad hominem attacks? *polite cough* ... I see what you did there.

Col. Kernel wrote:

You fail to observe the fact that I'm discussing design considerations, and in addition you are ignoring the advantages I suggest for players who use KB well. IOW giving said players benefits for learning to use their powers well.

Sorry, no. Not buying it. Been there, done that, figured it out the first time. Thank you for playing. See you in the funny papers.

Col. Kernel wrote:

Why would anyone turn off KB for those powers (Torrent and Gale) then? Or are you suggesting that turning off KB should be done on a power by power basis (obviously if it's done by slotting Boosts)? Or even an attack by attack basis?

Seriously? Are you STILL this deeply confused? Really? Really really?
Still, in the interests of taking you seriously, I'll address each of your questions here individually.

Q: Why would anyone turn off KB for those powers (Torrent and Gale) then?
A: Because doing so could be advantageous given the current circumstances of the state of the battle IN THAT MOMENT.

Q: Or are you suggesting that turning off KB should be done on a power by power basis (obviously if it's done by slotting Boosts)?
A: I have specifically REJECTED that approach on multiple occasions because doing so follows a One Size Fits All philosophy that is insufficiently adaptable to changing circumstances and situations that arise occasionally in solo play and often in team play.

Q: Or even an attack by attack basis?
A: Use of a +Keybind/++Keybind modifier would apply ON DEMAND when attacking and be entirely under Player control. The fact that you even ask this question verifiably confirms to me that you have not been paying attention to what I have repeatedly said on multiple occasions.

Col. Kernel wrote:

As for your continued usage of ad hominems, the only one it makes look foolish is you.

Pot.
Kettle.
Color palette seems limited to a single option for some reason.

Col. Kernel wrote:

Let's start with KB isn't evil or disruptive in and of itself. Perhaps if you can understand that we can move on and maybe even get some productive suggestions out of this.

Oh please. That's willful misrepresentation of my position AND YOU KNOW IT.

Knockback isn't "evil" as you accuse me of believing/advocating ... but it CAN BE disruptive ... as multiple people have been at pains to make clear to you (and as you keep refusing to acknowledge). I'm advocating for a means to make Knockback LESS DISRUPTIVE and that such a method should be tied directly into the Player's decision making process IN THE MOMENT when combat is engaged and situations are fluid and changing. Sometimes I'll want to "blow" an enemy off a high place to make them fall ... and sometimes I won't. The only way to allow those kinds of ... finesse ... decisions to be made, and have them take effect, is to make such adjustments available ON DEMAND.

With every other attribute or property or effect on Powers in City of Heroes, only Knockback ever had anything approximating a "less can be more" sort of dynamic to it. There was never a situation where you needed to do a SMALL amount of damage without going over a limit. There was no penalty or drawback to "overkill" with damage. More damage was always better than less damage in ALL circumstances. Likewise with Mez, there was never a situation where less Mag was better than more Mag. There was no penalty or drawback to "overkill" when it came to Mag for Mez. Likewise with Healing, there was never a situation where less Healing was preferable to more Healing. There was no penalty or drawback to "overkill" when it came to Healing.

Knockback though, both was, is, and will be different in this regard. There are clear and obvious situations where "overkill" in Knockback is counterproductive and unhelpful. This means that there are times and situations and circumstances where you want Knockback to be either high ... or low ... depending on what is happening at the time. Being able to FINESSE those situations and circumstances, by deliberately, ON DEMAND, as commanded by the Player, reduce Knockback so as to be able to CONTROL the amount of Knockback your character is doing ... from moment to moment, from attack to attack ... puts the PLAYER in the driver's seat for deciding (and controlling) how their Powers affect the battlefield and influence the FLOW of combat in situations that are dynamic, changing, and definitely NOT a One Size Fits All.

I'm saying, give us ... the Players ... the ability to FINESSE the use of Knockback so that we don't (necessarily) have to jump through hoops (just hover over them and blast your target(s) into terrain) in order to achieve the same results through accidents of circumstances. Even if I have the strength to punch through a solid brick wall, sometimes I want to use only enough strength to delicately pick up a wineglass without crushing it to powder in my fist. I want to FINESSE the use of my strength so that I can be "strong" or "delicate" as the situation demands, so as to be a better Team Player and lower the barriers to Knockback being a Team Friendly effect. I can't do that if Knockback is an ALWAYS ON effect like it was in City of Heroes ... just like you can't hold a wineglass without crushing it if your Strength to punch through brick walls is an ALWAYS ON effect that you can't dial down when you want to/need to.

I want Players to be able to finesse their use of Knockback through use of a +Keybind/++Keybind modifier control that is usable ON DEMAND when attacking.

You don't.

Your move.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

So, no. Choice doesn't have to be superior to no choice.

Sounds like you would simply love playing Progress Quest then.

McNum wrote:

And in this case, the consequences of there being a choice will be that it could become acceptable to demand that someone else nerfs their character so your character can function better.

I note the fact that you said "could" as opposed to "will" or anything else more definitively assertive. I would point out that the exact same charge of uncertain consequences could be leveled against PvP Builds relative to PvE Builds in almost any game that features both PvE and PvP. What you are engaging in here is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ... also known as FUD ... plain and simple. Furthermore, what you are afraid of happening is a social convention and common wisdom that MIGHT emerge among some players, as opposed to something that WILL emerge among the majority of the playerbase and therefore become generally acceptable and expected as the "norm" of behavior.

I have more faith in the players who were drawn to City of Heroes before, and the players who will be drawn to City of Titans than you do apparently. There's no way to prevent jerks and snobs from appearing AT ALL in a game, but just because they exist doesn't mean we have to let them take over everything. If nothing else, your FUD is quite premature at this stage, since there's no way currently to playtest any ideas yet. Might want to hold off on absolute judgements on FUD perspectives until you've had a chance to playtest something first before dismissing it out of hand.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Criticizing your behavior (or

Criticizing your behavior (or attitude) is not an ad hominem.

The rest of your arguments are as deeply flawed as the one I replied to, if not far more so.

I will say again, from a game design standpoint you don't get anything for free. If you get a feature that allows you to change a power at will you will end up losing something else in exchange. This is the core of my arguments.

As for positioning, that was about the only tactical feature in CoH combat. If you kill that you end up turning combat into a mindless click fest.

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
To the people advocating

To the people advocating "chance of KB", that's the worst of all worlds and makes it more difficult for the people who do know how to use it, while giving the idiots the "I got unlucky" excuse.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Sounds like you would simply love playing Progress Quest then.

Nice strawman. Try addressing the point next time. It helps discussion.

Redlynne wrote:

I note the fact that you said "could" as opposed to "will" or anything else more definitively assertive. I would point out that the exact same charge of uncertain consequences could be leveled against PvP Builds relative to PvE Builds in almost any game that features both PvE and PvP. What you are engaging in here is Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ... also known as FUD ... plain and simple. Furthermore, what you are afraid of happening is a social convention and common wisdom that MIGHT emerge among some players, as opposed to something that WILL emerge among the majority of the playerbase and therefore become generally acceptable and expected as the "norm" of behavior.
I have more faith in the players who were drawn to City of Heroes before, and the players who will be drawn to City of Titans than you do apparently. There's no way to prevent jerks and snobs from appearing AT ALL in a game, but just because they exist doesn't mean we have to let them take over everything. If nothing else, your FUD is quite premature at this stage, since there's no way currently to playtest any ideas yet. Might want to hold off on absolute judgements on FUD perspectives until you've had a chance to playtest something first before dismissing it out of hand.

Yes "could". As in "there is a non-zero probability of this happening". It's not FUD, it's statistics. While similar, there is a difference.

The "could" as you wrote that block of text about means that, yes, I am not 100% certain that such an option will cause ingame harassment to happen, but I AM 100% sure that the lack of such an option will not. And even if it's a small chance, the act of teaming up will happen so often in an MMO that the probability of this issue appearing approaches 100%. Again "could", but not "will". I don't deal in absolutes when it comes to player behavior. Humans are too unpredictable to do that.

As you said, there's no way to prevent jerks and snob in a game, and that's exactly my point, too. So why enable them? They can be jerky and snobby just fine without having an obvious angle of attack, so why do you want to give them one?

So, no. No FUD here. And I am insulted that you think that low of me.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Can you explain this position

Can you explain this position more?

I don't see it this way and want to understand your position.

And if your % chance begins at 0% then I don't have to worry about using KB if I don't want to. I don't have a problem with it being not 100% reliable.

My character would do alot of "criticals" because precision is a part of her character sheet (assuming you can perform a critical mez).

If I take a big whiff at an enemy.. i may hit them, but not in the right way to knock them back..

Again.. I am just trying to understand your statement as to why this is the worst of both/all worlds.

- -

Also I am assuming in this case that knocking a character holds the potential to add damage to said attack. If knocking is JUST for position then the paradigm is different.

I am simply saying that knockback should be an intrinsic part of characters who want it and not intrinsic to the POWERS table for characters who do not. Just because I hit you with a baseball bat doesn't mean you're gonna go flying.. It could be a mental construct of a baseball bat.. or made of light energy..

Knockback = Player Trait I like.
Knockback = Power Trait I don't like.

If there are "combo attacks" where one power does multiple hits I recommend that the knockback only be available on the final hit of a combo.

But If I pick "Haymaker" and don't want the enemy to go flying.. I wont try to increase my knock mechanic in favor of another (flat offense, critical chance, adding DoT after the attack.. whatever else fits my concept)

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Minotaur wrote:
Minotaur wrote:

To the people advocating "chance of KB", that's the worst of all worlds and makes it more difficult for the people who do know how to use it, while giving the idiots the "I got unlucky" excuse.

I dunno, was Nemesis staff ever a 100% chance of knockback?

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
JayBezz wrote:
JayBezz wrote:

I am simply saying that knockback should be an intrinsic part of characters who want it and not intrinsic to the POWERS table for characters who do not. Just because I hit you with a baseball bat doesn't mean you're gonna go flying.. It could be a mental construct of a baseball bat.. or made of light energy..
Knockback = Player Trait I like.
Knockback = Power Trait I don't like.
If there are "combo attacks" where one power does multiple hits I recommend that the knockback only be available on the final hit of a combo.
But If I pick "Haymaker" and don't want the enemy to go flying.. I wont try to increase my knock mechanic in favor of another (flat offense, critical chance, adding DoT after the attack.. whatever else fits my concept)

I agree with this, which is why I like the choice.

I know *tankers* and scrappers who used to knock mobs out of my AOE's. Made me feel totally useless, because it felt like "down goes the AOE, out goes the mob". So what was the point of me doing the AOE in the 1st place?

Knockbacks are (to an extent) the bane of AOE's really, in that they don't really go together. Now, knockup/knockDOWN ARE useful for when it comes to AOE (especially if there is a "getting up animation").

So instead of disabling the knockback totally, would people be ok with the option of (without having to slot something) to convert it to knockdown/knockup?

I only just thought of this, because I was just told a story of a person who just stopped using AOE's because the rest of the team kept on knocking players out of them. It actually made them feel not "useless" but restricted to just single target effects...

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

Yes "could". As in "there is a non-zero probability of this happening". It's not FUD, it's statistics. While similar, there is a difference.

In order for statistics to be involved, you would need to provide some numbers for peer review so that others could "check your math" and determine for themselves that your arguments (based on statistics) have merit. Until you do that, you haven't got statistics at all ... you've only got "I think I know what will happen, so there" going on. Until you're willing to lay odds on what you're afraid might occur, all you're doing is engaging in FUD, not in statistics.

McNum wrote:

The "could" as you wrote that block of text about means that, yes, I am not 100% certain that such an option will cause ingame harassment to happen, but I AM 100% sure that the lack of such an option will not.

Unfortunately for you, McNum, we've already had a Real World Test of your hypothesis. It was called City of Heroes, and it ran for 8 years. The option I am advocating for was NOT in City of Heroes and ingame harrassment over Knockback DID occur on a reliable enough basis that people are still talking about it in this thread here over a year after City of Heroes has folded. So your hypothesis has already been tested and demonstrably failed in the real world.

Care to try again?

McNum wrote:

And even if it's a small chance, the act of teaming up will happen so often in an MMO that the probability of this issue appearing approaches 100%. Again "could", but not "will". I don't deal in absolutes when it comes to player behavior. Humans are too unpredictable to do that.

