202 réponses à ce sujet

[Matthew Young CT]

why should you be able to CC a boss exactly?

[Hyunsai]

themaxzero wrote...


Well after installing 1.02 I ended up doing Werewolf quest. Got to the final fight and was fighting Tuvok so I do the usual FF on boss, kill minions, standard stuff.

Imagine my surprise when after casting FF 5 seconds later Tuvok is out casting again. So I redo the fight a couple times with identical results. In the end I Glyph of Neutralisation Tuvok and tank him down.

I like that CC is a viable alternative to tank and spank. If I wanted CC to be useless and needing tanks and healers for every single fight i'll go load up WoW.

CC spells that don't CC are useless. May as well cast Fireball instead.

You're talking about a Boss, right ?

Bosses shouldn't be affected by CC like thrash mobs because they are, hmm, Bosses ???


Agree with Matthew, Bosses and (to a lesser extent) Elite should have immunity to this...

Modifié par Hyunsai, 08 décembre 2009 - 03:25 .

[Matthew Young CT]

nm should be hard elites and up should be immune and even lieutenants should have more resist to cc

[themaxzero]

Why? Does a Fireball do less damage against a boss then a white mob? Does armour block less damage depending on the rank of the enemy that hit it?

[Aesir Rising]

I don't like immunity. I prefer adjusting resists, AP, HP, and damage type mitigation. You make bosses "immune to CC" then you invalidate CC character builds. Why should a boss be invulnerable to crowd control?

[SheffSteel]

A lot of players only wanted Force Field so that they could use it to freeze bosses out of the fight while dealing with their minions. Considering that the only other really common use of the spell is essentially an exploit (making a warrior into an invincible minion magnet) I think it's a very poor design decision to say that the former tactic - the legitimate one - shouldn't be allowed.

[Matthew Young CT]

themaxzero wrote...


Why? Does a Fireball do less damage against a boss then a white mob?

if bosses don't have more resists than white mobs they should.

Does armour block less damage depending on the rank of the enemy that hit it?

i dont remember exactly, but rank has an effect on some calculations yes.

[Matthew Young CT]

Aesir Rising wrote...

I don't like immunity. I prefer adjusting resists, AP, HP, and damage type mitigation. You make bosses "immune to CC" then you invalidate CC character builds. Why should a boss be invulnerable to crowd control?

to make the game harder. DW mentioned the issue with doing this via resists. you cant do it via more hp etc because it doesnt solve the problem of stunlocking a boss.

[themaxzero]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

themaxzero wrote...


Why? Does a Fireball do less damage against a boss then a white mob?

if bosses don't have more resists than white mobs they should.

Does armour block less damage depending on the rank of the enemy that hit it?

i dont remember exactly, but rank has an effect on some calculations yes.

You eliminate CC and your back to the same old holy trinity: Tank, DPS, Heal.

After 20 years of the Holy trinity surely we can take off the training wheels and move on?

[Matthew Young CT]

its the holy trinity because it is immutable. cc simply reduces the enemies DPS to 0, nothing more.

[themaxzero]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

its the holy trinity because it is immutable. cc simply reduces the enemies DPS to 0, nothing more.

No CC replaces tanking. Its a form of damage mitigation. A good tank can make damage taken trival too, nerf tanks?

[Aesir Rising]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Aesir Rising wrote...

I don't like immunity. I prefer adjusting resists, AP, HP, and damage type mitigation. You make bosses "immune to CC" then you invalidate CC character builds. Why should a boss be invulnerable to crowd control?

to make the game harder. DW mentioned the issue with doing this via resists. you cant do it via more hp etc because it doesnt solve the problem of stunlocking a boss.

I mentioned my issue with resists, but given the choice of two evils, I would take increased resists over invulnerability to all CC.  Invuln to all CC can render certain builds unviable for that encounter, which I consider to be a worse issue than stunlocking a given encounter.  So, if we're negotiating, then we need to look at avoiding that.  So rather than an across-the-boards invulnerability to crowd control, start thinking more in terms of whether you can 'make the game harder' by giving selective resists or invulnerability to one specific type of crowd control.  For example, make Ogres highly resistant or invulnerable to knock down effects.  Or make dragons highly resistant or invulnerable to stuns based on mind-control (if we assume dragons are highly intelligent with strong wills, that would make sense in a story context without making an encounter suck for CC mages).

But if you're stuck on the idea of an across-the-boards invuln on all or most forms of CC, then I'll just say that I disagree and think it solves a problem by creating a bigger problem.

