Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: GAME IMPROVEMENT IDEA: Give us a DUPLICATE STUN GRAPHIC Indication

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Ironheart
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    258

    Lightbulb GAME IMPROVEMENT IDEA: Give us a DUPLICATE STUN GRAPHIC Indication

    In World Boss events like Baal/Cerb where we have multiple hero stunners casting in formation its impossible to tell if one or both stunners are hitting for stun effect.
    If the first hits you can see the swirly star graphics and that is fine. But if the 2nd also hits you get no indication whatsoever to let you know if the 2nd stunner also hit or not.

    It is very useful to know this information (multiple stuns) since we can tell if different rune combinations/configurations are improving our effective stun rates or not.

    I'd recommend giving a number "2" between the spinning stars if a 2nd stun takes place in the same round or else changing the color of the spinning stars - or make the NPCs head spin in circles like its possessed.

    Also, insofar as combat resolution goes a double-stun should carry over into the next round at least in part - say half of the round remain stunned if not being stunned again. Should be a bonus for double stuns IMHO.

  2. #2
    Ironheart
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    369
    It would be nice to know if the stun refreshed but I don't think there's a bonus for stun stacking at all.

  3. #3
    Well tbh, I agree knowing if both stuns worked or not would be nice
    And i would love it if the stuns stacked so they lasted 2 rounds if both cianna and shayd stun

    I doubt the second would happen for the simple fact it would over power us as players on banish and the devs would then have to play catch up. Because think about this. For those of us who finish 250m ball off in 20 mins or so. With a stun lasting longer then 1 round when we double stun, we would be finishing 250mball off in less then 10 mins easily. Then they would have to get the 500m baal ready to go or whatever. Then we would have that beat in a few weeks. Giving the coders even more and more to do just to keep up with banish events, taking time away from more important things like slowing our progression down even further and creating new bugs and glitches.

    The double stun lasting past a round would throw mechanics off in HR and everything else as well, possibly creating new bugs and glitches etc. It would be just simpler to recode so if the opponent is stunned it cant be stunned again till it is unstunned. And IMHO that is a more likely thing to happen by bringing this point to light and opening it up for discussion. And if they do that then it messes up a whole new set of mechanics where you can keep the opponent stunned for multiple rounds. SO hopefully they dont mess with it in that way.

    Honestly they could reprogram the stuns any which way they wanted. But to do that could change battle mechanics and take away time form other things they are trying to implement. ANd even if they came up with an idea proposed it to all players and every single player siad this is a great idea. Im sure there would be plenty who said Yes do that but could you fix the bugs first or make mud golem more realistically powered etc.

  4. #4
    Ironheart
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    258
    Mat never fails to amaze me with his infinately nested worst-case hypothetical speculative recursion on cause and effect.

    Capturing the flag on this one point: We agree it would be useful to know if a 2nd stun landed or not - even if the effect does not stack past the current melee round. The more visual feedback we have the more effective tweaking of runes becomes possible for the user.

    On the second point of Matt's pessimistic world-view (which I see now is his natural reflex for anything he did not suggest) I almost completely disagree with the astonishingly small substance of his objections. Matt would have us all believe that the developers at Tynon are completely incompetent and unable to work through the too complex cerebral mechanizations to give some manner of reasonable and fun multi-stun stack bonus that would not invoke Matt's chicken-little catastrophic effect on the whole Tynon universe of game play; nor increase the work load for the poor programmers and prevent them from doing other things. Having designed, implemented and managed software development for a living I know the culture and most find this sort of mother-henish conjecture at least mildly insulting.

    Philosophically, a special effect capability resides withe EACH in-game character and EACH, SHOULD do SOMETHING SPECIAL in the same way EACH hero in formation had a chance to deliver extra damage when its character skill fires INDEPENDENT of the other hero's in formation. It would be conceptually "the right thing" to give at least some damage bonus or to reset the timer to carry it into the next round so that stuns don't end on round boundaries (which is pathetically unrealistic to anything in real or magical realms). If nothing else give a fraction of health back to the 2nd stunner or let him retain his Morale (not lose his morale to see his hit totally ignored and of no consequence) if the stun is already active (revert to normal melee mode of hit to try the morale again on the next sortie).

    Design by committee and consensus never works especially when the parochial psychology of adolescent/immature pessimism and the regular sort of "I didn't think of that first" hubris reverse-synergizes with the double-stunning negative effects of doing nothing - just to avoid manufactured fears and ridiculous concerns. What most any rational person sees, even reading between the lines here, is that the current implementation is not rational - not even for a fantasy world. Rather than second guess things why don't we let the software development manager DO HIS JOB and see if his team are up to doing something smart with this rather than just tossing out faux obstructions like "we could use their time better fixing other things" sorts of ridiculous arguments?

    There's a gazillion ways that this could be implemented in a non-intrusive way that does not lead to "the sky is falling" cascade of hysteria...
    Last edited by RiverBummer; 09-12-2013 at 01:22 PM.

  5. #5
    Riverbummer.

    Using all those 50 cent words and phrases does nothing but show your too busy trying to belittle me then actually read what I said.

    I said they could reprogram it any which way they wanted. SO no im not saying they are incompetent at all. But their track record is that with every new patch there are new bugs and glitches. many of which are still not corrected weeks after a patch is released. So no matter how good of an idea this is, which I admitted it would be nice to have a double stun last past the round, or at least know if both stuns worked, many people may prefer to have the coders focus in on things that are more important.

    The company also already has a plan of what it wants it coders to do. Now someone in charge there may never have given a second thought to what happens when you have shayd and cianna actually stun the same enemy in the same round. This thread brings that issue to light. SO now someone may feel the need to make a decision about this issue. And that decision may not be in our benefit. Because there are several ways to deal with the double stun, some good for us some not.

