View source for Warcry1 Source3


<pre>
Note: I grew tired of trying to import the data as the character recognition tool from screenshots was not working well. Here are the results of the testing so far, and I'll be doing more factional (non-duel) testing soon to see if it is any different.

Executive Summary:

Many PvP scenarios have us wondering if Warcry is working as intended as it appears that there are some cases of it not breaking even if the player applying the warcry attacks the victim or if another group member attacks the victim but does not break the delay for the entire group. DOT weapons add another layer of inconsistency to this issue as well.

Concerns:

1. The basis for concern is that one or more members of an attacking group could potentially spam warcry upon a targeted player and render that player frozen and vulnerable indefintely while other member(s) of the attacking group damage the targeted player without the targeted player being able to defend or attack in response.

2. DOT weapons are having inconsistent results when used in conjunction with warcry and pose a significant threat to targeted players who receive damage from an attacker without the ability to respond in defense.

Assumptions:

1. Warcry should delay the target player unless attacked during the delay period by the one who set the warcry.

2. The delay on the target player should only be in regards to the attacker who applied the warcry, and allow the target player the ability to attack others.

Clarification Needed:

1. If a player is grouped and uses warcry on a targeted player, should the attacker's entire group benefit from the warcry? The expectation is NO, that the warcry only benefits the individual who applied it (ie: a 1 to 1 scenario for any given warcry used).

2. If another grouped member attacks the target player, should it break the warcry for all members of the group if a different player in the attacking group applied a warcry?

Summarized Findings:

Most of the testing seemed to provide evidence that warcry is working as expected with regards to a 1 to 1 relationship between the attacker using warcry and the target player, regardless of attackers being grouped or not. The DOT usage was breaking the warcry delay against the entire group, where standard attacks and specials (but non-DOT) by a group member other than the one applying the warcry delay did not break the warcry. Therefore, there is an inconsistency between DOT and standard attacks and how the attacking group becomes vulnerable to warcry breaking.

This testing was conducted using the dueling mechanics of the game in a controlled and scripted (everyone knew what to do and when to do it) test environment. There have been several occasions in traditional PvP (outside a controlled test environment) where even more inconsistencies have been apparant, including one vs one scenarios where the attacker can apply warcry, then a DOT and warcry does not break, rinse and repeat. We will pursue an opportunity to test this further in a true factional PvP (yet controlled environment) event to gather more data.

Test Members:

Player A – Fencer
Player B – TKM
Player C – Jedi
Player D – Rifleman (used in later variation tests)

Warcry Macro:

/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/warcry1;
/pause .5;
/macro warcry;

TEST 1

A and B ungrouped running macro with NO attacks, C attempts attacking A and B

:00 A warcry no effect on C
:01 A warcry sticks on C
:02 B warcry sticks on C
:03 A warcry no effect on C
:03 C delayed for 10 seconds
:03 B warcry sticks on C
:04 B warcry sticks on C
:05 B warcry no effect on C
:06 A warcry sticks on C
:07 A warcry no effect on C
:08 B warcry sticks on C
:09 A warcry no effect on C
:09 B warcry sticks on C
:10 A warcry no effect on C
:11 B warcry no effect on C
:12 A warcry no effect on C
:12 B warcry sticks on C
:13 A warcry no effect on C
:14 B warcry sticks on C
:15 A warcry no effect on C
:15 B warcry no effect on C
:16 C hits B
:16 A warcry sticks on C
:17 C hits B
:18 A warcry sticks on C
:18 C hits B
:19 A warcry sticks on C
:19 C hits B
:20 C hits B
:21 A warcry no effect on C
:22 A warcry sticks on C
:23 C hits B

End

Result: Initial warcry spam caused 10 second delay, but C was able to attack one of the two players spamming warcry once the delay was lifted. I would suggest that this is working correctly in this example.

TEST 2

A and B ungrouped and both running warcry macro. B does not attack, but A tries to attack while running the macro. C tries to attack A and B.

:01 A warcry sticks on C
:02 B warcry sticks on C
:03 A warcry no effect on C
:04 C delayed for 10 seconds
:04 B warcry sticks on C
:04 A warcry sticks on C
:05 B warcry no effect on C
:06 B warcry sticks on C
:07 A warcry no effect on C
:08 B warcry sticks on C
:09 A warcry no effect on C
:10 B warcry no effect on C
:11 B warcry no effect on C
:12 A warcry no effect on C
:12 B warcry sticks on C
:13 A warcry no effect on C
:14 B warcry sticks on C
:15 A hits C
:15 B warcry no effect on C
:16 A warcry sticks on C
:17 C hits A
:18 A warcry sticks on C
:18 C hits B
:19 A warcry sticks on C
:19 A dodges C’s attack
:20 C hits A
:20 B warcry sticks on C
:21 C hits B
:21 A warcry no effect on C
:22 A warcry sticks on C
:23 A dodges C’s attack

End

Result: Could use a longer test on this, but it appears that the Warcry is working correctly as C was able to hit both attackers after the initial delay. We tried this variation several times to see if A would hit C before the delay timer ran out for C and find out if it would “break” it. Unfortunately A could not land a hit on C during the delay period and we assumed it might be a front loaded queue from the macro. We tested this with just a single Warcry application (no macro) and found the same to be true. It’s almost as though both A and C were unable to fight during the delay.

TEST 3

A and B run the warcry macro, but this time B tries to only land a DOT (looted stone knife with poison) and then back off and peace out while both A and B continue to run the warcry macro. C tries to attack either A or B.

I’ll spare you the combat log this time and just summarize the results:

A warcry sticks on C
B warcry sticks on C
B hits C with DOT applying poison
C is delayed for 10 seconds
DOT poison ticks on C (before 10 sec delay is complete)
C hits B
C hits B
C hits B

Result: The “tick” of the DOT broke the warcry for B, but not the initial attack itself. A’s warcry remained unbroken and C never hit A over a 60 second period of testing. I’d call this a successful test of warcry and it is working as expected.

TEST 4, 5, and 6 (grouped attackers)

We then ran the same tests but this time had A and B grouped. The results were about the same, although with them grouped in test 6 (where A just spammed warcry and B set a DOT), C was able to finally attack A as well as B. This indicates that the grouping allowed the warcry to break when a DOT “ticked” from one of the grouped players and exposed the entire group to being attacked.

Another variation of this we tested slightly and will do some more work on is adding a third person to A and B (let’s call that player D) with ranged attacks. In this test, A and B did nothing but the warcry macro while D stayed out of range for C to reach and used master rifle shots. The end result was an initial delay period like all the other tests, but D was hitting C consistently without C being able to hit A or B at all during that delay or subsequent delays.

The next variation was to have D use a ranged DOT (tusken rifle with poison) while A and B did nothing but spam warcry. Delay was set, C could not attack anyone, then the DOT “ticked” during the delay period and broke the warcry for the entire group. C was able to attack A and B immediately after the “tick” and D was out of range but attackable.

It took a few rounds to get this data rationalized, and initially we thought the DOT was not working to break warcry, but it is in fact doing it and making the entire attacking group vulnerable. The concern remaining from this testing is that two players could potentially spam warcry while a third stayed out of range of the victim and attack without breaking warcry for the group if just using normal (non-DOT) attacks. It seems inconsistent with the DOT breaking the warcry for the entire group. Clarification on the expectations of warcry working as well as breaking for grouped attackers would be helpful to know if the DOT or the non-DOT examples are the appropriate model intended.

We also tried a variation with someone using Warcry2 from master brawler and found no variance to Warcry1 other than it was the expected 20 seconds vs 10 seconds for the delay. All other variables and measurements were the same.


</pre>