[DragoonKain3]

Bosses should still be affected by CC, but at significantly reduced effectiveness. This makes CC builds somewhat useful, but not entirely useless. This is one of my BIGGEST gripe in a lot of rpgs; status effect inflicting abilities/spells are practically useless in the majority because they have crap % to inflict it on normals, and totally worthless against bosses. I like DAO in that having these spells being of some use even when you go up against bosses.

Really now, you see your tank fail their physical resist check and got grabbed by a Dragon? Insta-glibbed in nightmare, no matter what their HP/armor is, and nothing you can do about it if CCs are useless against bosses.

And as far as I'm aware, instant-death is one of the most HATED mechanics in RPGs. C'mon people, know what the implications of what changes you are suggesting before putting it out as a knee-jerk reaction.





In any case, anyone tested if Cone of Cold/Crushing Prison runs on diminishing returns just like stuns do? See their insane durations was only part of the problem... the main problem back then was when you chain casted them with multiple mages to stunlock practically any enemy in the game. I know they addressed the former, but really its the latter that is more gamebreaking and was the one that needed a change.

[Jordi B]

SheffSteel wrote...

A lot of players only wanted Force Field so that they could use it to freeze bosses out of the fight while dealing with their minions. Considering that the only other really common use of the spell is essentially an exploit (making a warrior into an invincible minion magnet) I think it's a very poor design decision to say that the former tactic - the legitimate one - shouldn't be allowed.

I agree completely. Also, it should be possible to cast this on your allies if you want to protect them, without exploiting the AI. If they only nerfed the duration/cooldown for this (which was absolutely unnecessary and unwanted for me) and didn't deal with the real problem (FFed characters retaining aggro), I will be extremely disappointed.

[Matthew Young CT]

themaxzero wrote...

Matthew Young CT wrote...

its the holy trinity because it is immutable. cc simply reduces the enemies DPS to 0, nothing more.

No CC replaces tanking. Its a form of damage mitigation. A good tank can make damage taken trival too, nerf tanks?

tanking becomes superfulous when the enemies dps is 0, thats all.

and yes if there are bosses that cant hit a tank for example they need to nerf the tank or buff the boss.

[themaxzero]

DragoonKain3 wrote...

Bosses should still be affected by CC, but at significantly reduced effectiveness. This makes CC builds somewhat useful, but not entirely useless. This is one of my BIGGEST gripe in a lot of rpgs; status effect inflicting abilities/spells are practically useless in the majority because they have crap % to inflict it on normals, and totally worthless against bosses. I like DAO in that having these spells being of some use even when you go up against bosses.
Really now, you see your tank fail their physical resist check and got grabbed by a Dragon? Insta-glibbed in nightmare, no matter what their HP/armor is, and nothing you can do about it if CCs are useless against bosses.
And as far as I'm aware, instant-death is one of the most HATED mechanics in RPGs. C'mon people, know what the implications of what changes you are suggesting before putting it out as a knee-jerk reaction.


In any case, anyone tested if Cone of Cold/Crushing Prison runs on diminishing returns just like stuns do? See their insane durations was only part of the problem... the main problem back then was when you chain casted them with multiple mages to stunlock practically any enemy in the game. I know they addressed the former, but really its the latter that is more gamebreaking and was the one that needed a change.

I feel the exact same why. Almost all RPGs (and most MMOs) have this limitation as its old. What Bioware should of done is put on diminishing returns on CCs like in WoW.

Also CCs already have reduced durations in Hard and Nightmare.

[Matthew Young CT]

Aesir Rising wrote...
I mentioned my issue with resists, but given the choice of two evils, I would take increased resists over invulnerability to all CC.  Invuln to all CC can render certain builds unviable for that encounter, which I consider to be a worse issue than stunlocking a given encounter.

it wouldnt make a cc build useless, you would use the cc to take out the bosses minions. cc should not be the answer to every combat question.

So, if we're negotiating, then we need to look at avoiding that.  So rather than an across-the-boards invulnerability to crowd control, start thinking more in terms of whether you can 'make the game harder' by giving selective resists or invulnerability to one specific type of crowd control.  For example, make Ogres highly resistant or invulnerable to knock down effects.  Or make dragons highly resistant or invulnerable to stuns based on mind-control (if we assume dragons are highly intelligent with strong wills, that would make sense in a story context without making an encounter suck for CC mages).

fine do that on hard. on nm make them immune to all cc.

