In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
But you can't eliminate the extremes of rng. It sounds like you'd like this game to be more like star wars: chess. Chess has zero rng.
I can appreciate the desire for a more strategic game with less luck elements, but that requires a balanced game in the first place. Rng is sort of like a band aid for balance.
We all know this game isn't balanced, and they should improve it. We've seen the speed at which that happens. I personally think the revive mechanic is fine in its current state, and they should focus on other, more pressing issues.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
But you can't eliminate the extremes of rng. It sounds like you'd like this game to be more like star wars: chess. Chess has zero rng.
I can appreciate the desire for a more strategic game with less luck elements, but that requires a balanced game in the first place. Rng is sort of like a band aid for balance.
We all know this game isn't balanced, and they should improve it. We've seen the speed at which that happens. I personally think the revive mechanic is fine in its current state, and they should focus on other, more pressing issues.
I can agree with you on RNG. You can't eliminate the extremes, on either end. A Dooku Dodge team could dodge every attack you throw at them, or none of the attacks. RNG is RNG, and its in this game. The just means that Dakas passive could revive a hero 5 times in a row, or none. Her heal could revive all dead heroes, or none.
That doesn't mean the actual revive mechanic can't be tweaked and improved. That just accounts for the methods. Examples/opinions: maybe Dakas passive revive brings back fallen heroes a % of the time with little to no health, but full or near full TM so they act immediately. The case of 'serving again', like her controlling the corpse herself when it fell. Her heal revive could heal the party and revive heroes with near full health, but no TM. The case of her healing her allies, fixing their injuries, bringing back the fallen as a hero (not a corpse).
Revive as it is, is technically fine (so is stun). But it seems...flawed (just like stuns. Dodging, being called for assists while stunned). A hero who was just killed, hacked up, ripped asunder, heart flatlined, being revived and just taking their turn (with same TM/TM boost) as is, buffs/debuffs just seems off. Even a stunned hero loses their turn, and that's just them being stunned, not decapitated.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
But you can't eliminate the extremes of rng. It sounds like you'd like this game to be more like star wars: chess. Chess has zero rng.
I can appreciate the desire for a more strategic game with less luck elements, but that requires a balanced game in the first place. Rng is sort of like a band aid for balance.
We all know this game isn't balanced, and they should improve it. We've seen the speed at which that happens. I personally think the revive mechanic is fine in its current state, and they should focus on other, more pressing issues.
I can agree with you on RNG. You can't eliminate the extremes, on either end. A Dooku Dodge team could dodge every attack you throw at them, or none of the attacks. RNG is RNG, and its in this game. The just means that Dakas passive could revive a hero 5 times in a row, or none. Her heal could revive all dead heroes, or none.
That doesn't mean the actual revive mechanic can't be tweaked and improved. That just accounts for the methods. Examples/opinions: maybe Dakas passive revive brings back fallen heroes a % of the time with little to no health, but full or near full TM so they act immediately. The case of 'serving again', like her controlling the corpse herself when it fell. Her heal revive could heal the party and revive heroes with near full health, but no TM. The case of her healing her allies, fixing their injuries, bringing back the fallen as a hero (not a corpse).
Revive as it is, is technically fine (so is stun). But it seems...flawed (just like stuns. Dodging, being called for assists while stunned). A hero who was just killed, hacked up, ripped asunder, heart flatlined, being revived and just taking their turn (with same TM/TM boost) as is, buffs/debuffs just seems off. Even a stunned hero loses their turn, and that's just them being stunned, not decapitated.
I completely agree it could be improved. I just think many things could be improved, and other things should be focused on first.
@M9silent, I am OK with the present scenario. I'm mostly a adapt and survive kinda gamer, I can solve a problem but not so good at preparing for probable problems. I mean I was 100% behind the 1st post and did not realize the problems with that until I read the others. But the thread is going good, good ideas.
Personally, I've been playing since the hard launch and I can confirm that any balancing etc just brings on more unbalance. I'd rather CG concentrate on bugs, the credit and rewards etc and on some new content. Waiting for Friday...
@Azraelrulez I can understand that. And I definitely don't think anything will really come of this thread from the devs, to be honest. I'm not knocking them in anyway, but as you said, they have their hands full. I would definitely like to see them fixing major issues and bugs first. Just had some thoughts and wanted to have a discussion. Others tossed out some great ideas and counters, and I even revised my own opinions. These ideas are more of a 'if they can look at it, and agree, maybe they can change some things'.