By your very own logic, the odds that you'll join a Pick Up Group of jerks and idiots also approaches 100% over time, so the most appropriate thing to do is to disallow all teaming entirely. Heck, your position essentially mandates Gangrel's point that since Chat Channels can be used to put pressure on people to behave in certain ways to satisfy others that there shouldn't be any Chat Channels either so as to prevent the possibility that this sort of situation could even arise. What you're advocating for is a Massively Single Player Online Experience (MSPOE) when taking the logic of your position to its logical conclusion.

This is ludicrous!

Yes I know that's not what you SAID ... but it is the IMPLICATION of where your argument ultimately leads to. It's the direction your argument points to when extrapolated all the way out (admittedly, beyond the point of useful discussion, but still). That's the trajectory of your argument, even if you don't go all the way with it.

McNum wrote:

As you said, there's no way to prevent jerks and snob in a game, and that's exactly my point, too. So why enable them? They can be jerky and snobby just fine without having an obvious angle of attack, so why do you want to give them one?

Because the only way to prevent ANY of those angles of attack from ever occurring at all is to completely dump the multiplayer experience entirely. I don't want City of Titans to become the Superhero Solitaire game, and to be honest I'd be shocked to hear that anyone WOULD want it to be that in order to protect them from jerks and snobs. And to be fair, I sincerely doubt this is what you'd want either.

The fundamental difference between us is that you *FEAR* ... yes, FEAR ... that the option I'm advocating for would lead to a runaway cascade of events where the jerks and snobs somehow manage to "take over" and establish the "norms" of behavior in an unchallenged fashion because it might be possible (because, let's be honest, ANYTHING is possible) ... without ever laying odds on how LIKELY you think that is to happen. You never appeal to any kind of statistics like saying, "oh, I think maybe 1 in 20 groups might be like this" or something which can be JUDGED for its validity or not, let alone its seriousness and potential pervasiveness. You just say "it might happen, therefore it will happen, therefore it can't be allowed to happen, so I'm against the whole idea" without analyzing the assumptions that underpin each of the steps along that path, let alone the valuations that lead from one step to another.

If 1 in 20 or even 1 in 10 sets of Pick Up Groups has people who are snobs and jerks, does that mean I can't find a Team that *doesn't* have snobs and jerks in it? Am I somehow PREVENTED from finding Teams that aren't overrun with snobs and jerks in them? Heck, even if 1 in 5 Pick Up Groups are filled with snobs and jerks, that still means that (statistically speaking) I stand an 80% chance of finding a Pick Up Group that I can run with and be happy and have a good time playing with ... because I'd be dropping out of the Bad PuGs to join the Good PuGs ... right? How long do you think that would take me? How much of my time do you think I would be wasting on Bad PuGs filled with jerks and snobs? Do you really think that the ranks of jerks and snobs will grow to overwhelm the rest of the game (and if they do, would it be BECAUSE there was a +Keybind/++Keybind implemented allowing Knockback to be controlled On Demand)?

See what I did there? it's called showing your work when invoking statistics so that independent evaluations of the same points can be made using common points of reference (in this case, numbers). So far, the only numbers I've seen you invoke have been "non-zero" and 100% ... as if those two things were somehow equivalent or synonymous. They're not ... and to be honest, I shouldn't have to point that out to anyone reading these forums (especially if they claim to be making a statistical analysis).

There's also the reverse analysis situation where if every 1 in 2 or even every 1 in 3 Pick Up Groups is filled with snobs and jerks ... what does that tell you about the HEALTH of the Community of that game? For me personally, my tolerance level for snobs and jerks reaches a break even point at around 1 in 4 Pick Up Groups, and depending on how "keen" I am to accomplish any particular given task (like, say, a Respec, or whatever) could potentially go as high as 1 in 3 or even up to 1 in 2 if it's something I only need to do once or twice and can then move on (and probably never see THOSE people ever again). Ideally though, I'd want a Pick Up Group to be snob/jerk free about 8 to 9 times out of 10 ... although as mentioned my tolerance for that is actually a bit higher.

So what's your Tolerance level? Care to put some numbers on your appeal to statistics?

McNum wrote:

So, no. No FUD here. And I am insulted that you think that low of me.

I have no opinion favorable or unfavorable about McNum the person. I have not met you or gamed with you recently. I do think that your arguments are ... sadly lacking ... flawed ... and decidedly unpersuasive. I do not conflate your arguments on this issue with being YOU as a person, and am honestly mystified as to why you would ever want to even think so. Good people can make bad arguments ... and bad people can make good arguments ... along with plenty of other permutations.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

I dunno, was Nemesis staff ever a 100% chance of knockback?

Magic 8 Ball (also known as City of Data) says NO.

The problem with a random chance for Knockback, such as the Nemesis Staff, or Crane Kick or Dragon's Tail in the Martial Arts powerset, is that there isn't anything that the Player can *DO* to influence the outcome. There's no "skill" involved on the part of the Player to effect the desired results ... just a Random Number Generator (RNG) check that may or may not do something. There isn't even a way to "bias" the results such that a Knockback effect is more or less likely if Certain Conditions apply (attacking from behind being a popular conditional in games generally, for example) if you just go with a straight One Size Fits All RNG check.

In fact, the closest I'd want to get to this kind of performance would be a guaranteed KnockDOWN with a random chance for extra Mag (using the City of Heroes parlance) to result in either KnockUP or KnockBACK as appropriate for the Power's effect(s). In other words, a "partial" effect baseline with a random chance for a "total" effect.

The problem though is that what you really want with Knockback is ... consistency. Consistent Knock effects are better to plan tactics and strategies around than the random chance for Knock (which will ALWAYS fail you when you're counting on it to give you some needed breathing room). Intermittent Knock is about as annoying, when you need Knock to happen, as seeing a MISS result on a To Hit check. Intermittent Knock "fails" to happen not because of something the Player can control, but just because of "bad dice roll" on the server which is totally outside of the Player's control.

Which explains why so many people considered Air Superiority to be in many ways a better Control Through Knock type of Power than Crane Kick ... because Air Superiority would ALWAYS Knockdown (actually, it was a KnockUP of a very short "flippy" distance) on every attack without fail ... while Crane Kick would only Knock 60% of the time, making it very inconsistent and intermittent on this point. It also didn't help that in the time it took to animate and recharge a single Crane Kick, you could animate and recharge TWO Air Superiority attacks in the same time span for the same endurance cost if the the two powers had the exact same Enhancement slotting. So two guaranteed Knockdowns vs a single 60% chance for one KnockBACK in the same time span and for the same amount of damage and endurance cost ... you wound up with Air Superiority being the better "Soft Control" choice, all other factors being equal (as I found on my MA/SR Scrapper to MY surprise!). Being able to consistently "juggle" a Fake Nemesis Boss with Air Superiority offered a truly massive measure of soft control to my build.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
My tolerance for knockback

My tolerance for knockback snobbery was broken way back in CoH. Even 1 in 100 is too much. It breaks the social contract of the game. "My character is MY character, and no one other than me gets to dictate its powers and playstyle. In exchange I will play it to the best of my ability, and use all its power to the fullest."

And that's why I oppose this and any other "Hey, turn that off!" switch in the game. What we had in CoH was too much already, and here years before the game even releases we have people already lamenting the mere idea of knockback. It poisons the well before the game even enters Alpha. Let the game launch, or get to Beta at least, before making demands to be able to yell at others to nerf their characters. If there truly is a legitimate complaint about knockback in general, which I sincerely doubt there will be since Coh had few at best of those, THEN consider draconian measures like this. Personally, I'd rather they made knockback more desirable than it was in CoH, maybe giving it an additional effect to the positioning.

Frankly, if it was up to me, the solution to the knockback "issue" would be that ALL attacks did knockback if they did more than X% of an enemy's HP in damage. There, problem solved. But I'll concede that such an action would most likely be unpopular.

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
At one point I advocated just

At one point I advocated just letting multiple builds solve this problem. It was decried because it's "paying a penalty" to make your character "less disruptive" to team play. Until I see whether or not we get multiple builds, or how that particular mechanic will work, I think it's premature to reject it out of hand. It's a simple solution that lots of games already employ which at least makes it familiar. I get the argument that it will cost some enhancements slots. OTH, If drops and costs are balanced properly for multiple builds from the get-go, its no big deal. Which is to say, if the game is designed for it, its supposed to work. One way or another. DCUO has managed it.

The "other side" is that we have some kind of "toggle" or keybind that eliminates/mitigates knock down on demand. Just to be clear, would it be "toggle off" before "entering combat?" And does the "toggle" apply to all powers with knockback simultaneously? Or "Hold Xkey every time you trigger specific power?" Does it need to be done with each individual power that has KB? I can certainly see the usefulness and advantages. However, I worry that this will be a turn off for those who have already spoken against making the game too "twitchy." Add me to the group who doesn't want teenagers yelling "lurn 2 play, n00b!!" at teammates.

Frankly, I'm not sure why we couldn't have both, but I'm not versed enough in resource allocation in this venue. The two systems seemed sufficiently divorced from each other, and would allow both styles of play, casual and dedicated. But I'll leave the best of both worlds question aside for now.

Nobody seems to be arguing that KB in some form or another doesn't belong on this genre (because it obviously does). The best rationalization I've heard for why my Super KO punch or Hyper Blast DON'T knock an NPC into a new time zone is "pulling a punch".

How about this (and forgive me if I missed this suggestion earlier. Been trying to follow this thread, but I can't camp on it): If you allow the extra control of the combat keybind, it is done at the expense of damage. This reflects "pulling" the punch, and allows the player the CHOICE of being polite in team situations or really cutting loose. Some will argue that it's still paying a cost, or making you "less effective", I'm sure. But if we're talking about this mainly as a teaming effect, then losing a bit of damage so that others can continue to inflict more, makes less difference, and adds a tactical decision to the mix.

Any of this make sense? Am I just an echo over here?

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I believe that what is wanted

I believe that what is wanted here, from one of the original posts, is this:

In Options/Preferences the player would set how they wanted Knock to work for their character. Therefore, they would select whether they wanted all instances of Knock Back to default to Knock Down, or vice-versa. Then there would be a selection for a Modifier key. That modifier-key, when pressed or held, would invert the pre-set choice.

Therefore, I could set my Super Strength fighter to 'always knock-down'. Some of their powers might already have knock-up or knock-down - those would not be affected. However, when I use my super-send-them-to-the-moon attack, I could press that modifier-key and (this time) I'd knock my target into the next zip-code.

Similarly, I could have my Energy Blaster, whose every attack contains some Knock, set to 'knock-down'. This implies that I'm a tricky shooter who always aims to put a little 'English' on the target and knock them off balance.

However! At some point in a battle, I see that the Defender-type is getting swamped with Mobs (or maybe it's Me getting swamped), so I press my modifier-key, ramp up the energy, and aim for center-mass on everything. Now (while the modifier is in operation) every attack has full knock-back capability and the bad-guys are bouncing off the walls and ceiling, so they can't get close to the squishy-one.

Once the emergency has passed, I can deactivate the modifier and go back to just knocking the baddies over.

One implication of this 'Set in Preferences and use a Modifier' approach, is that you Could Choose to set your character to 'Always Knock Back' and then use the Modifier to select when you do the tricky-bit and only knock them down.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
WarBird wrote:
WarBird wrote:

The "other side" is that we have some kind of "toggle" or keybind that eliminates/mitigates knock down on demand. Just to be clear, would it be "toggle off" before "entering combat?" And does the "toggle" apply to all powers with knockback simultaneously? Or "Hold Xkey every time you trigger specific power?" Does it need to be done with each individual power that has KB? I can certainly see the usefulness and advantages. However, I worry that this will be a turn off for those who have already spoken against making the game too "twitchy." Add me to the group who doesn't want teenagers yelling "lurn 2 play, n00b!!" at teammates.

The way in which I visualised it was that you just held a key down (say Shift for example) to "pull your punch". If this will remove knockback totally, convert it to knockdown/knockup.... that is for the developers to finally decide upon.

In my eyes, it would be per power activation (so you have to hold it down for each power activation), but I can see it being a toggle (potentially) as well. Obviously it would be easier to shift+click the ability instead of trying a 3 key combo if the ability was on your 2nd/3rd/Xth ability bar.