But if you're stuck on the idea of an across-the-boards invuln on all or most forms of CC, then I'll just say that I disagree and think it solves a problem by creating a bigger problem.

the only problem it creates is nerfing one dimensional builds.

the default for NM should be "does this make the game harder?". if the answer is yes, implement it. bio can stop doing this when nm is impossible.

[Matthew Young CT]

DragoonKain3 wrote...
In any case, anyone tested if Cone of Cold/Crushing Prison runs on diminishing returns just like stuns do? See their insane durations was only part of the problem... the main problem back then was when you chain casted them with multiple mages to stunlock practically any enemy in the game. I know they addressed the former, but really its the latter that is more gamebreaking and was the one that needed a change.

i remember something in the code that if a creature was recently stunned the next stun is less effective. this apparently needs to be made stronger

[DragoonKain3]

Again, FF wiping aggro is a very BAD idea. With a simple cleanse area/dispel magic, you essentially can cast 'Feign Death' on any party member every 30 seconds. Now instead of abusing it on the tank, you abuse it on a party members who got aggro to put it back on the tank. Don't know if they are equal level in terms of 'evil', but man, that should be pretty close considering Feign Death has a cooldown of 5 MINUTES.



Seriously, with CCs they should just run on diminishing returns. I mean, stuns already run on this diminishing returns formula... it should be rather trivial to apply this to paralysis/sleep if they haven't done so already, preventing stunlocking from chain casting these spells.

[Insect]

I'm rather surprised they didn't go the "if it's not a bug let user mods mess with it" route. Anyone who wanted a harder game will have the PC version anyway.

[themaxzero]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

Aesir Rising wrote...
I mentioned my issue with resists, but given the choice of two evils, I would take increased resists over invulnerability to all CC.  Invuln to all CC can render certain builds unviable for that encounter, which I consider to be a worse issue than stunlocking a given encounter.

it wouldnt make a cc build useless, you would use the cc to take out the bosses minions. cc should not be the answer to every combat question.

So, if we're negotiating, then we need to look at avoiding that.  So rather than an across-the-boards invulnerability to crowd control, start thinking more in terms of whether you can 'make the game harder' by giving selective resists or invulnerability to one specific type of crowd control.  For example, make Ogres highly resistant or invulnerable to knock down effects.  Or make dragons highly resistant or invulnerable to stuns based on mind-control (if we assume dragons are highly intelligent with strong wills, that would make sense in a story context without making an encounter suck for CC mages).

fine do that on hard. on nm make them immune to all cc.

But if you're stuck on the idea of an across-the-boards invuln on all or most forms of CC, then I'll just say that I disagree and think it solves a problem by creating a bigger problem.

the only problem it creates is nerfing one dimensional builds.

the default for NM should be "does this make the game harder?". if the answer is yes, implement it. bio can stop doing this when nm is impossible.

It does not make them NM harder it just forces you into narrower and narrower options. Instead of CC Mages you get Healer/support Mages.

Then we have managed to turn DA into WoW. Horray.

[Matthew Young CT]

ya its not a huge deal. im sure people will make horrifying nightmare mods. or maybe i'll stop being lazy and do it myself.



first item on the agenda would of course be giving all enemy mages mana clash

[Althernai]

Matthew Young CT wrote...

fair enough. give all colored enemies immunity to paralysis and other debilitators then:)

This is exactly what they were trying to avoid during development and I strongly agree with their philosophy. Abilities should work as advertised to some extent in practically all situations -- it's extremely annoying to take an ability which supposedly imposes Condition X on enemies only to discover that 90% of the enemies against which Condition X would actually be useful are outright immune to it. Resistant (e.g. greatly slow rather than hold) is OK, immune is generally bad design.

[Matthew Young CT]

every game devolves into a calculation of tank/dps/heal. its inevitable if you used a hitpoint based combat system. all combat in such a case is a matter of getting your opponents hp to 0 before he can get yours to 0.

[Matthew Young CT]

Althernai wrote...

Matthew Young CT wrote...

fair enough. give all colored enemies immunity to paralysis and other debilitators then:)

This is exactly what they were trying to avoid during development and I strongly agree with their philosophy. Abilities should work as advertised to some extent in practically all situations -- it's extremely annoying to take an ability which supposedly imposes Condition X on enemies only to discover that 90% of the enemies against which Condition X would actually be useful are outright immune to it. Resistant (e.g. greatly slow rather than hold) is OK, immune is generally bad design.

i should make clear im only talking about the harder difficulties here. i have no problem with cc working on bosses on normal. i just want nightmare to be, well, a nightmare.