In another similar game I play there is a line of combat characters that can resurrect fallen members of the team. Each does it with a different mix of restored health and speed. At one end, resurrected with high health, but last to act, and at the other, resurrected with low health, but a 200% speed buff. The consensus among players is that the resurrection with the low health/high speed tradeoff is most desirable. But of course, it depends on team composition: if you've got no other healer, but a character that can buff speed, you value the restored health. If you've got no speed buff capability, but a second healer, you value the speed.
The best alternative would be to have alternatives: a mix of characters with resurrection capacities that have different quality tradeoffs, so you have the opportunity to build team synergy around those different capabilities.
I don't care for debates about realism. Sound game mechanics first, then backfill your rationales about realism.
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
But you can't eliminate the extremes of rng. It sounds like you'd like this game to be more like star wars: chess. Chess has zero rng.
I can appreciate the desire for a more strategic game with less luck elements, but that requires a balanced game in the first place. Rng is sort of like a band aid for balance.
We all know this game isn't balanced, and they should improve it. We've seen the speed at which that happens. I personally think the revive mechanic is fine in its current state, and they should focus on other, more pressing issues.
Replies
That makes too much sense on all fronts. And I like your screen name.
FWIW it just FEELS wrong to me currently, realism aside.
In practice, the rez % seems low compared to how often it goes off, at least for the AI.
We should hang out IRL, we could drink beer on the porch and tell kids to stay off the lawn.
Who told you about my hobbies?
I would prefer a mechanic where the resurrection is a singular function (you target one toon) with 100% chance of success and a long cool down. In the present game environment, that basically would mean that a resurrection healer would be good for one shot. But if the shift in game mechanics we are anticipating creates a more favorable environment for lengthier resist matches (the match timer in the other game I'm referencing is 15 minutes), then a resurrecting character could have a strong impact, even if limited to one every 5 turns.
Lololol always double tap lolol
Today in arena:
Me: QGJ(L), Yoda, Ahsoka, Lumi, Eeth vs Them: Dooku(L), Daka, EE, IG-86, QGJ
Yoda BM, Ahsoka basic to IG, QGJ assist to IG for kill, passive rez, Dooku stun fail Yoda, Eeth basic IG dodge/buff, Daka stun fail Yoda, IG assist Yoda for kill, Lumi basic IG dodge, EE heal IG full, Yoda single target special Daka dodge/buff, QGJ dispel IG for kill no buff, Dooku basic QGJ for stun, bonus hit...
I cant remember exactly, but it totalled 4 passive and 1 active rez, and 10 dodges...
It was like killing his guys never even broke his stride.
I probably should have tried to target someone other than IG, but I was pot committed.
Thats what sparked my OP.
If this scenario is possible, the TM retention makes it very unfun.
But you can't eliminate the extremes of rng. It sounds like you'd like this game to be more like star wars: chess. Chess has zero rng.
I can appreciate the desire for a more strategic game with less luck elements, but that requires a balanced game in the first place. Rng is sort of like a band aid for balance.
We all know this game isn't balanced, and they should improve it. We've seen the speed at which that happens. I personally think the revive mechanic is fine in its current state, and they should focus on other, more pressing issues.
I can agree with you on RNG. You can't eliminate the extremes, on either end. A Dooku Dodge team could dodge every attack you throw at them, or none of the attacks. RNG is RNG, and its in this game. The just means that Dakas passive could revive a hero 5 times in a row, or none. Her heal could revive all dead heroes, or none.
That doesn't mean the actual revive mechanic can't be tweaked and improved. That just accounts for the methods. Examples/opinions: maybe Dakas passive revive brings back fallen heroes a % of the time with little to no health, but full or near full TM so they act immediately. The case of 'serving again', like her controlling the corpse herself when it fell. Her heal revive could heal the party and revive heroes with near full health, but no TM. The case of her healing her allies, fixing their injuries, bringing back the fallen as a hero (not a corpse).
Revive as it is, is technically fine (so is stun). But it seems...flawed (just like stuns. Dodging, being called for assists while stunned). A hero who was just killed, hacked up, ripped asunder, heart flatlined, being revived and just taking their turn (with same TM/TM boost) as is, buffs/debuffs just seems off. Even a stunned hero loses their turn, and that's just them being stunned, not decapitated.
I completely agree it could be improved. I just think many things could be improved, and other things should be focused on first.
Personally, I've been playing since the hard launch and I can confirm that any balancing etc just brings on more unbalance. I'd rather CG concentrate on bugs, the credit and rewards etc and on some new content. Waiting for Friday...
With what?