FOSFTP's stun. The mechanics are ... unclear.

MasterSeedy
4993 posts Member
So, the First Order Special Forces Tie Pilot has an omega, "Oppressive Burst". In the language of that ability it states:
If target other ally is First Order, they gain Advantage for 2 turns and stun the target enemy for 1 turn.

The question is this: when attempting to stun, does the enemy resist against FOSFTP's Potency? Or does the enemy resist against the FO ally's Potency?

It's FOSFTP's ability, so you think it might use FOSFTP's potency.

However, it VERY CLEARLY states that the "target other ally ... stun(s) the target enemy for 1 turn." That seems almost crystal clear that it's using the ally's Potency.

And yet, when you call an ally like Daka, of course she stuns using her own Potency: it's her own stun. This is equally clearly an ability of FOSFTP. It's an ability that gives an ally the ability to stun. FOSFTP is clearly the originator of the ability. Yet the ally is clearly the character doing the actual stunning.

It's just ... arrrrgggghhhhh.

Please, devs, if you could just let us know, I'd appreciate it.
For the record: I don't mind either way, but this is something that I'd definitely like answered. There are several reasons why it matters. If it's based on FOSFTP's Potency, then you can choose any ally you like based solely on damage or who needs the Advantage buff. If it's based on ally Potency, you can choose an ally with the best Potency or a mix of Potency & damage.

In many ways the ability is easier to use and more versatile if it runs off FOSFTP's Potency by removing one constraint from ally selection.

On the other hand, if it runs on FOSFTP's potency, then you probably want to mod for Potency: stuns are powerful. That means you won't be able to mod for speed/damage as heavily, since FOSFTP's only other debuff is defense down, which is largely worthless (except when setting up CLS's stun, and FOSFTP won't be in the same squad as CLS very often).

I'd rather not invest millions of credits in the wrong mods for FOSFTP, and it doesn't seem like it's game-imbalancing to tell us clearly which character's Potency is at play. It's true that the devs like to keep some information (about exactly how the game works) away from players. There are good reasons for that: there's actually a lot more information out there about the details of game's programming than I will ever read. I'm not a professional programmer and I want to keep the game about fun. Yes, I engage in min/maxing, but to (what I think is) only a healthy degree that reflects a basic desire to succeed in the game. But there's never been another character who raised this issue before, and simply telling us which character fuels the stun doesn't seem like an inappropriate glimpse into the technical operations of the client app.

Replies

  • MasterSeedy
    4993 posts Member
    Hey devs, after hitting submit I realized it would be even better if you could let us know a policy, so we don't have to ask again if it ever comes up with a future character, something like:
    If an effect is listed among a character's ability, it uses the character's stats. For ally calls, this means that the ally attacks using their own (damage, potency & other) stats and abilities, but any extra effects listed in the caller's abilities, even if triggered on a successful ally attack, uses the caller's own stats and abilities.

    This may be wildly different from the actual policy/philosophy of SW:GoH, but it's just an example of a way the question could be answered using language that helps answer future questions ourselves without bothering you good folks who have better things to do.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    I don't believe there is any ability that uses not the "active characters " stats, unless it is calling the "other ally" to use an ability and basing the result off that ability.

    Since the stun is related to them having a particular tag and not related to the attack (the ability they use) it would be FOSFTP potency that is checked against.
  • MasterSeedy
    4993 posts Member
    @Kyno:

    I agree that's likely. I don't agree with your level of certainty.
Sign In or Register to comment.