I find the comment about it making it to twitch like interesting, because this would be just the same as in CoX of hitting Shift+2 to activate abilities that are in your 2nd or 3rd bar....

Quote:

Frankly, I'm not sure why we couldn't have both, but I'm not versed enough in resource allocation in this venue. The two systems seemed sufficiently divorced from each other, and would allow both styles of play, casual and dedicated. But I'll leave the best of both worlds question aside for now.
Nobody seems to be arguing that KB in some form or another doesn't belong on this genre (because it obviously does). The best rationalization I've heard for why my Super KO punch or Hyper Blast DON'T knock an NPC into a new time zone is "pulling a punch".

The pulling of the punch makes the most sense. Sure, you could be a character who *cannot* pull their punches, but if superheros can do it, then why can't we?

Quote:

How about this (and forgive me if I missed this suggestion earlier. Been trying to follow this thread, but I can't camp on it): If you allow the extra control of the combat keybind, it is done at the expense of damage. This reflects "pulling" the punch, and allows the player the CHOICE of being polite in team situations or really cutting loose. Some will argue that it's still paying a cost, or making you "less effective", I'm sure. But if we're talking about this mainly as a teaming effect, then losing a bit of damage so that others can continue to inflict more, makes less difference, and adds a tactical decision to the mix.
Any of this make sense? Am I just an echo over here?

That makes total sense to me, especially when you think about the fact that you could also be loosing out on falling damage for the mobs... As to how much of a reduction is a balance point. Hell, you could make it so that the "pull" for one ability is knock down, whilst for another ability its "reduced damage". Ok, that add's in a bit more balancing, but i can get behind that as well.

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

I believe that what is wanted here, from one of the original posts, is this:
In Options/Preferences the player would set how they wanted Knock to work for their character. Therefore, they would select whether they wanted all instances of Knock Back to default to Knock Down, or vice-versa. Then there would be a selection for a Modifier key. That modifier-key, when pressed or held, would invert the pre-set choice.
Therefore, I could set my Super Strength fighter to 'always knock-down'. Some of their powers might already have knock-up or knock-down - those would not be affected. However, when I use my super-send-them-to-the-moon attack, I could press that modifier-key and (this time) I'd knock my target into the next zip-code.
Similarly, I could have my Energy Blaster, whose every attack contains some Knock, set to 'knock-down'. This implies that I'm a tricky shooter who always aims to put a little 'English' on the target and knock them off balance.
However! At some point in a battle, I see that the Defender-type is getting swamped with Mobs (or maybe it's Me getting swamped), so I press my modifier-key, ramp up the energy, and aim for center-mass on everything. Now (while the modifier is in operation) every attack has full knock-back capability and the bad-guys are bouncing off the walls and ceiling, so they can't get close to the squishy-one.
Once the emergency has passed, I can deactivate the modifier and go back to just knocking the baddies over.
One implication of this 'Set in Preferences and use a Modifier' approach, is that you Could Choose to set your character to 'Always Knock Back' and then use the Modifier to select when you do the tricky-bit and only knock them down.
Be Well!
Fireheart

That works as well... wasn't thinking it that far ahead. I can see people disagreeing with it though...

CoX playstyle was like this:
*shh* we are hunting rabbits
(hits a mob so hard that it flies right past a guard)
*guards keep on eating their dinner*

I would prefer this:
*shh* we are hunting rabbits
(hits a guard so hard it flies right past a guard)
*guards take notice, and run towards you*

Being able to pull the blow there *adds* to the feel of a "stealth" mission. Sure, you might want to go in guns blazing, but be prepared to eat the floor because you refused to pull your blow.

In this case, the "gun ho" approach is penalised (quite badly potentially)....

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
WarBird wrote:
WarBird wrote:

The "other side" is that we have some kind of "toggle" or keybind that eliminates/mitigates knock down on demand. Just to be clear, would it be "toggle off" before "entering combat?" And does the "toggle" apply to all powers with knockback simultaneously? Or "Hold Xkey every time you trigger specific power?" Does it need to be done with each individual power that has KB? I can certainly see the usefulness and advantages.

The formulation of the mechanic as I have proposed it is that the modifier could be set up either as a +Keybind ... meaning that the modifier is only active/in effect while the bound key is depressed ... or ... it could be set up as a ++Keybind ... meaning click once to turn it on, click it again to turn it off, just like how Autorun works. In that respect, the ++Keybind functionality would work exactly like a Toggle would (click on, click off). It would even be possible to bind the +Keybind function to one key, and the ++Keybind function to another key, and set things up such that if both of them are engaged simultaneously they cancel each other out (so On+On=Off in proper NAND logic parlance, except that Off+Off=Off still) allowing you to play with your Knockback Modifier set up in an "inverted" mode where you use the +Keybind to allow full Knockback to occur on demand.

+Keybind: Off / ++Keybind: Off = Knockback/Knockup full power
+Keybind: On / ++Keybind: Off = Knockback/Knockup clamped to effect Knockdown only
+Keybind: Off / ++Keybind: On = Knockback/Knockup clamped to effect Knockdown only
+Keybind: On / ++Keybind: On = Knockback/Knockup full power

The modifier would apply to all Knockback/Knockup Effects while the +Keybind/++Keybind is engaged. So in that respect it would be a "global" modifier for all attack Powers. The status of the +Keybind/++Keybind states would be checked when an Attack Power containing Knockback/Knockup *begins* its animation/activation ... hence the On Demand structure concerning the use.

Note that this kind of functionality would be very familiar to anyone who has played WoW, which has a global +Keybind modifier allowing spells to be cast on Self (heals, buffs, etc.) rather than casting them on Target so that you do not need to deselect Target in order to affect yourself with your own abilities. Same idea ... except in this case the modifier is being applied to an offensive soft control effect (Knockback/Knockup) and "clamping" the degree of its strength to achieve a Knockdown only instead ... On Demand.

WarBird wrote:

However, I worry that this will be a turn off for those who have already spoken against making the game too "twitchy."

Hence the "set and forget" ++Keybind option which runs continuously until countermanded ... just like how Autorun works ... if that's how you prefer to play. No "twitchy" required.

WarBird wrote:

Add me to the group who doesn't want teenagers yelling "lurn 2 play, n00b!!" at teammates.

As already pointed out ... this kind of obnoxious behavior will happen anyway no matter what you do. This kind of snobbery and jerkishness happens in EVERY social environment involving online gaming. Preventing the use of finesse in controlling Knockback on demand will not curb or eliminate this behavior ... while the inclusion of "Knockback Control On Demand" may actually mitigate or otherwise prevent the need (or impetus) for it to happen in teams. Jerks will still be jerks and haters just gotta hate ... but at least Players would have an additional option for being able to handle these cases beyond just quitting (or being summarily kicked) from teams. Whether Knockback heavy builds would (or even should) want to continue playing with such jerks and snobs is another decision best left up to the Player and entirely dependent on their values for the norms of socially acceptable behavior.

WarBird wrote:

How about this (and forgive me if I missed this suggestion earlier. Been trying to follow this thread, but I can't camp on it): If you allow the extra control of the combat keybind, it is done at the expense of damage. This reflects "pulling" the punch, and allows the player the CHOICE of being polite in team situations or really cutting loose. Some will argue that it's still paying a cost, or making you "less effective", I'm sure. But if we're talking about this mainly as a teaming effect, then losing a bit of damage so that others can continue to inflict more, makes less difference, and adds a tactical decision to the mix.

Because that would be penalizing Knockback unfairly. That would be requiring Knockback to "pay a price" in order to be socially acceptable ... and THAT is what we want to avoid in a game that is meant to encourage cooperative friendly play that is FUN and not too concerned about party mix. It would basically put Knockback into an adversarial relationship to Damage, which is a BAD Thing™ to do in a game where Damage is the whole point of the game (the way that City of Heroes managed it, anyway).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
I don't see Knock Back/Down

I don't see Knock Back/Down/Up as 'pulling' the punch. It's not Weaker, the force is simply directed differently. It should not change Damage, unless we want to work Reflection off of obstacles into the mix.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Twisted Toon
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 months ago
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Because that would be penalizing Knockback unfairly. That would be requiring Knockback to "pay a price" in order to be socially acceptable ... and THAT is what we want to avoid in a game that is meant to encourage cooperative friendly play that is FUN and not too concerned about party mix. It would basically put Knockback into an adversarial relationship to Damage, which is a BAD Thing™ to do in a game where Damage is the whole point of the game (the way that City of Heroes managed it, anyway).

The problem is, you are not helping Knockback to be treated fairly. You are just trying to make Knockback go away entirely to suit your preferences. You don't have a problem with Knockdown because it does not relocate the target. You have slightly more of an issue with Knockup because the target might get relocated a couple of feet. usually it won't be enough to take them out of an AoE or melee range. You do, however, have a tremendous issue with Knockback because it relocates the target away from you (melee) or your AoE. I'll let you in on a little secret that you've forgotten. Knockback, Knockdown and Knockup are three completely different things that use similar delivery methods.

Let me know what your global will be in game so I can be sure to never team up with you. That way, I won't offend you with my use of Knockback. Because I surely won't be using anything that would turn it off for the characters
that are built with Knockback in mind. In fact, I won't be using it for those characters that weren't built with Knockback in mind. Because I've learned to live with Knockback and its consequences. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch because I knock one minion/Lt/boss away from you or an AoE, then I really need to find a different team to play with.

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

How about this (and forgive me if I missed this suggestion earlier. Been trying to follow this thread, but I can't camp on it): If you allow the extra control of the combat keybind, it is done at the expense of damage. This reflects "pulling" the punch, and allows the player the CHOICE of being polite in team situations or really cutting loose. Some will argue that it's still paying a cost, or making you "less effective", I'm sure. But if we're talking about this mainly as a teaming effect, then losing a bit of damage so that others can continue to inflict more, makes less difference, and adds a tactical decision to the mix.
Because that would be penalizing Knockback unfairly. That would be requiring Knockback to "pay a price" in order to be socially acceptable ... and THAT is what we want to avoid in a game that is meant to encourage cooperative friendly play that is FUN and not too concerned about party mix. It would basically put Knockback into an adversarial relationship to Damage, which is a BAD Thing™ to do in a game where Damage is the whole point of the game (the way that City of Heroes managed it, anyway).

Hmm. It seems like you're offering a level of control to KB, that you're not offering, requiring or expecting for other powers. I don't think it's necessarily unfair that it comes as some kind of trade-off. I certainly don't see at as adversarial. It's not a question of "Do I use Knockback and do damage, or no KB and do no damage?" It's "Do I use my powers to their full extent, or do I dial it back?" Which is a decision based on the tactical situation. A choice. Making choices tougher isn't anathema to a game. As long as the choices are meaningful and have consequences, they can actually add to the emotional experience of the game. Which I could easily argue makes it more FUN.

You point out that Damage is the whole point of the game, while in the same breath put in context of CoH. What if Damage isn't king in CoT. What if Control is? or Healing? Good Heavens, we might actually acheive some kind of balance for all AT's. Damage shouldn't be the whole point of the game. Or it certainly doesn't have to be. :) I'm shocked that someone as thoughtful as you would even make that statement. The whole point of the game is to have fun. You seem to think that when it comes to KB, there is only One True Way™. It's certainly one way, and not a bad way as far as I can see.

Your posts are always well-presented. I'm usually ready to drink your tasty, tasty Kool-Aid. I think there are lots of aspects to this, though. With respect, It's starting to sound like "Nope, I'm right. If you can't see it, you're just stupid and I feel sorry for you." And please believe me, I'm sincerely not sniping at you personally. I just don't want you to eventually climb some virtual tower with a virtual high-powered rifle. I think your insights are too valuable, in general.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Twisted Toon wrote:
Twisted Toon wrote:

The problem is, you are not helping Knockback to be treated fairly. You are just trying to make Knockback go away entirely to suit your preferences.

Uh ... no. If your assertion were true I'd be advocating for the complete removal of Knockback from the game entirely ... which I'm pretty sure (and have documented proof) is NOT the case.

A swing and a MISS!

Twisted Toon wrote:

You don't have a problem with Knockdown because it does not relocate the target.