    I believe that any change to the double stun that is in our favor other then just showing us a graphic that we got two stuns in, would effect the mechanics of battle that the coders have already spent months upon months laying out. The way they have laid it out is in accordance with what they were asked to do so if extending a enemies time in stun because a double stun is landed messes with those months of work and may require some reworking so that other goals that were accomplished with the current system stay accomplished, then it is unlikely to happen, and if required to make a change to the double stun, the simplest choice may be taken. And to me the simplest choice of changing the double stun is to simply prevent it from happening.

  6. #6
    Ironheart
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by mattp169 View Post
    Riverbummer.

    ...
    Now someone in charge there may never have given a second thought to what happens when you have shayd and cianna actually stun the same enemy in the same round. This thread brings that issue to light. SO now someone may feel the need to make a decision about this issue. And that decision may not be in our benefit. Because there are several ways to deal with the double stun, some good for us some not.

    I believe that any change to the double stun that is in our favor other then just showing us a graphic that we got two stuns in, would effect the mechanics of battle that the coders have already spent months upon months laying out. The way they have laid it out is in accordance with what they were asked to do so if extending a enemies time in stun because a double stun is landed messes with those months of work and may require some reworking so that other goals that were accomplished with the current system stay accomplished, then it is unlikely to happen, and if required to make a change to the double stun, the simplest choice may be taken. And to me the simplest choice of changing the double stun is to simply prevent it from happening.
    Peeling away the back-peddling rhetoric you're saying you don't trust the developers to make a change that will benefit us so its better to have them change it anyway so we can't double-stun as we currently can and do? So how does removing something we can currently already do benefit users other than making it your idea now? LOL I love the blind double-standard and self-contradiction where they now have time to "make it simpler". Have you ever written or designed a line of SW code in your life Mat or understand requirements review/analysis vs rapid prototyping methodologies with user feed back (What these forums are)?

    So, now that I have transmit the topic and made it public you're betting-on-the-come that those sneaky developers having missed a hidden requirement are now going to take something away from us so you want to preempt them by having them take their precious time to implement YOUR IDEA to remove the double-stun all together and trust them not to screw up your idea (e.g. "The Easy Thing"). Gotta luv the circuitous way you think.

    Do you make three left-turns to turn right on your way to work just to avoid the one right turn when leaving your neighborhood or does someone pay you to stay safely at home to dream up these twisted and contradictory ideas?

    Have you ever noticed that once a NPC is stunned it often starts taking great damage and its magic resist seems to degrade where its susceptible to a cascade of stuns? Have you given any consideration to the possibility that combat resolution model may do this as a consequence of stunning and that a graphically non-discernable double-stun may ALREADY be giving users enormous bonus rounds while stunned? And you want to remove double-stuns so they don't mess with it since it might make us worse off?

    LOL - you're a rare bird...
    Last edited by RiverBummer; 09-12-2013 at 03:12 PM.

  7. #7
    Riverbummer. Please stop bashing me.

    To make it crytsal clear.

    I have never claimed your idea as my own idea or tried to make this of who thought of it first. Im sure plenty of others had this thought as well before this thread started

    I do not want them to make the double stun worse then it is. I would prefer it to last past a round if you do double stun

    I do believe the simplest change to the current double stun would be to simply prevent double stuns.
    The reason has nothing to do with the actual code itself. The reason is changing the double stun to last longer will have repercussions on the current lines of code relating to battle mechanics. Those repercussions may not be wanted by the developers. So instead of making even more changes to the already in place code for battle mechanics the simplest change is to prevent double stuns IMO. I don't see how that is so unreasonable to believe or understand.

    Yes I do believe there are plenty of unintended things in this game still. They are changing things, such as the new ending for banish, because as stated by dawnseeker, they intended it from the beginning to be random, and it was not working out that way. SO they implemented the change. Dawnseeker has commented on the fact a critical rune adds to a mages power when it shouldnt and he is asking the developers to check on this. There have been several other things Dawnseeker has replied to concerning unintended things in the game. SO it is not unreasonable to think that the current effect of a double stun was not intended or thought of from the beginning and bringing it to light will bring attention to it from the developers, which could result in no change or a positive change for us or a negative change for us. Since the current system is much better then many other alternatives, I believe in letting a sleeping dog lie.

  8. #8
    Ironheart
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by mattp169 View Post
    Riverbummer. Please stop bashing me.
    ...SO it is not unreasonable to think that the current effect of a double stun was not intended or thought of from the beginning and bringing it to light will bring attention to it from the developers, which could result in no change or a positive change for us or a negative change for us. Since the current system is much better then many other alternatives, I believe in letting a sleeping dog lie.
    So, in essence you are saying be careful about asking for improvements since they might take a good thing away from us and make us worse off.

    OK - I suppose we should ask them to take down this forum since its become a source of injecting insights and intelligence about the game that leads to unintended consequences to the game play for all as we identify bugs that become features we like.

    Hmmm...

    Frankly I'd just be happy as a peach in an ice cream bowl if they'd FIX the inventory sort that they broke after the last patch...

  9. #9
    Why not have the stars flash a color when a stun hit's over a previous stun?
    Currently they are white. If a new stun takes effect they could flash blue. If it misses they flash red.
    There's no mechanics changed at all. It's simply a change to the display based on info the server has.

    Gorgon

    And bummer, please leave your troll behind.
    There was no reason to make personal attacks directed at matt.
    You assumed a lot in your attacks that wasn't said by matt.
    Your own misperceptions caused you issues.
    There is a big difference between constructive criticism and trash talk.
    There is a big difference between constructive criticism and your posts.
    I suggest you learn to apply the former more and the latter less.
    We all will win if you do.
    K? Thanks. Bye.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •