[All] Positional Disrupt Strikethrough

[Ramasee]

Except for that one time that a certain guild was using 4 choppas on either side of our warband to literally rip our formation apart...

Anyways, can we have the original post edited with all of the major arguments posted with their supporting/opposing facts spoilered? This thread is starting to get crowded with people who haven't bothered to read and understand the 11 pages of posts.

[Koha]

willpower contribution to disrupt is high (too high ?)
apart from healers and tanks, disrupt is not an issue, is it really ? = 18% from RR at the cost of RR points + few percents from stuff, why negate the right to spect dirupt to melee ?
I don't think the positionnal solution will make caster enter the meta for Scens. It will only reinforce their PUG killer position.
We should better focus on the very reason why they're not in the meta :
for example BW/sorcs
1. Casting is hard at melee range
2. Resistances are even with WE/WH apart from parry (2weapon 10 % + tactic if slotted)
3. lack an aoe detaunt
4. sorc lack healdebuff
5. mobility is compensated by range, not an issue.
=> sustained damage is not reached at melee range.

[adamthelc]

I can't believe I read all of those posts and we are still unsure how to fix Disrupt.

It has always occurred to me that a Ranged DPS class should suffer some penalty for the RANGE they attack at. I know, silly of me to imagine actual physics in a world of elves and dragons and fireballs, but being a semi-professional long distance hole puncher trained by the very best Puerto Rican Drill instructor available in 1987, I know a thing or two about hitting a target at max range.

I have always believed that things like Disrupt and Dodge should diminish for a defender the closer the ranged attacker was.

Makes sense, right?

So why not allow for the disrupt changes to stay as is, and simply use the Ranged Check made at the cast of every RDPS attack to modify the Disrupt and Dodge rates? That is, if the game coding actually knows the difference between 100 feet and 50 feet and all the 10 foot increments between....

It makes sense that a caster, bowman, or tank with a throwing axe standing 50 feet away will more easily hit that target than the enemy standing 100 feet away. If the range check made upon casting actually notes the true distance at the time of casting, why couldn't we use that data to modify the disrupt rate?

90 -100 feet | No Change
80 - 90 Feet | -2% Dodge and Disrupt
70 - 80 Feet | -4% Dodge and Disrupt
60 - 70 Feet | -6% Dodge and Disrupt
50 - 60 Feet | -8% Dodge and Disrupt
40 - 50 Feet | -10% Dodge and Disrupt
30 - 40 Feet | -12% Dodge and Disrupt
20 - 30 Feet | -15% Dodge and Disrupt
10 - 20 Feet | -18% Dodge and Disrupt

In this way, you temper the "Ranged Advantage" with the risk-reward of closing the gap on your target for less disrupts and more damage while also ensuring that CC and spells hit when the RDPS is most threatened by Melee.

Those numbers are just numbers and actual percentages based upon some kind of wizardry would have to be figured out (I'm not good at math, but I can lift heavy objects so they keep me around) by someone with math skills, but it is what would make sense. At least to this old Army RDPSer.

I think its goofy when you try to apply logic and actual science when it comes to magic. How good the mechanics work is what really matters, the flavor is an afterthought.

To your actual proposal. You propose to incentivize ranged for playing closer. It's better than positioning, since it's something that is actually within the players control. Compare flanking to close quarters and you will see the original designers agreed with you on what should be a playstyle that gets rewarded for a specific archetype.

The only thing is, if something like that were implemented I doubt there would ever be consideration for any more disrupt relief. I say that not knowing if they even consider it now. Anyway point being would have to be sure it the right way to make casters work before doing it, but the idea has potential.

[Wdova]

I dont know.... How about just reverse the disrubt changes to original state insted of adding even more complex and probably even
more broken mechanics?

Unless i'm wrong (i can be wrong), disrupt formula has never been changed. But meanwhile lot of gear stats and renown abilities have changed disrupt perception.

As far as I know whole discussion about disrubt started when disrubt was applied not only on aplication but on every tick of dots. Thats why the whole whine train just started.

It depends what we want to solve.

Is disrubt chance too high?
Is strikethru chance too high?

We have healers with base high disrubt rate thanks to willpower and tanks with hold the line which provide aditional disrubt + some of disrubt equipments. On other hand we have casters with capped intel, skills which bypas disrubt completely and endgame gear which give strike thru percentage up to 10% or so(maybe even more in summary?: Genesis 3%, beastlord 5% 5p bonus, conq gloves 2% conq helm 2% so its 12% in total)

To be honest I dont see any major issue here.

[Tesq]

I dont know.... How about just reverse the disrubt changes to original state insted of adding even more complex and probably even
more broken mechanics?

Unless i'm wrong (i can be wrong), disrupt formula has never been changed. But meanwhile lot of gear stats and renown abilities have changed disrupt perception.

As far as I know whole discussion about disrubt started when disrubt was applied not only on aplication but on every tick of dots. Thats why the whole whine train just started.

It depends what we want to solve.

Is disrubt chance too high?
Is strikethru chance too high?

We have healers with base high disrubt rate thanks to willpower and tanks with hold the line which provide aditional disrubt + some of disrubt equipments. On other hand we have casters with capped intel, skills which bypas disrubt completely and endgame gear which give strike thru percentage up to 10% or so(maybe even more in summary?: Genesis 3%, beastlord 5% 5p bonus, conq gloves 2% conq helm 2% so its 12% in total)

To be honest I dont see any major issue here.

hold the line is a problem in sc and the whole reason healers get so much contribution from willpower....

hold the line work on 9 ppl atm which mean cover 1/3 of the wb, healers being in the backline are cut out from hold the line and so they needed a self defense stats. This happened even whan aoe had no cap.

so in rvr this is not a problem by number of things going on and but flat numbers of ppl which gona steal each other the hold the line stacks.

in sc the sich is quite different, 4 tanks in sc can cover almost all ppl inside the sc, and this stack with healers willpower profency too.

the disrupt striketrought from behind can potentially be a wrongly nerf to classes which dont need it. Basically a general buff to magic rdps with out keep account any pratical issue and even not a good one as it will results in just a buff into rvr and rarely a buff into small scale. Since rvr is about numbers and positional fights, the chance that you get flank are a lot more in rvr than in sc especially when just not give the back to 2 ppl is easier to counter than move away from a mess into rvr

again make hold the line requiring more stacks so it get nerfed only in sc and make diruopt gain from willp cut half.

the scales justify this nerf to willp as the potential disrupt achiveable by healers is higer than tanks and this is the red allert for balance , when an archtype can be more tanky that the supposed tank archtype there is a problem, dosent matter if in 1 field only; tanks are tanks and suppose to remain so, healers are heling ppl and suppose to remain so by all mean and not surpass tanks disrupt chance. Whern both have access to hold the line and + DD from renown but healers get on top of it willpower it escalate pretty quick into 80% disrupt, make 90% with conqueror proc.

so a 80/90% disrupt dok/wp vs a 60/70% disrupt on tanks; these are in game values....

both dodge/disrupt work 360 degre; thay cant have the same contr from stats as 18'0 degree defenses.(parry/block).

then there is another problem which was said by @road somewhere; when we had the 1.4.0 renown rewamp , tanks blocks was nerfed and dodge/disrupt from renown buffed; eh that was a bad move, because moved the defense towards a reachable point from more classes while it was more a tanks core things before.

[lefze]

Unless i'm wrong (i can be wrong), disrupt formula has never been changed. But meanwhile lot of gear stats and renown abilities have changed disrupt perception.

As far as I know whole discussion about disrubt started when disrubt was applied not only on aplication but on every tick of dots. Thats why the whole whine train just started.

It depends what we want to solve.

Is disrubt chance too high?
Is strikethru chance too high?

We have healers with base high disrubt rate thanks to willpower and tanks with hold the line which provide aditional disrubt + some of disrubt equipments. On other hand we have casters with capped intel, skills which bypas disrubt completely and endgame gear which give strike thru percentage up to 10% or so(maybe even more in summary?: Genesis 3%, beastlord 5% 5p bonus, conq gloves 2% conq helm 2% so its 12% in total)

To be honest I dont see any major issue here.

hold the line is a problem in sc and the whole reason healers get so much contribution from willpower....

hold the line work on 9 ppl atm which mean cover 1/3 of the wb, healers being in the backline are cut out from hold the line and so they needed a self defense stats. This happened even whan aoe had no cap.

so in rvr this is not a problem by number of things going on and but flat numbers of ppl which gona steal each other the hold the line stacks.

in sc the sich is quite different, 4 tanks in sc can cover almost all ppl inside the sc, and this stack with healers willpower profency too.

the disrupt striketrought from behind can potentially be a wrongly nerf to classes which dont need it. Basically a general buff to magic rdps with out keep account any pratical issue and even not a good one as it will results in just a buff into rvr and rarely a buff into small scale. Since rvr is about numbers and positional fights, the chance that you get flank are a lot more in rvr than in sc especially when just not give the back to 2 ppl is easier to counter than move away from a mess into rvr

again make hold the line requiring more stacks so it get nerfed only in sc and make diruopt gain from willp cut half.

the scales justify this nerf to willp as the potential disrupt achiveable by healers is higer than tanks and this is the red allert for balance , when an archtype can be more tanky that the supposed tank archtype there is a problem, dosent matter if in 1 field only; tanks are tanks and suppose to remain so, healers are heling ppl and suppose to remain so by all mean and not surpass tanks disrupt chance. Whern both have access to hold the line and + DD from renown but healers get on top of it willpower it escalate pretty quick into 80% disrupt, make 90% with conqueror proc.

so a 80/90% disrupt dok/wp vs a 60/70% disrupt on tanks; these are in game values....

both dodge/disrupt work 360 degre; thay cant have the same contr from stats as 18'0 degree defenses.(parry/block).

then there is another problem which was said by @road somewhere; when we had the 1.4.0 renown rewamp , tanks blocks was nerfed and dodge/disrupt from renown buffed; eh that was a bad move, because moved the defense towards a reachable point from more classes while it was more a tanks core things before.

Again, you can't balance HTL based on SCs. First of all, HTL is ONLY gonna be seen in extremely unorganized pug scenarios or /5 "premades". There is one tank which slots a shield at all in a proper scenario 6-man, and that's BO.

Put HTL on buffhead and play in a warband, you will see that in reality you seldom even have the full three stacks of HTL. Increasing stack count is an extremely bad suggestion, even more so when it's based on balancing something completely unrelated to actual, proper gameplay.

[predathore]

I can't believe I read all of those posts and we are still unsure how to fix Disrupt.

It has always occurred to me that a Ranged DPS class should suffer some penalty for the RANGE they attack at. I know, silly of me to imagine actual physics in a world of elves and dragons and fireballs, but being a semi-professional long distance hole puncher trained by the very best Puerto Rican Drill instructor available in 1987, I know a thing or two about hitting a target at max range.

I have always believed that things like Disrupt and Dodge should diminish for a defender the closer the ranged attacker was.

Makes sense, right?

So why not allow for the disrupt changes to stay as is, and simply use the Ranged Check made at the cast of every RDPS attack to modify the Disrupt and Dodge rates? That is, if the game coding actually knows the difference between 100 feet and 50 feet and all the 10 foot increments between....

It makes sense that a caster, bowman, or tank with a throwing axe standing 50 feet away will more easily hit that target than the enemy standing 100 feet away. If the range check made upon casting actually notes the true distance at the time of casting, why couldn't we use that data to modify the disrupt rate?

90 -100 feet | No Change
80 - 90 Feet | -2% Dodge and Disrupt
70 - 80 Feet | -4% Dodge and Disrupt
60 - 70 Feet | -6% Dodge and Disrupt
50 - 60 Feet | -8% Dodge and Disrupt
40 - 50 Feet | -10% Dodge and Disrupt
30 - 40 Feet | -12% Dodge and Disrupt
20 - 30 Feet | -15% Dodge and Disrupt
10 - 20 Feet | -18% Dodge and Disrupt

In this way, you temper the "Ranged Advantage" with the risk-reward of closing the gap on your target for less disrupts and more damage while also ensuring that CC and spells hit when the RDPS is most threatened by Melee.

Those numbers are just numbers and actual percentages based upon some kind of wizardry would have to be figured out (I'm not good at math, but I can lift heavy objects so they keep me around) by someone with math skills, but it is what would make sense. At least to this old Army RDPSer.

I support this proposition. Range is something that you can be in control of, unlike the direction your target is facing. Increases reward if someone is willing to take the risk for it.

[Flavorburst]

the scales justify this nerf to willp as the potential disrupt achiveable by healers is higer than tanks and this is the red allert for balance , when an archtype can be more tanky that the supposed tank archtype there is a problem, dosent matter if in 1 field only; tanks are tanks and suppose to remain so, healers are heling ppl and suppose to remain so by all mean and not surpass tanks disrupt chance. Whern both have access to hold the line and + DD from renown but healers get on top of it willpower it escalate pretty quick into 80% disrupt, make 90% with conqueror proc.

The scales DO justify WP contributing to disrupt because:

A) WB play is a lot different from small man / sc play. You can't just have solo casters able to blow up healers in a WB fight.

B) Unlike tanks, healers don't do any (meaningful) damage, nor do they have as much (again, meaningful) cc.

C) Unlike tanks, if you spec for high disrupt you will probably get blown up by melee.

D) This notion that 3-4 tanks just roll around in SC's spamming HTL 24/7 and hitting everyone with it is just ludicrous. I can't tell if you are being hyperbolic on purpose, or you just don't do enough scenarios to properly gauge how often it's happening. Hell, if I even get a bunch of tanks in an SC on order it's a rare thing, let alone have 1 of them use a well placed HTL, or furthermore a coordinated 3-4 of them. It's statistically ridiculous to use this as a point of contention.

Here is my impression of every tank that uses HTL in a scenario:

"Oh man, I am at 38% health! Better hit HTL and backpedal away like a mongoloid!"

In high end SC play, it's not even a thing (as lefze alluded to).

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

Again, you can't balance HTL based on SCs. First of all, HTL is ONLY gonna be seen in extremely unorganized pug scenarios or /5 "premades". There is one tank which slots a shield at all in a proper scenario 6-man, and that's BO.

Put HTL on buffhead and play in a warband, you will see that in reality you seldom even have the full three stacks of HTL. Increasing stack count is an extremely bad suggestion, even more so when it's based on balancing something completely unrelated to actual, proper gameplay.

genius.... dosent matter if 1 tank only is using a shield it still a free 15% stack for a enviroment which it would be better balanced with out it.

and no im not talk on yourself..of course.....im talking on stack you gave to ppl beheind you....seriusly there was even need from me to remark that tough i done that everytime.

the scales justify this nerf to willp as the potential disrupt achiveable by healers is higer than tanks and this is the red allert for balance , when an archtype can be more tanky that the supposed tank archtype there is a problem, dosent matter if in 1 field only; tanks are tanks and suppose to remain so, healers are heling ppl and suppose to remain so by all mean and not surpass tanks disrupt chance. Whern both have access to hold the line and + DD from renown but healers get on top of it willpower it escalate pretty quick into 80% disrupt, make 90% with conqueror proc.

The scales DO justify WP contributing to disrupt because:

A) WB play is a lot different from small man / sc play. You can't just have solo casters able to blow up healers in a WB fight.

that is not really a balance reason, dont wanna blow up? spec by "invest" (and not for free) in def, is not enough ? use group play , passive unskill tankyness on a not tank class for free go against balance common sense and that would have to do with willpwoer anyway not with hold the line, for what i suggest 6 tanks will do what 3 do now, ppl will still have access to 45% buff just it would more hard to have it in sc.....

B) Unlike tanks, healers don't do any (meaningful) damage, nor do they have as much (again, meaningful) cc.

they do meaningfull heal? wtf with cc, zealot/rune 6 sec stag is not good enough for ya? dok/wp stag m3? this is the plusultra of no balance, from your view point every class should be able to do anything so the game would be like a dam living power creep....healer have to heals leave cc to tanks,.....and some dps... and be tankfull all melee KD are still 3 sec-instead 2 as pre 1.4.7

C) Unlike tanks, if you spec for high disrupt you will probably get blown up by melee.

D) This notion that 3-4 tanks just roll around in SC's spamming HTL 24/7 and hitting everyone with it is just ludicrous. I can't tell if you are being hyperbolic on purpose, or you just don't do enough scenarios to properly gauge how often it's happening. Hell, if I even get a bunch of tanks in an SC on order it's a rare thing, let alone have 1 of them use a well placed HTL, or furthermore a coordinated 3-4 of them. It's statistically ridiculous to use this as a point of contention.



Here is my impression of every tank that uses HTL in a scenario:

"Oh man, I am at 38% health! Better hit HTL and backpedal away like a mongoloid!"

In high end SC play, it's not even a thing (as lefze alluded to).ù

omg the fact that i said that "potentially" didnt ring a bell seems; so i will try to write EVEN more easier, the number of tanks which can use hold the line in sc also increase this problem because here we dont have a problem of premade vs premade, this is a general game problem and there are different things which counter rdps,

it dosent matter the meta we are having now which is a summ of UNBALANCE FACTORS SO WHO **** CARES at max its only relevant to make some additional nerf. Then i could even say if hold the line is not even needed to counter rdps then wtf are we even discuss about if it need a change or not ?! it's crystal clear that it gona be overkill when used if there would not even need it in first place so that the bad rdps became even badder with it.

if all are going 2h in sc i could not care less and so should do dev, there is an abbundance of disrupt right now, 1 of tools which

CAN

generating this it's hold the line, the "fact" that hold the line is the only cultrip or there are aswell other tools which make this happend is not an excuse to turn around away from the issue which is a

->too powerfull, generall, cheap, core, aoe, buff in small scale which is not designed for (is for rvr)

[CptPiggy]

If somehow I manage to land clean dots on healer ex. shaman the half of the ticks are disrupted. Hm so how can I even make a threat vs healers? Im not saying I should nuke them but they are ignoring me while healing their own team and himself from the medicore dmg Im doing. For now I only attack rdps and choppas, maybe weak maras. I think the dots once placed on person shouldnt be disrupted. or blocked! If its on you, clense is your last chance. lets make game more realistic.