Difference between revisions of "Delayed (Game Mechanics)"
(→Game Mechanics) |
(→How Delays Work) |
||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| − | Executive Summary: | + | '''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. | 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: | + | '''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. | 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. | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
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. | 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: | + | '''Assumptions:''' |
| + | |||
1. Warcry should delay the target player unless attacked during the delay period by the one who set the warcry. | 1. Warcry should delay the target player unless attacked during the delay period by the one who set the warcry. | ||
| Line 99: | Line 100: | ||
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. | 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: | + | '''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). | 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). | ||
| Line 105: | Line 106: | ||
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? | 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: | + | '''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. | 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. | ||
| Line 111: | Line 112: | ||
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. | 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: | + | '''Test Members:''' |
| − | Player A | + | Player A Fencer |
| − | Player B | + | Player B TKM |
| − | Player C | + | Player C Jedi |
| − | Player D | + | Player D Rifleman (used in later variation tests) |
Warcry Macro: | Warcry Macro: | ||
| Line 134: | Line 135: | ||
/macro warcry; | /macro warcry; | ||
| − | TEST 1 | + | '''TEST 1''' |
A and B ungrouped running macro with NO attacks, C attempts attacking A and B | A and B ungrouped running macro with NO attacks, C attempts attacking A and B | ||
| Line 171: | Line 172: | ||
:23 C hits B | :23 C hits B | ||
| − | End | + | '''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. | 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 | + | '''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. | 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. | ||
| Line 203: | Line 204: | ||
:18 C hits B | :18 C hits B | ||
:19 A warcry sticks on C | :19 A warcry sticks on C | ||
| − | :19 A dodges | + | :19 A dodges Cs attack |
:20 C hits A | :20 C hits A | ||
:20 B warcry sticks on C | :20 B warcry sticks on C | ||
| Line 209: | Line 210: | ||
:21 A warcry no effect on C | :21 A warcry no effect on C | ||
:22 A warcry sticks on C | :22 A warcry sticks on C | ||
| − | :23 A dodges | + | :23 A dodges Cs attack |
| − | End | + | '''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†| 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†| ||
Revision as of 03:03, 8 March 2009
 |
This article or section needs proper wiki formatting. |
Game Mechanics - Mechanics Category
SWGANH Wiki is a repository of Star Wars Galaxies Developer information. This site is only meant to be used by SWGANH Developer team.
|
|
Game MechanicsA delay is a negative effect placed on a player by using a special ability in which the target's combat queue actions are stalled from executing for a period of time dependent on the skill used. Delayed Queued actions include posture changes, but do not include running/walking. Delays all have a 30 second immunity timer associated with them once an effect has been placed on a target. The target cannot be delayed again for 30 seconds upon being hit. Delays can be resisted, however there are no specific defenses against them. A list of abilities that cause delays along with their delay timers are as follows:
Note: There is no formula for calculating base chance of applying a delay on a target.
How Delays WorkExecutive 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:
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
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.
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†Source References
|
