-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Resolve - It's not broken, it just doesn't work the way people think!
Dyngrin replied to magi_melcior's topic in PvP
This. ^ The current design of resolve is simple? No, it is kludgy. This is how it should work and is truely simple: When targeted by ANY form of CC a player will gain resolve. Once their resolve bar is full they will IMMEDIATELY be immune/free from ANY CC until their resolve bar empties. This is how it currently works and is hardly simple (note all the footnotes typical of a kludgy system): When targeted by SOME forms of CC[1] a player will gain resolve. Once their resolve bar is full[2] they will EVENTUALLY be immune/free[3][4] from SOME CC[1] until their resolve bar empties. [1] Snares and roots are not considered CC for resolve purposes. [2] The resolve bar may not actually represent how much resolve you have when full. It may be over full from the last CC so it doesn't empty while under its effects. [3] The last CC effect will last its full duration despite having a full resolve bar and CC immunity. [4] CC Immunity is lost upon death so you must live past the last CC to benefit at all from it. -
Kludgy has been a word used for decades by developers (such as myself) to describe 'inelegant' design or code. Look it up. I'm agreeing with the OP of a post entitled 'Resolve Needs To Be Redesigned.' So of course I'm posting I don't like the design, but I do think it can be simply and greatly improved because the concept is great. I should be using my CC breaker when I must break CC, such as when I'm about to die while CCed or rooted in a trap, or to prevent a cap. I shouldn't be forced to use it to possibly benefit from a poor mechanic meant to replace CC DR. Resolve immunity should supplement the CC Breaker. As it is now, you often die by saving your CC breaker in an attempt to get resolve immunity. That is a poor system.
-
The concept of the Resolve Bar is great, but Bioware's design/implementation is poor and kludgy for these reasons: 1. When the Resolve Bar is full, more often than not, you are actually under the effects of the CC that filled the bar rather than IMMEDIATELY FREE OF AND IMMUNE TO CC. 2. The Resolve Bar doesn't actually reflect your total resolve when full (you may have more resolve than the bar shows). The kludgy design of over fill is because the last CC which 'filled' the bar is actually applied (a bad design which favors the attacker), so it must be factored in the time it takes for resolve to fade. 3. Root doesn't contribute even a small amount of resolve (and there is no resolve immunity to it) even though being rooted is the cause of death almost as often as stun (especially in Huttball with its traps). Complete loss of movement is a form of loss of control, and thus root is CC no matter what Bioware may think. With only a few changes (and adjusting resolve immunity duration as needed), the Resolve Bar could be made simpler and predictable, and would no longer need the countless posts either explaining how it works or defending its current implementation (not a trait of an elegant system).
-
No. What I said was correct. A match will end immediately after any one of the six objectives (which includes either bridge) are accomplished by the second attacking team when it is as far as the first attacking team made it. The time limit the second team has to do so is how long it took the first attacking team to do it (even if they got all six including the core).
-
This. The mistake a lot of posters are making is comparing time remaining from the first round with the second round. You can't do that since the time limits are different for the two rounds (time remaining = time limit - time duration). In other words, the second attacker has to get to the farthest objective of the first attacker (which includes the bridge and anything that gets a point) before their time limit expires. This seems fair to me.
-
The OP has made important and valid points. Only players who have played a Sage in a lot of warzones (especially recently) would understand what it's like to constantly play as scissors against many oversized rocks.
-
Resolve seriously needs to be fixed and addressed in the next huge patch.
Dyngrin replied to Individual's topic in PvP
Resolve may not be broken and may be working according to design, but that design is poor for these reasons: 1. The resolve bar can be full and yet you can still be in a stunned or mezzed state. As soon as the resolve bar fills you should have full control over your char for resolve's duration. So the CC that fills the resolve bar should actually help you by giving you CC immunity and not CC you as it does now. In short, the resolve bar should be a GUARANTEED CC IMMUNITY indicator the instant it is filled. 2. A full resolve bar does not make you immune to snares and roots (lesser forms of CC but still CC). A full resolve bar should make you immune to ALL FORMS OF CC, even if snares and roots still don't contribute to filling the resolve bar (debatable). So again, the resolve bar should be a GUARANTEED CC IMMUNITY indicator. If the resolve bar actually worked like it should with true CC immunity (see above), then the resolve duration could be tweaked for the right balance between CC and CC immunity. --Dyn -
The OP's statistics, though useful, do not identify those DPS class specs which are killing machines and those which are not. In an MMO, there are 3 attributes of a killing class: 1. Single Target Damage (especially burst or stackable) 2. Crowd Control (especially stun) 3. Close to Target (ability to get in damage range) A classic example of an overpowered killing class is the venerable stun, nuke, nuke from range class. It has high burst damage, can stun the target long enough to kill it, and can do it easily from range. Overall damage is not what makes the class overpowered. To illustrate that all of the above has to be considered, simply imagine any SWTOR class be given a 1 minute stun. Their average damage would barely change, but their contribution to kills (and wins) would skyrocket. The class would now be an overpowered killing machine. So what statistics are needed? One that comes to mind is as follows: Determine the average damage done by each class in the FINAL 10 SECONDS before each kill/death. I suspect that with such a damage-to-kill stat we would see a wide spread among the DPS classes, and thus show true disparity among those classes.