Considering that the primary complaint against Knockback in teams is relocation of the target(s) affected ... that pretty accurately describes the objective a lot of situations. Teams rarely react negatively to Knockdowns.

Twisted Toon wrote:

You have slightly more of an issue with Knockup because the target might get relocated a couple of feet. usually it won't be enough to take them out of an AoE or melee range.

Um ... why are you couching each of your statements as being a personal accusation?

Twisted Toon wrote:

You do, however, have a tremendous issue with Knockback because it relocates the target away from you (melee) or your AoE.

Aha! Pronoun trouble ...

The point is not that *I* have a tremendous issue with Knockback, but that Teams often had trouble with Knockback. I'm merely trying to offer an option in which that does not have to be the case ... but I seem to be getting a lot of pushback from ... snobs ... lately.

Twisted Toon wrote:

I'll let you in on a little secret that you've forgotten. Knockback, Knockdown and Knockup are three completely different things that use similar delivery methods.

I'll let you in on an even better Not So Secret Fact that has apparently escaped you ... and I quote from my linked source:

Quote:

For a character to be knocked back, the final magnitude must be above a certain threshold; under that threshold will be turned into knockdown. The threshold is between 0.7437 and 0.8174, and is most likely 0.75.

And for extra funzies, I'll even throw in the other Not So Secret Fact that ... well ... let me just quote from the linked source again:

Quote:

Though knockup uses a different mechanic than knockback, all knockback resistance and protection are extended to knockup, as well.

So basically the only difference between Knockback and Knockup is the direction of the vector (away from caster or vertical against gravity direction) and Knockdown is really just a very small Knockback/Knockup that doesn't displace the Target significantly.

Twisted Toon wrote:

Let me know what your global will be in game so I can be sure to never team up with you. That way, I won't offend you with my use of Knockback. Because I surely won't be using anything that would turn it off for the characters that are built with Knockback in mind. In fact, I won't be using it for those characters that weren't built with Knockback in mind. Because I've learned to live with Knockback and its consequences. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch because I knock one minion/Lt/boss away from you or an AoE, then I really need to find a different team to play with.

/em points at Forum Name

And I'm not worried about YOUR use of Knockback offending ME personally, since ... as you say ... I'll never have to worry about being Teamed up with you (and even if it did happen, it wouldn't last very long).

/em Vir Cotto wave at Mr. Morden


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
WarBird wrote:
WarBird wrote:

Hmm. It seems like you're offering a level of control to KB, that you're not offering, requiring or expecting for other powers. I don't think it's necessarily unfair that it comes as some kind of trade-off.

Because, as I've already said WarBird, none of the other Control Effects ever had any sort of "finesse" limits on them due to the fact that the way the game worked in City of Heroes, anything worth "doing" was certainly worth "overdoing" ... except for Knockback. Knockback was the only Control Effect where sometimes you wanted a little, and sometimes you wanted a lot, but City of Heroes didn't let you "finesse" that in any way beyond the choice of "Use This Power? (Y/N)"

WarBird wrote:

You point out that Damage is the whole point of the game, while in the same breath put in context of CoH. What if Damage isn't king in CoT. What if Control is? or Healing?

Because City of Heroes is the only common reference point we have for this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to pontificate on how City of Titans should be LIKE City of Heroes ... BUT DIFFERENT ... so as to be BETTER while still remaining "true" to the Spirit of the original.

In order for Damage to "not be king" in City of Titans, at least in the context of Defeating Foe NPCs, there would need to be a way to Defeat Foe NPCs other than just by damaging them to zero Hit Points. I'm not aware of any precedents in other games for anything akin to "Mez a Foe NPC continuously for X seconds to Defeat them regardless of Hit Points remaining" or anything similar. You don't get XP, cash or loot for applying Mez Effects to a Foe NPC ... all of those things flowed from doing enough Damage to them in City of Heroes. Might City of Titans be different in this regard? Maybe ... but I really doubt it.

WarBird wrote:

You seem to think that when it comes to KB, there is only One True Way™. It's certainly one way, and not a bad way as far as I can see.

Funny you should put it that way, when I keep using the word OPTION over and over again ... which kind of puts something of a hole into the One Size Fits All accusation. Somehow, a lot of people seem to read the word OPTION and they receive/understand the meaning of the word as being MANDATORY instead, which I find completely baffling ... especially when I have been at such pains to point out (repeatedly) that OPTION and MANDATORY are not synonymous words, no matter how hard people try to conflate them together.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Col. Kernel wrote:
Col. Kernel wrote:

I will say again, from a game design standpoint you don't get anything for free. If you get a feature that allows you to change a power at will you will end up losing something else in exchange. This is the core of my arguments.

Um...why? I'm seeing a tremendous amount of adversarial thinking going on in this thread. Tell me why you HAVE to wind up losing something in order to gain the ability to change the KB of a power. Is this some sort of 'gaming math' that I missed in school or what? Since this is the core of your argument I'm curious.

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

cybermitheral
cybermitheral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/21/2013 - 20:54
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

So instead of disabling the knockback totally, would people be ok with the option of (without having to slot something) to convert it to knockdown/knockup?
I only just thought of this, because I was just told a story of a person who just stopped using AOE's because the rest of the team kept on knocking players out of them. It actually made them feel not "useless" but restricted to just single target effects...

Gangrel welcome aboard :)
That is EXACTLY what people like Redlyyne and myself have been advocating all this time.
We are NOT suggesting that we REMOVE all KNOCK* effects, but rather that KnockBACK can ON DEMAND BY THE PLAYER CHOSE to convert KnockBACK into KnockDOWN (I didnt have much issue with KnockUP in CoH as it was only used in a small handful of powers compared to KB/KD).

Whether a +/++Keybind or Power Tray icon is used to change KB into KD is, to some extent, irrelevant to the 'discussions' going on here. Both will work and while I prefer the Icon (for personal reasons) if we can create our own Keybinds or Icon Macro's like we could in CoH then I can do either as I see fit.

And for powers like Gale that do bugger all or no damage but lots of KB, well they will still do bugger all/no damage but will KD the enemies so I can knock them on their butts when surrounding the Def or Melee toons and by a Icon/Keybind KB them away from the squishies (or the Def and Melee toons) if they are getting smacked hard.

Now I would also say as have others (yes I have read almost every post in this thread apart from the ones that are mainly 'personal conversations') that the DEFAULT is set to KB each time you log on, just like my Tanks Def toggles. And just like on my Tanks before I went into combat I knew I had to turn on:
- Deflection
- Battle Agility
- Active Defense (Auto-Click)
- Against All Odds
- Tough
- Weave
- Combat Jumping

With my KB character I would turn on the 'KD' icon/keybind IF I WANTED TO.

Caps used for emphasis

The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

Sorry, but choice is not always better than no choice. It heavily depends on what those choices are and what the consequences of said choices being available will be.
And in this case, the consequences of there being a choice will be that it could become acceptable to demand that someone else nerfs their character so your character can function better. Is THAT the kind of community we want in CoT? This issue might seem rather minor, but we are actually putting the friendly ingame tone of the community that CoH had at risk by including these kinds of options.
So, no. Choice doesn't have to be superior to no choice. I value the friendly tone of CoH's community over any UI elements. This one is just extra-specially sinister, since it looks pretty harmless, but could easily end up as the subject of social player confrontations if it was implemented.

Wow...you're really trying SO hard to make me afraid of the whole gaming community. How about this one:

"Hey! Your wings are so huge they're restricting my vision! Switch to a different toon that doesn't have wings or I'll boot you!"

There...a completely irrational request to nerf my character so someone else can play better. By the way anyone who actually did this would quickly become the laughingstock of the game. You're constructing phantom scenarios where other players insist on booting me if I use KB? Wait...you're claiming that just by having the OPTION of turning off my KB that it will become expected?

Um...if I'm using it badly, to the detriment of others' fun, wouldn't it be nice if I COULD turn it off until I learn how to use it? Rather than making me endure the slings and arrows of abuse while I'm figuring stuff out? Remember Gale? Remember how new players spammed it all the time in the sewers because it was one of the three powers they had? No chance of fancy positioning there...you're level 2-5 most likely. So how about you let ME decide if I want my powers to do KB and stop burdening me with YOUR idea of how the world should work?

Again, choice is ALWAYS better. Hell, a choice between two crappy outcomes is better than having one forced on you!

Here's a great idea: STOP DEFENDING A GAME COMMUNITY THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST YET! Call a bad thing a bad thing and admit that YOU do or do not like KB! Stop claiming how 'everyone else' will feel! You're NOT everyone else! If YOU do or don't want KB then state your opinion and move on rather than inventing a victim community that needs you to speak for them!

Go ahead...do a survey. Quote me hard numbers as to how many players like or dislike KB. I'll wait while you conduct it, compile the data and make your presentation. Oops...I forgot...you can't.

Stop trying to be advocates for people who don't even think there's a problem.

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Airhead
Airhead's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/03/2013 - 23:38
I think y'all overthinking it

I think y'all overthinking it. The forum moderator is calling players idiots for using something in-game that is not yet implemented, the community (which actually does exist, we're part of it) apparently doesn't, and most folks are using capitals. I am very confident there'll be so many CoT players that I can put antisocial people on /ignore, so I'm fine with any solution. In my case, using KB does not define 'antisocial', so it would be sad to neuter it. Defenders who debuff instead of heal were once decried by some in the CoH community, unless people realised the value they brought.

KB has value beyond the cinematic when it causes an opponent to be 'stunned' longer than KD. It can be used to isolate opponents in a tough battle. It delayed CoH opponents that wanted to melee, as they had to close the gap again. That saved my energy blaster many times.

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin
"One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
I keep wondering... why am I

I keep wondering... why am I being asked for the burden of proof? I'm advocating for no change compared to CoH. What evidence is there that a knockback nerf toggle is even needed?

And no, choice is NOT better by default. Meaningful choice is, choice between equally desirable outcomes is. Choice between "nerf yourself or be bullied" is not. And that is the choice being suggested here. I don't want that choice to exist. Likewise, choices that really aren't a choice shouldn't be either. I mean, let's just for a moment imagine this sort of thing was in CoH. Why would I not turn it on when playing a Storm Defender? Hurricane would become completely overpowered.

And that's another reason not to add this. Because, really, it's not a choice. It's a flat out elimination of knockback from the game if knockback works like in CoH.

Oh, and if you want proof that this will be an issue, I got three pages of proof right here. Yes, it's this very thread. Is this the kind of community we want in the game? An abrasive, insulting tone? If not, don't add nightmares like this.

Don't give people an unnecessary reason to get into fights with each other. I'm sure City of Titans will have its fair share of drama anyway.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

I keep wondering... why am I being asked for the burden of proof?

Because when you make an assertion it helps to be able to back up your assertion with things called ... facts?

McNum wrote:

Choice between "nerf yourself or be bullied" is not. And that is the choice being suggested here. I don't want that choice to exist. Likewise, choices that really aren't a choice shouldn't be either.

And that's enough for me to conclude that ... you just don't know what you're talking about, and that any further engagement to try and educate you is a waste of time ... both mine and yours. Thank you for playing.

McNum wrote:

And that's another reason not to add this. Because, really, it's not a choice. It's a flat out elimination of knockback from the game if knockback works like in CoH.

I said that for some people, the word OPTIONAL is defined as meaning MANDATORY.
Black is white. Up is down. Forwards is backwards. Wet is dry.
Thank you for proving my point that you're really not listening.

McNum wrote:

Oh, and if you want proof that this will be an issue, I got three pages of proof right here. Yes, it's this very thread.

So you're going to rely on Tautology as your proof that you were right all along and everyone should listen to you?

/em boggles


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Let me break it down really

Let me break it down really simple-like.

Choices that aren't choices be they from a mechanical or or social perceptive should not be choices at all when designing a game. Choosing to keep knockback on risks both social and mechanical consequences, while turning it off does not.

This is not a choice, it's a ban.

And I'm referring to this thread to show just how worked up and hostile people get because someone dared to defend knockback. THIS is exactly what I expect to happen if this "choice" is added to the game.

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
cybermitheral wrote:
cybermitheral wrote:

Gangrel welcome aboard :)

I have been posting in this thread quite a bit actually..... but thanks for accepting me ;)

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

cybermitheral
cybermitheral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/21/2013 - 20:54
@Gangrel - yes I've read a

@Gangrel - yes I've read a lot of your posts here. Sorry, what I meant was (in a silly, non-condescending way) was welcome to the "Turn KB into KD on demand" group :)

The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer

Twisted Toon
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 months ago
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 13:25
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Twisted Toon wrote:
The problem is, you are not helping Knockback to be treated fairly. You are just trying to make Knockback go away entirely to suit your preferences.
Uh ... no. If your assertion were true I'd be advocating for the complete removal of Knockback from the game entirely ... which I'm pretty sure (and have documented proof) is NOT the case.
A swing and a MISS!
Twisted Toon wrote:
You don't have a problem with Knockdown because it does not relocate the target.
Considering that the primary complaint against Knockback in teams is relocation of the target(s) affected ... that pretty accurately describes the objective a lot of situations. Teams rarely react negatively to Knockdowns.
Twisted Toon wrote:
You have slightly more of an issue with Knockup because the target might get relocated a couple of feet. usually it won't be enough to take them out of an AoE or melee range.
Um ... why are you couching each of your statements as being a personal accusation?
Twisted Toon wrote:
You do, however, have a tremendous issue with Knockback because it relocates the target away from you (melee) or your AoE.
Aha! Pronoun trouble ...
The point is not that *I* have a tremendous issue with Knockback, but that Teams often had trouble with Knockback. I'm merely trying to offer an option in which that does not have to be the case ... but I seem to be getting a lot of pushback from ... snobs ... lately.

Not a miss. You are, in fact, advocating for the ability for teams to get rid of Knockback whenever they wish. Which, since so many people in CoH were against Knockback on teams, would be the same as getting rid of knockback in the game entirely, or close enough to it.

Quote:

Twisted Toon wrote:
I'll let you in on a little secret that you've forgotten. Knockback, Knockdown and Knockup are three completely different things that use similar delivery methods.
I'll let you in on an even better Not So Secret Fact that has apparently escaped you ... and I quote from my linked source:
Quote:
For a character to be knocked back, the final magnitude must be above a certain threshold; under that threshold will be turned into knockdown. The threshold is between 0.7437 and 0.8174, and is most likely 0.75.

And for extra funzies, I'll even throw in the other Not So Secret Fact that ... well ... let me just quote from the linked source again:
Quote:
Though knockup uses a different mechanic than knockback, all knockback resistance and protection are extended to knockup, as well.
So basically the only difference between Knockback and Knockup is the direction of the vector (away from caster or vertical against gravity direction) and Knockdown is really just a very small Knockback/Knockup that doesn't displace the Target significantly.

Mechanics-wise, yes, they all share the same mechanics. But, that is just a technical argument. Knockback is different than Knockdown because it relocates the target, where as knockdown does not. Otherwise, you'd be looking for ways to get rid of Knockdown as well.

Papaya and Honeydew are both melons, but they are not the same.

cybermitheral
cybermitheral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/21/2013 - 20:54
Im seeing a lot of feedback

Im seeing a lot of feedback about this idea using statements which I dont believe are correct.

Quote:

You are, in fact, advocating for the ability for teams to get rid of Knockback whenever they wish. Which, since so many people in CoH were against Knockback on teams, would be the same as getting rid of knockback in the game entirely, or close enough to it.

No.
What we are asking for is not to get rid of KB entirely but supress on demand. If the team I am on is strongly anti-KB then I can either leave the team or make the change to use KD only. If I am solo I can KB to my hearts content. This is not what you have said above. Also it is not the Team that can change me from KB to KD - only I can flip that switch if I want to.

I want to KB, but if it is annoying the team then I want to change to KD and still enjoy myself and enjoy teaming. If I see a runner or a squishy getting hammered than I can swap to KB to help them and then back when Im ready.

I dont get why some people are taking what is being asked for - the ability to change KB > KD on demand - and making it into something else.
I havnt seen (or can remember seeing so may be wrong) anyone in this thread asking to remove KB entirely and have KD only. And if someone has well that is different to what most who want this option are asking for.

Will teams start saying "lf1m - NO KB!!!!!"?? I have no idea - I cant read the future. But I highly doubt it.
As a leader of many teams whenever I saw a KBer join I would always say "Welcome :) Please be considerate with your KB" and I would either get a response of "No worries :)" or the occasional "Im new to this what do you mean?" in which case I would explain what KB does and how it can annoy others. When this happened most people were thankful for the explanation. Is this going to happen with every team or with every KBer? Hell no. But it wont be "YOU KB SO F*&^ OFF!!!!" as some are suggesting/hinting at either.

The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
A bit of theory here:

A bit of theory here:
A power that does damage and nothing else can be used as a baseline; any other combat power that has the same opportunity cost should be about as useful. For now, I am only considering powers with the same opportunity cost.
A power that does some damage and something else that has no downside to it (mez, debuff, etc) will do less damage, preferably in proportion to how useful the other effect is, than the baseline power, so the total amount of utility would be about the same.
A power that does some damage and something else that is of variable utility (like knockback, which is sometimes not desired and sometimes very useful) will do less damage (or maybe more damage ^_^) based on how useful (or not) the variable utility effect is overall. If we add a switch to disable the effect when it is not desired, that will increase the overall utility of the effect, and the damage should be adjusted accordingly, or the opportunity cost of the power increased, or some combination.

If the devs decide to add a switch to any attacks with knockback to disable it, I'd expect there to be a reduction of damage and/or an increase in cost. Hopefully it will be in proportion to the increase in utility; but that is the sort of judgement they get paid the big bucks for. If they were getting paid at all, that is ^_^

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

cybermitheral
cybermitheral's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 5 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/21/2013 - 20:54
Other side of the coin

Other side of the coin Foradain.
I am lessening the 'extra' in my KB attacks to help the team so therefore should do more damage or cost less End (or whatever we are calling it).

You say Im getting more utility, I say Im getting less.
When solo if I chose to KD only I am lessening my ability to survive as I an not knocking the foes back meaning they can do more damage more often.

This is a 'point of view' issue - but I agree up to the Dev's :)

The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Another point to be raised in

Another point to be raised in this whole argument: What about the rest of the team? I mean the last time I ran my Nrg Blaster on a team with a Stormy my KB was irrelevant. There's a perfect situation where MY kb (which is a byproduct of my damage output) is not needed so I might as well turn it off. The Stormy's, on the other hand, is serving a definite purpose and should be kept on.

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

Let me break it down really simple-like.
Choices that aren't choices be they from a mechanical or or social perceptive should not be choices at all when designing a game. Choosing to keep knockback on risks both social and mechanical consequences, while turning it off does not.
This is not a choice, it's a ban.
And I'm referring to this thread to show just how worked up and hostile people get because someone dared to defend knockback. THIS is exactly what I expect to happen if this "choice" is added to the game.

But, if the "choice" is put into the game, then you have the choice of not using it, so you win anyway.

If I'm parsing your argument correctly, you're saying that, if there is a choice about whether or not to have Knockback take effect, then there's no point in putting Knockback into the game in the first place...

"Choices that are not choices..."

And you can't use this thread to demonstrate how worked-up people will get, when You are the only one who is worked-up. That's circular argument, or a tautology, as Redlynne pointed out.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
Sounds like you would simply love playing Progress Quest then.
Nice strawman. Try addressing the point next time. It helps discussion.

You're wasting your pixels. She's not interested in discussion, only in mindless agreement and getting out the pitchforks and torches to burn KB to the ground. I'd say that her arguments have lost all sense of rationality, and she's not in the slightest bit interested in compromise or discussing the pros and cons of any potential solution. A pity really. I might be willing to help her work out a compromise if she were to even attempt to engage in honest debate.

As has been pointed out later in this thread social pressure in PUGs will be "if you have the option to turn KB of you MUST use it". I.E. the choice of no choice for all you Zen Buddhists in the crowd.

McNum wrote:

My tolerance for knockback snobbery was broken way back in CoH. Even 1 in 100 is too much. It breaks the social contract of the game. "My character is MY character, and no one other than me gets to dictate its powers and playstyle. In exchange I will play it to the best of my ability, and use all its power to the fullest."
And that's why I oppose this and any other "Hey, turn that off!" switch in the game. What we had in CoH was too much already, and here years before the game even releases we have people already lamenting the mere idea of knockback. It poisons the well before the game even enters Alpha. Let the game launch, or get to Beta at least, before making demands to be able to yell at others to nerf their characters. If there truly is a legitimate complaint about knockback in general, which I sincerely doubt there will be since Coh had few at best of those, THEN consider draconian measures like this. Personally, I'd rather they made knockback more desirable than it was in CoH, maybe giving it an additional effect to the positioning.
Frankly, if it was up to me, the solution to the knockback "issue" would be that ALL attacks did knockback if they did more than X% of an enemy's HP in damage. There, problem solved. But I'll concede that such an action would most likely be unpopular.

This, too. I made the character, I play the character to the best of my ability. If you have a phobia about KB don't team with players that do KB and don't run power sets that do KB. Problem solved.

And while it makes sense for some powers to do KB, for >X damage, there are exceptions such as Fire. Some attacks that would apply pressure or constriction would also be exempt from KB.

Comicsluvr wrote:

Col. Kernel wrote:
I will say again, from a game design standpoint you don't get anything for free. If you get a feature that allows you to change a power at will you will end up losing something else in exchange. This is the core of my arguments.

Um...why? I'm seeing a tremendous amount of adversarial thinking going on in this thread. Tell me why you HAVE to wind up losing something in order to gain the ability to change the KB of a power. Is this some sort of 'gaming math' that I missed in school or what? Since this is the core of your argument I'm curious.

Foradain has the answer to your question, and saved me some typing.

Foradain wrote:

A bit of theory here:
A power that does damage and nothing else can be used as a baseline; any other combat power that has the same opportunity cost should be about as useful. For now, I am only considering powers with the same opportunity cost.
A power that does some damage and something else that has no downside to it (mez, debuff, etc) will do less damage, preferably in proportion to how useful the other effect is, than the baseline power, so the total amount of utility would be about the same.
A power that does some damage and something else that is of variable utility (like knockback, which is sometimes not desired and sometimes very useful) will do less damage (or maybe more damage ^_^) based on how useful (or not) the variable utility effect is overall. If we add a switch to disable the effect when it is not desired, that will increase the overall utility of the effect, and the damage should be adjusted accordingly, or the opportunity cost of the power increased, or some combination.
If the devs decide to add a switch to any attacks with knockback to disable it, I'd expect there to be a reduction of damage and/or an increase in cost. Hopefully it will be in proportion to the increase in utility; but that is the sort of judgement they get paid the big bucks for. If they were getting paid at all, that is ^_^

And my solution to making KB consistent in its desirability is to add bonus damage if the target gets KB'd into something. CoH had falling damage, I could KB something over a cliff and even if I didn't finish it off, the falling damage would.

Why not expand that in such a way that if I KB a mob into an obstacle the mob takes an extra 30% (to pick a random number) damage? This way there is an immediate, tangible reward for using KB well. This would help train players to use KB properly rather than as pure chaos.

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Col. Kernel wrote:
Col. Kernel wrote:

And my solution to making KB consistent in its desirability is to add bonus damage if the target gets KB'd into something. CoH had falling damage, I could KB something over a cliff and even if I didn't finish it off, the falling damage would.
Why not expand that in such a way that if I KB a mob into an obstacle the mob takes an extra 30% (to pick a random number) damage? This way there is an immediate, tangible reward for using KB well. This would help train players to use KB properly rather than as pure chaos.

This implies that KB is not desirable, at all, unless it does more damage. Therefore, the only desirable use of KB involves an obstacle. Therefore, the only way to make KB good is to find some way to 'force' the players to change... to 'learn'... to do it 'properly'.

I'm sorry, but most of a decade of empirical data suggests that the players (in general) will not 'learn to do it right'. Instead, they will join your team and 'do it wrong'... right in your face... over and over... until you scream.

Also, your suggestion requires an obstacle. It requires that this obstacle be in a useful position. It requires that the player be able to move into a position where this obstacle is tactically desirable. And then, and Only then, will the KB power be useful.

I'm sorry again, my own experience is that there is never an obstacle when you need it.

Also, my preference is that there be no change in damage, regardless of whether there is Knock. My experience has been that you can rarely Depend on Knock. It doesn't happen at least as often as it does happen. So, even if you did find a tactically useful obstacle and really knew exactly how to position yourself to take advantage of that obstacle, you wouldn't be able to get an advantage out of it, half the time.

Are you Sure you wouldn't rather allow us to change our Knock at will?

Be Well!
Fireheart

Minotaur
Minotaur's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 12:49
Airhead wrote:
Airhead wrote:

I think y'all overthinking it. The forum moderator is calling players idiots for using something in-game that is not yet implemented, the community (which actually does exist, we're part of it) apparently doesn't, and most folks are using capitals. I am very confident there'll be so many CoT players that I can put antisocial people on /ignore, so I'm fine with any solution. In my case, using KB does not define 'antisocial', so it would be sad to neuter it. Defenders who debuff instead of heal were once decried by some in the CoH community, unless people realised the value they brought.
KB has value beyond the cinematic when it causes an opponent to be 'stunned' longer than KD. It can be used to isolate opponents in a tough battle. It delayed CoH opponents that wanted to melee, as they had to close the gap again. That saved my energy blaster many times.

No TBF I was saying that there are going to be a few idiots as there were in CoH with no clue how to use their powers to best advantage and no real wish to learn. In the hands of people like that, KB is one of the more disruptive tools to team function. At low and mid level, pulling every group with fireball tends to get you vaped, firing a radial knockback/repel power can kill the whole team (and yes I have seen this in CoH with a level 40ish AE baby).

I appreciate exactly what KB can do in the hands of a skilled user, but there were VERY few of those in CoH, I'd suggest small single figure percent. Being able to remove it when playing in a large team IMO would benefit a very large majority of people.

Tech Team and Forum Moderator

Col. Kernel
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 3 days ago
Joined: 10/11/2013 - 14:08
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

Col. Kernel wrote:
And my solution to making KB consistent in its desirability is to add bonus damage if the target gets KB'd into something. CoH had falling damage, I could KB something over a cliff and even if I didn't finish it off, the falling damage would.
Why not expand that in such a way that if I KB a mob into an obstacle the mob takes an extra 30% (to pick a random number) damage? This way there is an immediate, tangible reward for using KB well. This would help train players to use KB properly rather than as pure chaos.

This implies that KB is not desirable, at all, unless it does more damage. Therefore, the only desirable use of KB involves an obstacle. Therefore, the only way to make KB good is to find some way to 'force' the players to change... to 'learn'... to do it 'properly'.
I'm sorry, but most of a decade of empirical data suggests that the players (in general) will not 'learn to do it right'. Instead, they will join your team and 'do it wrong'... right in your face... over and over... until you scream.
Also, your suggestion requires an obstacle. It requires that this obstacle be in a useful position. It requires that the player be able to move into a position where this obstacle is tactically desirable. And then, and Only then, will the KB power be useful.
I'm sorry again, my own experience is that there is never an obstacle when you need it.
Also, my preference is that there be no change in damage, regardless of whether there is Knock. My experience has been that you can rarely Depend on Knock. It doesn't happen at least as often as it does happen. So, even if you did find a tactically useful obstacle and really knew exactly how to position yourself to take advantage of that obstacle, you wouldn't be able to get an advantage out of it, half the time.
Are you Sure you wouldn't rather allow us to change our Knock at will?
Be Well!
Fireheart

I find KB to be extremely desirable, extra damage or no. Where the mobs are positioned is important to me for tactical reasons.

The lack of dependability of the KB effect was, IMO, a bad thing. I have several ideas on that, but the simplest is that if a power does KB it does KB. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

6+ years into CoH people were still calling for a healer in Broadcast and blasters were still running away from the healer when there was one. Does that mean that CoH should have been played as if a hard trinity were required? Or that the healer should chase the fleeing blaster? No, both of those are undesirable IMO. Some players will do or say foolish things regardless of how much their hands are held.

As for players learning, most of the ones who can be taught require instant visual gratification (e.g. damage numbers floating up off their foes) in order to learn. That's why I proposed the extra damage rewarding "good" behavior.

As for obstacles, when the tank herds they usually corner herd, so you obstacle is provided for you. If soloing or playing w/o a tank offer to pull and pull the mobs to a wall. Tell the team what you're doing before hand.

As I've stated several times in this thread already, one of my big enjoyments of CoH was the fact that it could be played tactically and not just by cycling through some predetermined rotation of powers.

As for me agreeing that Knock should be a player choice that can change from moment to moment, my personal objection is that if it can be turned off players will insist on it prior to even seeing what can be done with it. Which means that if you get your choice, there is no choice other than to find another team. Since I already have to do that, why should I get on board with allowing people to have that spur of the moment choice? If you don't like KB, don't play sets that have it, and don't play with people who have it. If you allow KB to be turned off, and public consensus forces everyone to turn it off, who's going to learn to play with it? I'm not unique in being a player who knows how to use KB, and who enjoys using it to benefit the team. Nor do I wish to be.

If the devs decide that KB can be turned on or off by the players that WILL be balanced by some drawback to the powers or sets in question. That is the nature of game design (see the post you quoted from, it's explained in there).

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Twisted Toon wrote:
Twisted Toon wrote:

You are, in fact, advocating for the ability for teams to get rid of Knockback whenever they wish. Which, since so many people in CoH were against Knockback on teams, would be the same as getting rid of knockback in the game entirely, or close enough to it.

Let us count the conflations and false equivalencies you have just made in 2 sentences.

Advocating for Teams to get rid of Knockback whenever they wish.

No. I'm advocating for Individual Players to be able to selectively, optionally and on demand suppress their own Knockback for whatever reason they want, whenever they want. Teams are made up of Individual Players ... but Individual Players are not, in and of themselves, Teams. You seem to have this bizarre idea that the social dynamics of every Team will be the same, when it has been my experience (and that of a lot of other people) that Team dynamics vary. Indeed, it has been the experience of many Players (dare I say, most?) that Team dynamics varied WIDELY in City of Heroes. Team play is, of course, more effective when the members of the team cooperate and coordinate (as proof, I offer Vent communications and what having Vent does to Team efficiency) ... but not all Teams are the same. Not everyone plays on Vent (I, for one, do not Vent) nor is Vent a "necessary" ingredient for having a good Team that works well together.

You are conflating the options and choices of Individual Players with the "dictates" of Team social dynamics, while ignoring the fact that if any Individual Player doesn't like a Team's social dynamics they can simply drop that Team and go find another. Indeed, the option to Drop Team has always been assumed in every post I've made, if the group dynamics are not to the liking of the Individual Player participating in a Team. The difference between our positions though is that you believe that adverse selection will lead to a "weeding out" of Knockback from acceptable Team play in a "universal" and all pervasive fashion ... while I do not subscribe to that view at all and believe that the social pressures aspect is more complicated and nuance than that overly simplistic view and reading of the situation (either past, present or future).

Which, since so many people in CoH were against Knockback on teams, would be the same as getting rid of knockback in the game entirely, or close enough to it.

Once again, the false equivalency of "greater than zero" being equal to "100%" which is absurd on its face. The problem that people had with Knockback in City of Heroes was that it was a double edged sword (metaphorically speaking) that could harm allies as much, if not more, than enemies if used "improperly" or in ways that were counterproductive to the Team's dynamics (read: DPS efficiency and NPC Defeat Speed). In other words, Knockback could be disruptive to group tactics, and THAT was what people objected to, because it often WAS used in ways that were disruptive. Not that the ONLY way Knockback could be used WAS disruptive, just that it so often was, because it was very easy for Knockback to be disruptive, while it was hard (and required patience and skill) to employ Knockback in ways that were NOT disruptive.

So ... easy to use "wrong" on Teams, and hard to use "right" on Teams in ways that weren't disruptive. In order to use Knockback "right" on Teams required essentially "jumping through hoops" in order to do so ... such as using terrain to mitigate how disruptive Knockback could be by vectoring Foe NPCs into nearby obstacles (walls, ground, etc.) by virtue of relative positioning of Player and Target(s) ... converting Knockback into being Knockdown (effectively). Skilled Players could do this reliably, while unskilled (or uncaring) Players could cause scatter that worked against the Team social dynamic in ways that were more unhelpful and aggravating than useful.

The thing that I find most ironic (and, let's be honest, sad) about your arguments, Twisted Toon, is that you don't see Team dynamics and social interplay as taking place on a continuum with different dynamics and different personalities at play creating a multitude of experiences and expectations. Instead, you see things in purely binary terms (at least with respect to this subject) ... as if the only choices were All Or Nothing ... with an expectation that if Nothing is possible then All will be eliminated entirely. Whereas I, and everyone arguing against you, is trying to tell you that Team dynamics and social conventions are nowhere near that binary ... or at least they weren't in City of Heroes (not in my experience anyway) and I would be very surprised (and dismayed) if they were in City of Titans. If anything, I want to see Knockback be able to be used Intermittently at the Individual Player's discretion so as to allow Players to use Powers that have Knockback in ways that don't have to be disruptive to Team dynamics and Team play. That means sometimes you want to Knockback, and sometimes you don't ... and the smartest (and best) way to do that is to empower the Player to make that choice, in each moment of gameplay, as situations and circumstances change around them. I want Knockback to be ADAPTIVE to circumstances so it can be used when "needed" and suppressed when it would be counterproductive.

So I'll just leave you with this famous quote, and see if it means anything to you in the context of the current discussion.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
cybermitheral wrote:
cybermitheral wrote:

I dont get why some people are taking what is being asked for - the ability to change KB > KD on demand - and making it into something else.

Because if they stopped doing that, they'd have to concede the argument perhaps?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
McNum wrote:
McNum wrote:

Choices that aren't choices be they from a mechanical or or social perceptive should not be choices at all when designing a game. Choosing to keep knockback on risks both social and mechanical consequences, while turning it off does not.
This is not a choice, it's a ban.
And I'm referring to this thread to show just how worked up and hostile people get because someone dared to defend knockback. THIS is exactly what I expect to happen if this "choice" is added to the game.

And here's the crux of my issues here: You're stating this as a fact, something that can be proven and verified, when neither is true. You THINK that having such a choice is risking social and mechanical consequences (whatever that means). However you stating it as a fact does not automatically make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Also, giving each player an opportunity to turn an effect on or off is a BAN? Remember all the screaming about AoEs for teams back in the day? Eventually the Devs made it possible to turn off team buffs, thereby giving PLAYERS a CHOICE. Was this a ban too?

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Foradain wrote:
Foradain wrote:

A bit of theory here:
A power that does damage and nothing else can be used as a baseline; any other combat power that has the same opportunity cost should be about as useful. For now, I am only considering powers with the same opportunity cost.
A power that does some damage and something else that has no downside to it (mez, debuff, etc) will do less damage, preferably in proportion to how useful the other effect is, than the baseline power, so the total amount of utility would be about the same.
A power that does some damage and something else that is of variable utility (like knockback, which is sometimes not desired and sometimes very useful) will do less damage (or maybe more damage ^_^) based on how useful (or not) the variable utility effect is overall. If we add a switch to disable the effect when it is not desired, that will increase the overall utility of the effect, and the damage should be adjusted accordingly, or the opportunity cost of the power increased, or some combination.
If the devs decide to add a switch to any attacks with knockback to disable it, I'd expect there to be a reduction of damage and/or an increase in cost. Hopefully it will be in proportion to the increase in utility; but that is the sort of judgement they get paid the big bucks for. If they were getting paid at all, that is ^_^

Actually Foradain, we can do better than that. We can go look at City of Data and see what comparable Pool Powers actually did in City of Heroes so as to establish some baseline expectations for how we'd want City of Titans to "align" on this issue.

Kick
Air Superiority
Jump Kick
Flurry

All of these attacks had a damage throughput that looks suspiciously like ~62.5 Smashing Damage each ... although Kick and Flurry have some complicating factors to them (Kick had combination points back ported into it thanks to Street Fighting, and Flurry was essentially a long Damage over Time attack which did Stun rather than Knockback). But overall, the damage dealt by these Pool Powers is roughly equal damage throughput potentials, and 3 of them had random chance "Knockback" effects in them. Only Air Superiority had a RELIABLE Knock component built into it though.