-
1.2 owes me 2000 Warzone Commendations and I want them back
Dyngrin replied to Lord_Ravenhurst's topic in PvP
I'm amazed that anyone disagrees with the rationale of the OP, which is quite simple: Merc comms were more valuable than WZ comms prior to 1.20. Merc comms are now of equal value to WZ comms after 1.20. One has to wonder what was Bioware's 'reasoning' for devaluing Merc comms when many players had them at the time of the patch (usually to convert WZ comms before the moronic 1,000 cap pre 1.20). Was it just an arbitrary decision with no basis on logic or fairness? -
Any competitive game should REWARD the winners and NOT PENALIZE the losers. Where would pro sports be if the losing team/player wasn't paid? Any active time spent in an MMO should be compensated in some way, and this includes time spent in warzones. At a minimum, this is usually exp and credits before level cap and more credits after level cap. So IMO, the warzone compensation and reward system should be as follows: REWARD = SALARY (compensation for playing) + VICTORY REWARD (for winning only) + PERSONAL REWARD (for performance stats/medals) Salary - Anyone in a warzone at its end would get a Salary of exp and credits (no exp but more credits if level 50). For all players, the Salary would be based on time spent in the warzone at its end, so most players would get the same Salary. But even a late joiner would get a small Salary and this would encourage late joining to replace players that leave/drop (who would get no Salary). Victory Reward - All players on the winning team at a warzone's end would get a flat Victory Reward, regardless of the score (a blowout score does not necessarily mean exceptional or challenging play). The Victory Reward would include valor and comms and would be the same for all players on the winning team. Personal Reward - All players with at least one medal at a warzone's end would get a Personal Reward. The Personal Reward would include valor and comms and would be based on the number of medals the player was awarded. The above common sense approach ensures the following: Any player who stays to the end of a warzone will at least get something for their time. Any player who leaves before the end of a warzone will get nothing. Players who perform well on the winning team will get the greatest rewards. Players who perform well, even if on the losing team, will get good rewards. It's good to hear BW is looking at their current design and hopefully they will make changes that reward the winners without penalizing the losers, and won't overemphasize the score. Also, a separate mechanic is needed to penalize AFK players (such as a deserter flag driven by in-warzone voting to boot team players) and should not be part of the reward system.
-
Any competitive game should REWARD the winners and NOT PENALIZE the losers. Where would pro sports be if the losing team/player wasn't paid? Any active time spent in an MMO should be compensated in some way, and this includes time spent in warzones. At a minimum, this is usually exp and credits before level cap and more credits after level cap. So IMO, the warzone compensation and reward system should be as follows: REWARD = SALARY (compensation for playing) + VICTORY REWARD (for winning only) + PERSONAL REWARD (for performance stats/medals) Salary - Anyone in a warzone at its end would get a Salary of exp and credits (no exp but more credits if level 50). For all players, the Salary would be based on time spent in the warzone at its end, so most players would get the same Salary. But even a late joiner would get a small Salary and this would encourage late joining to replace players that leave/drop (who would get no Salary). Victory Reward - All players on the winning team at a warzone's end would get a flat Victory Reward, regardless of the score (a blowout score does not necessarily mean exceptional or challenging play). The Victory Reward would include valor and comms and would be the same for all players on the winning team. Personal Reward - All players with at least one medal at a warzone's end would get a Personal Reward. The Personal Reward would include valor and comms and would be based on the number of medals the player was awarded. The above common sense approach ensures the following: Any player who stays to the end of a warzone will at least get something for their trouble. Any player who leaves before the end of a warzone will get nothing. Players who perform well on the winning team will get the greatest rewards. Players who perform well, even if on the losing team, will get good rewards.
-
Is the current resolve system working as designed? Perhaps. Does the current resolve system have a major problem? Absolutely. The problem is that when your resolve bar is full, you should never be under any stun or mez CC effect, you should be free to move and act. It is ridiculous that your resolve bar can be full and you can still be under CC for x seconds based on the last CC which filled the bar. IMO, that defeats the best part of the design, an indicator for both the CCer and CC'd for CC immunity. The resolve bar should represent CC immunity at all times and currently it does not, and that is bad CC and interface design. A simple change would make any applied single CC effect gradually add to resolve (not instantly as it does now), and once resolve is full you would have immunity immediately and thus be cleared of CC. Of course, those then casting CC of any duration when you are close to a full bar would not see the full duration, but what is wrong with that? With this simple change, the resolve bar filling would represent the time you are under a CC effect, just as the resolve bar full/fading would now accurately represent the time you are under CC immunity.
-
Is the current resolve system working as designed? Perhaps. Does the current resolve system have a major problem? Absolutely. The problem is that when your resolve bar is full, you should never be under any stun or mez CC effect, you should be free to move and act. It is ridiculous that your resolve bar can be full and you can still be under CC for x seconds based on the last CC which filled the bar. IMO, that defeats the best part of the design, an indicator for both the CCer and CC'd for CC immunity. The resolve bar should represent CC immunity at all times and currently it does not, and that is bad CC and interface design. A simple change would make any applied single CC effect gradually add to resolve (not instantly as it does now), and once resolve is full you would have immunity immediately and thus be cleared of CC. Of course, those then casting CC of any duration when you are close to a full bar will not see the full duration, but what is wrong with that? With this simple change, the resolve bar filling would represent the time you are under a CC effect, just as the resolve bar full/fading would now accurately represent the time you are under CC immunity.
-
Perhaps it's time to begin in-game polling. After all, how else is EA/Bioware really going to know the majority opinion of their SWTOR player base? A prefer restrictions or prefer no restrictions poll would be a good start since Bioware seems undecided on the issue and is guessing at their customer's preference. More in-game polls could be used as feedback for other present and future design decisions as well (so long as they are not too frequent and become annoying). --Master Dyn
-
Well, some of the definitions of immobilized on Websters Online are as follows: 6. To have paralysed or paralyzed and 2. Make defenseless. which I take as a stun, though by other definitions it could mean root. Bioware should just use the same terms as previous MMOs in its descriptions such as mez, stun, root, snare, etc. --Master Dyn