My point here, Fordrain, is that the way City of Heroes was "balanced" for these kinds of things was to assume a "base" power and then hang "secondary" effects on that power "for free" in order to give each power flavor within a particular grouping. Everything was balanced as being "damage plus something extra" by default when it came to attacks. The number of Powers that did Damage and nothing else were actually few and far between. Storm Kick in my beloved Martial Arts Scrapper Primary was an example of a Power that did nothing but damage, and arguably one could make the case that the "something else" added onto the base damage of the power was just simple "more instant damage" instead of adding a DoT or a Mez effect (or whatever).

This is why I say that if you're going to make Knockback Powers "pay" for being able to optionally decline to inflict their full Knockback so as to allow them to merely Knockdown instead ... what you're really insisting on is making Knockback Powers "pay twice" for the privilege of having Knockback, which is inherently unfair to Knockback. You'd be making those Powers pay for their "base" and their "something extra effect" (in this case, Knockback) and then PAY AGAIN to be able to decline the use of their "something extra effect" (in this case, converting Knockback to Knockdown on demand). No other effect has to "pay twice" or suffer a penalty comparable to this, making such a formulation inherently discriminatory and unfair to Knockback.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Col. Kernel wrote:
Col. Kernel wrote:

She's not interested in discussion, only in mindless agreement and getting out the pitchforks and torches to burn KB to the ground. I'd say that her arguments have lost all sense of rationality, and she's not in the slightest bit interested in compromise or discussing the pros and cons of any potential solution. A pity really. I might be willing to help her work out a compromise if she were to even attempt to engage in honest debate.

Kettle.
Pot.
Guess the color.

The thing I find amusing is that this is such a willful and deliberate misrepresentation of my efforts as to be quite divorced from facts, history and even (virtual) reality. At this point, all I can say is that Col. Kernel is blatantly projecting on this issue (and has been for some time now), and consequently has lost a great deal of credibility on this topic because of that.

Col. Kernel wrote:

As has been pointed out later in this thread social pressure in PUGs will be "if you have the option to turn KB of you MUST use it". I.E. the choice of no choice for all you Zen Buddhists in the crowd.

I presume that you have evidence that you can point to in order to substantiate your assertion? That you have unimpeachable FACTS and data mining and PROOF that what you assert here is, indeed ... true? Do you have playtest logs that show your assertion is supported by actual social dynamics in City of Titans?

Or is it more likely that you're just making stuff up and have no proof of anything at all because you're just relying on hearsay and assumptions that make sense to you but which other people dispute the validity of?

Col. Kernel wrote:

CoH had falling damage, I could KB something over a cliff and even if I didn't finish it off, the falling damage would.

Falling Damage
Falling damage will never defeat a character, always leaving them with at least one hit point left. However, if a character is attacked, they can be defeated.

At this point, I have to ask. Do you even know what you're talking about?


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
McNum
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 06:49
Comicsluvr wrote:
Comicsluvr wrote:

McNum wrote:
Choices that aren't choices be they from a mechanical or or social perceptive should not be choices at all when designing a game. Choosing to keep knockback on risks both social and mechanical consequences, while turning it off does not.
This is not a choice, it's a ban.
And I'm referring to this thread to show just how worked up and hostile people get because someone dared to defend knockback. THIS is exactly what I expect to happen if this "choice" is added to the game.

And here's the crux of my issues here: You're stating this as a fact, something that can be proven and verified, when neither is true. You THINK that having such a choice is risking social and mechanical consequences (whatever that means). However you stating it as a fact does not automatically make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Also, giving each player an opportunity to turn an effect on or off is a BAN? Remember all the screaming about AoEs for teams back in the day? Eventually the Devs made it possible to turn off team buffs, thereby giving PLAYERS a CHOICE. Was this a ban too?

Of course that wasn't a ban. That was the ability to dismiss the effect of another allied player on your own character. Quality of Life. And, as I recall, implemented as an accessibility issue as certain power effects caused people to get sick, literally. And for costume contests.

But this knockback thing? It's a de facto ban. If one option has possible consequences and another does not, then there is no choice.

However, I'm going to ask this:

Why do we NEED a toggle for knockback?

Not "want". Need. What does adding this solve?

Brand X
Brand X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/01/2013 - 00:26
Seems like the idea should be

Seems like the idea should be...

Super Strength Punch of OMGness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to pull your punch and do no KB and less damage for pulling you punch.

Super Gust of Finger of Godness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to lighten the wind to ruffle the targets hair and do less damage.

Seems like it would satisfy everyone. You have a power that does KB, you use the power in such a way to do less KB, you'd basically be doing less damage of that type of attack.

Foradain
Foradain's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/25/2013 - 21:06
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

(snip)
...the way City of Heroes was "balanced" for these kinds of things was to assume a "base" power and then hang "secondary" effects on that power "for free" in order to give each power flavor within a particular grouping. Everything was balanced as being "damage plus something extra" by default when it came to attacks. The number of Powers that did Damage and nothing else were actually few and far between. Storm Kick in my beloved Martial Arts Scrapper Primary was an example of a Power that did nothing but damage, and arguably one could make the case that the "something else" added onto the base damage of the power was just simple "more instant damage" instead of adding a DoT or a Mez effect (or whatever).
This is why I say that if you're going to make Knockback Powers "pay" for being able to optionally decline to inflict their full Knockback so as to allow them to merely Knockdown instead ... what you're really insisting on is making Knockback Powers "pay twice" for the privilege of having Knockback, which is inherently unfair to Knockback. You'd be making those Powers pay for their "base" and their "something extra effect" (in this case, Knockback) and then PAY AGAIN to be able to decline the use of their "something extra effect" (in this case, converting Knockback to Knockdown on demand). No other effect has to "pay twice" or suffer a penalty comparable to this, making such a formulation inherently discriminatory and unfair to Knockback.

Ah, thanks for the info.

The only thing you'd be paying for the knockback is not having something else instead of knockback. And apparently having knockback switchable is more valuable to you (and to me, and to a lot of other people who have expressed a desire to have knockback be switchable) than having knockback not switchable. If we assume that unswitchable knockback was properly balanced in COH, the only question remaining is how much more valuable switchable knockback is, so that it can be balanced properly. A bit less damage seems about right to me. A lot less damage (say, about half of what you'd get from a decent damage boost/enhancement), I could live with. One/sixth of the total enhancements available to the power seems to be too much to me.

So far, knockback and the old style fear effects (that made the enemy run away, that Lin Chiao Feng mentioned)are the only effects I've heard of from CoX that people had problems with, and they were in essence the same problem: unwanted scattering of foes. If you can think of any other effects that people might want to make switchable, I'm in favor of making them switchable also, and then balanced.

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

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Foradain ... why are you hung

Foradain ... why are you hung up on the notion that Knockback MUST PAY IN DAMAGE? All you're doing with that is baking in a bias against Knockback into the very core of the game mechanics when you do that. The "value" of being able to clamp Knockback into being Knockdown on demand is purely positional/tactical.

To put an even more obvious point on this ... you're insisting that Knockback MUST BE DAMAGE NERFED if it is to be Team Friendly. Name one other effect carried over from City of Heroes you would make the same argument for. Not only do I suspect you won't be able to, I strongly recommend you do not even try. Furthermore, it's interesting that you aren't making the inverse case instead, where clamped Knockback to Knockdown is the "baseline norm" for damage performance, and therefore when Knockback isn't being clamped to be Knockdown only the damage potential of Knockback Powers should be higher than normal in order to "compensate" for the inconvenience factor imposed on Team Play. Again, I consider this angle of having damage differentials conditional on whether Knockback is being clamped into being Knockdown (or not) as fundamentally flawed in its premise from a Game Balance Imperatives standpoint ... for the simple fact that if you do impose such a PAY FOR type penalty, you're just going to be pushing the Min/Max crowd towards a "best damage" answer that invalidates a very substantial part of the entire exercise. Because we can all agree that so long as there is a situation of "Option A does more Damage than Option B" you're going to have a massive migration piling onto Option A because (duh) ... MOAR Damage!

Imposing any kind of Cost Penalty onto a Knockback Modifier Switch most definitely WOULD force a perception that Knockback should only be used one way ... the most Damaging way ... in all situations and circumstances, and thus be very dramatically counterproductive in a variety of ways, both social and game mechanical.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Seems like the idea should be...
Super Strength Punch of OMGness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to pull your punch and do no KB and less damage for pulling you punch.
Super Gust of Finger of Godness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to lighten the wind to ruffle the targets hair and do less damage.
Seems like it would satisfy everyone. You have a power that does KB, you use the power in such a way to do less KB, you'd basically be doing less damage of that type of attack.

Basically what I suggested.

I think everyone agrees that a super-hero game should have knock-back, in some form or other, right? And I think it makes sense that a super-powerful attack will displace an object if it doesn't have sufficient mass, right? I certainly see the utility of being able to turn it on and off at will....wait, what was that word? Utility. That's it! That's what I was trying to get at.

I don't mind that somebody wants to have extra control over an ability. Makes some sense to me, in fact. But I think it's fair, from a game balance standpoint, that if you're asking for more utility (in this case greater tactical control), you trade something else for it. It just makes sense that damage is the thing you trade. Because you're pulling the attack, see? I don't see it as giving up something for nothing, or paying a tax, or whatever.

Now, slotting negative KB into a second build lessens the moment-to-moment tactical control. So maybe, if that's the solution, you don't lose as much. I dunno. That's a mechanical tweak. And I don't really care either way. I will continue to be as polite and helpful a teammate as I can be. If someone doesn't know how to use their powers, I'll try and gently educate them. And I will call out bullies when I see them. Always have. In game and IRL. If enough of us do the same we'll all get what we really want, anyway.

And I think that's gonna be my final word on this subject. We've reached a point where we have stopped making suggestions to the development team, and started arguing as if their's something to win. I think both camps have sufficiently established their positions and made their arguments. It's just repetition and spin and who can quote the other guy's failures in debate.

Up to the Devs. What I hope is, after they pick a way to handle this (or not), that once one side or the other's dire predictions come true, they'll respond with a way to handle that, too.

Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Brand X wrote:
Brand X wrote:

Seems like the idea should be...
Super Strength Punch of OMGness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to pull your punch and do no KB and less damage for pulling you punch.
Super Gust of Finger of Godness: Does it do KB? Yes. Don't want to do KB? Yes. You get the option to lighten the wind to ruffle the targets hair and do less damage.
Seems like it would satisfy everyone. You have a power that does KB, you use the power in such a way to do less KB, you'd basically be doing less damage of that type of attack.

Or I can use my uber strength of godliness, strike downwards and turn the same damage into KD. See how that works? Why do I have to sacrifice damage for effect?

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Imposing any kind of Cost Penalty onto a Knockback Modifier Switch most definitely WOULD force a perception that Knockback should only be used one way ... the most Damaging way ... in all situations and circumstances, and thus be very dramatically counterproductive in a variety of ways, both social and game mechanical.

If there were an option to switch between the two, this could be interesting if knockback would do additional damage when the target is knocked into a barrier. That would provide knockback with the potential for extra damage while knockup/down does not benefit from this potential. In any teaming situation in which a player would switch to knockup/down, it is safe to assume that the team is almost certainly doing more damage than the additional damage from knockback could match. Thus KU/KD will remain the go-to choice and thus the requirement.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
The problem with reflecting

The problem with reflecting damage off of an obstacle, such as with Knock-back, is that one then has to sense and calculate the surface of every obstacle. That's one more stream of data on our server-connection... for Each nearby object... and force-vectors for Each player in proximity to those objects.

That sort of calculation can work in a single-player game that runs on a single computer, since there's no lag.

I got called out for a similar suggestion regarding AoE attacks reflecting off of walls and focusing damage on nearby enemies. So I'm just passing the issue along.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Gangrel
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 2 days ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/15/2013 - 15:14
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

The problem with reflecting damage off of an obstacle, such as with Knock-back, is that one then has to sense and calculate the surface of every obstacle. That's one more stream of data on our server-connection... for Each nearby object... and force-vectors for Each player in proximity to those objects.
That sort of calculation can work in a single-player game that runs on a single computer, since there's no lag.
I got called out for a similar suggestion regarding AoE attacks reflecting off of walls and focusing damage on nearby enemies. So I'm just passing the issue along.
Be Well!
Fireheart

However, even in CoX, mobs could be subject to falling damage, just the same as players

Quote:

1) I reject your reality.... and substitute my own
2) Not to be used when upset... will void warranty
3) Stoke me a clipper i will be back for dinner
4) I have seen more intelligence from an NPC AI in TR beta, than from most MMO players.

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Gangrel wrote:
Gangrel wrote:

However, even in CoX, mobs could be subject to falling damage, just the same as players

It be nice if indoors, KnockUp+++ (small, medium, large... or short, medium, long) would hit the Ceiling for additional damage. ;)

Bellerophon
Bellerophon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 08:33
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Foradain ... why are you hung up on the notion that Knockback MUST PAY IN DAMAGE? All you're doing with that is baking in a bias against Knockback into the very core of the game mechanics when you do that. The "value" of being able to clamp Knockback into being Knockdown on demand is purely positional/tactical.

Because if the knockback is an undesirable part of a power, and you're removing the adverse effect from the power, there must be some balance to offset that. By having a toggle/additional-click/etc to turn off KB on demand, you're basically asking for a way for a power to become stronger on demand with no payment made.

A -KB enhancement (or boost in this case, from what I'm seeing) slotted for that power would be payment enough. By turning off the effect that you find to be adverse, you're "paying" by removing the ability to slot some other form of boost in the power.

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Damn you Izzy ... now you

Damn you Izzy ... now you have me thinking ... {wave puny widdle fists}

The way that City of Heroes worked, Damage was essentially "done" either by Powers (see City of Data) or done as a result of an environmental factor (such as Falling Damage). That was basically the way that the game engine was "cooked" for handling these things.

At some level, however, the game engine needs to determine that for a Knock Effect (back/up/down) there needs to be a certain distance traveled. A game like pen and paper Champions handles this by determining "game inches" (a standard measurement) of Knockback that accrues to the Target and then hurls them "thataway" towards whatever might be downrange. I see no reason why the City of Titans game engine, using Unreal, would not be capable of creating a similar determinant for how much Knock Distance is generated by Powers (in City of Heroes parlance, the Knockback Mag). The important thing I'm getting at here is that an attack that does Knockback needs to generate a Vector for that Knockback to go in. That vector then gets used to calculate the next bit.

If the Knockback vector does not intesect/intercept any obstacles ... be they Terrain, Destructible Objects/Terrain, Foe NPCs(?) or whatever ... the Target affected by Knockback goes sailing through the air (because they didn't hit anything) and they have to pick themselves up from wherever they land. So far so good, and still standard City of Heroes game mechanics and effects modeling.

If however the Knockback vector DOES intersect/intercept an obstacle, causing an impact ... this would be where the potential for additional damage would come from. Now in this case, the simplest way to handle this sort of thing would be to borrow coding from whatever coding City of Titans uses for Falling Damage, such that the size of the Knockback vector, minus the distance already traveled, counts as if the target had "fallen" that amount of Knock distance remaining before hitting Terrain, thereby generating an additional source of damage that would be situationally determined. This would mean that a large Knockback vector that can only "throw" the Target a short distance before hitting an obstacle (such as a wall or the ground) will generate a larger amount of additional damage (due to "Knockus Interruptus" so to speak) than that same large Knockback vector "throwing" a Target a long way before hitting an obstacle (because most of the Knockback vector was used for movement and not "resisted" by an impact).

To put some numbers onto this idea for illustration of principle purposes, say we're using the City of Heroes Mag system (because people are familiar with it so it makes a good point of reference) and suppose that Knockback Mag 1 = 1 ft of Knockback vector distance. The conversion ratio for City of Heroes was never nailed down through testing for real, but I'm just setting up a thought experiment here for illustration purposes so work with me here.

Now let's say that my hero attacks a Foe NPC that is standing (foolishly) 1 ft away from a wall and I manage to hit that NPC so as to slam him squarely into that wall with a Mag 4 Knockback attack. What happens?

The NPC flies the 1 ft between him and the wall, leaving Mag 3 = 3 ft of Knockback vector remaining when the Foe NPC slams into the wall and can't be moved any further because the wall is indestructible (it's permanent terrain). The Foe NPC takes extra "falling" damage to the tune of 3 ft of falling distance (which is basically nothing at all).

Now suppose my hero attacks a Foe NPC that is standing 10 ft away from a wall and I manage to hit that NPC so as to slam him squarely into that wall with a Mag 50 Knockback attack. FORE!!!! What happens?

The NPC flies the 10 ft between him and the wall, leaving Mag 40 = 40 ft of Knockback vector remaining when the Foe NPC slams into the wall and can't be moved any further (still indestructible). The Foe NPC takes extra "falling" damage to the tune of 40 ft of falling distance (which might actually "plink" him for a little extra damage).

Now, things would no doubt be a little more complicated than that in actual practice, since the Knockback vector would have to contain X, Y and Z axis vector components to it, and any impacts that created falling damage results would be computed off the inability to "complete" the vector travel requirements when impacting obstacles, such that Knockback into obstacles at an angle is less effective than doing so squarely (because the target might "slide" along obstacle) and so on and so forth ... but that's all math that the computer should have no great difficulty in managing. There are of course other ways to handle this, such as basing the "falling" damage dealt on change in velocity (delta V for our physics and engineering types) rather than on any kind of distance calculation, so there are ways to finesse this ... but the basic point I'm getting at could still be valid. Being Knocked into obstacles could be set up to generate "falling" damage as an additional bonus damage source for Knockback, thereby encouraging and rewarding the use of Knockback in tactical ways that make use of the environment.

Now, what makes this interesting from a game mechanics and game balance standpoint is ... if there's any kind of Knockback clamped to Knockdown on demand modifier going on, that potential for extra damage when Knocking into obstacles is ... foregone ... since Knockdown wouldn't have a large enough Knock vector to register any kind of "falling" damage production.

Now the reason why I'd be willing to sign off on something like THAT is because ultimately such a tradeoff isn't "baked into the Power itself" as it were. Instead, such a tradeoff would be a result of how the Knockback game mechanics situationally could result in extra damage being added but were not in any way guaranteed or "native" to the Knockback Powers themselves. Do you see what I'm getting at? This is a subtle but very important distinction, because it means that even though use of a +Keybind to suppress Knockback would also remove the opportunity for extra damage due to Knockback into obstacles, it would also be perfectly possible for the circumstances in which a Knockback Power gets used to have no convenient obstacles nearby to Knockback a Target into, meaning that use of the Knockback to Knockdown override would not result in a loss of damage throughput. Thus, extra damage due to Knockback would be a situational "tactical opportunity" thing that rewards clever Players and skillful gameplay, and Nice To Have when you can get it ... but at the same time it isn't something that is fundamentally an integral component of the Powers themselves and therefore a part of the "assumed" baseline performance, meaning that Knockback doesn't have to "pay" for its versatility of modes thanks to the +Keybind optional modifier.

THAT would be something I could get behind for Knockback without difficulty ... however such a system requires a level of end-to-end integration which I'm not sure that the City of Titans Tech Team have committed themselves to yet.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Comicsluvr
Comicsluvr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/07/2013 - 03:39
Bell, you're assuming that KB

Bell, you're assuming that KB is considered to be an adverse effect. THAT'S the bias we're working against here. Why should KB be any more an adverse side effect than Slow for cold powers or DoT for fire powers? If all of the sets are balanced, then why single out the KB set?

I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...

Lord Nightmare
Lord Nightmare's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 15:44
I do hope the CoT Equivalent

I do hope the CoT Equivalent of Energy Blast has it's glorious knocks... otherwise, the Nightmare will make a fuss of it.

THE NIGHTMARE HAS SPOKEN!

Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...

Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain

Bellerophon
Bellerophon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 08:33
Comicsluvr wrote:
Comicsluvr wrote:

Bell, you're assuming that KB is considered to be an adverse effect. THAT'S the bias we're working against here. Why should KB be any more an adverse side effect than Slow for cold powers or DoT for fire powers? If all of the sets are balanced, then why single out the KB set?

Actually, I'm not assuming that KB is an adverse effect. If you're advocating to be able to turn KB off on-demand, then YOU are saying that it's an adverse effect at the time that you're turning it off, otherwise, why would you turn it off at all?

I agree that KB is very situational. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes, it's a hinderance. If you want to be able to leave it in place for the times that you want it to happen, there needs to be some balance when you disable it for the times that you don't want it to happen.

JayBezz
JayBezz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 8 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/08/2013 - 14:54
Fireheart wrote:
Fireheart wrote:

The problem with reflecting damage off of an obstacle, such as with Knock-back, is that one then has to sense and calculate the surface of every obstacle. That's one more stream of data on our server-connection... for Each nearby object... and force-vectors for Each player in proximity to those objects.
That sort of calculation can work in a single-player game that runs on a single computer, since there's no lag.
I got called out for a similar suggestion regarding AoE attacks reflecting off of walls and focusing damage on nearby enemies. So I'm just passing the issue along.
Be Well!
Fireheart

Not a problem. Thank you Unreal Engine

Crowd Control Enthusiast

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 18 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Bellerophon wrote:
Bellerophon wrote:

Actually, I'm not assuming that KB is an adverse effect. If you're advocating to be able to turn KB off on-demand, then YOU are saying that it's an adverse effect at the time that you're turning it off, otherwise, why would you turn it off at all?
I agree that KB is very situational. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes, it's a hinderance. If you want to be able to leave it in place for the times that you want it to happen, there needs to be some balance when you disable it for the times that you don't want it to happen.

Actually, Bellerophon, you're assuming that the "balance point" for Knockback has to be either it's ON or its OFF state. I prefer to think of the "balance point" for Knockback being an assumption of 50% ON / 50% OFF ... ie. right down the middle of the ON/OFF consideration ... such that there is no need (or call for) making Knockback PAY for being Team Friendly at the Player's discretion, on demand.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Bellerophon
Bellerophon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 08:33
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Bellerophon wrote:
Actually, I'm not assuming that KB is an adverse effect. If you're advocating to be able to turn KB off on-demand, then YOU are saying that it's an adverse effect at the time that you're turning it off, otherwise, why would you turn it off at all?
I agree that KB is very situational. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes, it's a hinderance. If you want to be able to leave it in place for the times that you want it to happen, there needs to be some balance when you disable it for the times that you don't want it to happen.

Actually, Bellerophon, you're assuming that the "balance point" for Knockback has to be either it's ON or its OFF state. I prefer to think of the "balance point" for Knockback being an assumption of 50% ON / 50% OFF ... ie. right down the middle of the ON/OFF consideration ... such that there is no need (or call for) making Knockback PAY for being Team Friendly at the Player's discretion, on demand.

The other thing I was thinking of then would be that powers that have the KB option would need to have a lower base damage than similar powers without the KB option. You gain the flexibility to either have or not have KB as fits your current situation, you pay in that you only do 90 pts of damage instead of 100.

Bellerophon
Bellerophon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/02/2013 - 08:33
Bellerophon wrote:
Bellerophon wrote:

Redlynne wrote:
Bellerophon wrote:
Actually, I'm not assuming that KB is an adverse effect. If you're advocating to be able to turn KB off on-demand, then YOU are saying that it's an adverse effect at the time that you're turning it off, otherwise, why would you turn it off at all?
I agree that KB is very situational. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes, it's a hinderance. If you want to be able to leave it in place for the times that you want it to happen, there needs to be some balance when you disable it for the times that you don't want it to happen.

Actually, Bellerophon, you're assuming that the "balance point" for Knockback has to be either it's ON or its OFF state. I prefer to think of the "balance point" for Knockback being an assumption of 50% ON / 50% OFF ... ie. right down the middle of the ON/OFF consideration ... such that there is no need (or call for) making Knockback PAY for being Team Friendly at the Player's discretion, on demand.

The other thing I was thinking of then would be that powers that have the KB option would need to have a lower base damage than similar powers without the KB option. You gain the flexibility to either have or not have KB as fits your current situation, you pay in that you only do 90 pts of damage instead of 100.

Alternately, other aspects of the power could be made more "expensive" in terms of being less accurate or longer recharge or more END-intensive.

Pages