Reduce AV resistance to -Movement speed debuffs

[Blackfeather]

Currently, Archvillains lack protection from the Immobilization status effect (along with Sleep). -Movement at its most potent is an effective Immobilize (if still permitting movement to some degree). Therefore, I propose that AVs shouldn't have any special resistances to -Movement debuffs (or at least, have lower resistances to them).

 

Thoughts? Feedback? Perhaps even proposed numbers for how resistant AVs ought to be to -Movement? Looking forward to the responses!

[Galaxy Brain]

That's fair I suppose

[Blackfeather]

Glad to hear that it sounds reasonable! Though I do wonder what numbers would make sense - would it be too extreme to just have AVs rely on the Purple Patch to resist -Movement debuffs (as opposed to this plus the resistance to debuffs that AVs get)? In most cases, that'd result in a fair amount of resistance out of the box, due to them being multiple levels higher than most players.

[siolfir]

1 hour ago, Blackfeather said:

Though I do wonder what numbers would make sense

 

Using your logic from the OP, it would make sense that the special AV resistance to slow movement (but not slow recharge) be removed; this would match the comparison to immobilize, where their level of protection is equal to that of a normal boss with only the additional protection offered by their active powers.

Edited January 20, 2020 by siolfir

[OrionJA]

From a game balance perspective, movement slows work out very differently fromimmobillizes and can actually end up becoming much more powerful.

 

If you immobilize an Archvillain, they stand still and fire all their ranged attacks. If you slow their movement to a crawl, they may waste their time trying to chase someone down and punch them.

[Blackfeather]

6 hours ago, siolfir said:

Using your logic from the OP, it would make sense that the special AV resistance to slow movement (but not slow recharge) be removed; this would match the comparison to immobilize, where their level of protection is equal to that of a normal boss with only the additional protection offered by their active powers.

Oh, of course. I'd never dream of having AVs not having special resistance to -Recharge; just -Movement. In that case, purple patch resistances might be enough - seems like for the most part, that'd halve most debuffs due to the higher levels at which Archvillains are encountered compared to the player characters.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Blackfeather

[Blackfeather]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:26 AM, OrionJA said:

From a game balance perspective, movement slows work out very differently fromimmobillizes and can actually end up becoming much more powerful.

 

If you immobilize an Archvillain, they stand still and fire all their ranged attacks. If you slow their movement to a crawl, they may waste their time trying to chase someone down and punch them.

That's a fair point! I hadn't considered -Movement affecting enemy A.I. in that way. However, this brings up the following question: how effective is -Movement against AVs in hindering attacks at the moment, relative to other debuffs?

 

I can certainly see it being useful at the minimum speed cap for example, but a small amount of reduced movement speed doesn't sound like an obstacle at all. Additionally: how often will a character be in a scenario to find -Movement useful, as compared to, say, -ToHit?

 

Those are probably good questions to answer and consider in terms of the kind of damage mitigation that this proposal might potentially provide.

[Trickshooter]

On 1/19/2020 at 6:40 PM, Blackfeather said:

Currently, Archvillains lack protection from the Immobilization status effect (along with Sleep). -Movement at its most potent is an effective Immobilize (if still permitting movement to some degree). Therefore, I propose that AVs shouldn't have any special resistances to -Movement debuffs (or at least, have lower resistances to them).

 

Thoughts? Feedback? Perhaps even proposed numbers for how resistant AVs ought to be to -Movement? Looking forward to the responses!

It doesn't sound unreasonable, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning that since AVs are already susceptible to Immobilize, they should be susceptible to -Movement. It would make more sense if there was some in-universe explanation for AVs' lack of Immob protection, but there isn't. It only exists for Controllers to get Containment.

[Blackfeather]

10 hours ago, Trickshooter said:

It doesn't sound unreasonable, but I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning that since AVs are already susceptible to Immobilize, they should be susceptible to -Movement. It would make more sense if there was some in-universe explanation for AVs' lack of Immob protection, but there isn't. It only exists for Controllers to get Containment.

To be fair, I'm not sure if AVs have any in-universe explanation for not having proper Sleep protection either - hence my proposal of introducing a lack of protection for equivalent effects.

[Trickshooter]

2 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

To be fair, I'm not sure if AVs have any in-universe explanation for not having proper Sleep protection either - hence my proposal of introducing a lack of protection for equivalent effects.

The Sleep hole is because Mind and Illusion don't have Immobilizes.

[Blackfeather]

54 minutes ago, Trickshooter said:

The Sleep hole is because Mind and Illusion don't have Immobilizes.

I'm pretty sure Blind is the only thing in Illusion that causes Sleep - and even then, only for enemies adjacent to the target. Either way, I'm not sure if an in-universe justification for either status effect being something AVs aren't as protected to really holds up. Hence again, the proposal.

[Trickshooter]

10 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

I'm pretty sure Blind is the only thing in Illusion that causes Sleep - and even then, only for enemies adjacent to the target. Either way, I'm not sure if an in-universe justification for either status effect being something AVs aren't as protected to really holds up. Hence again, the proposal.

I just want to be clear that I'm not against the idea of making AVs less resistant to movement slows. I think it would be really helpful, because sometimes AVs go crazy and run around, making it difficult to fight them and making it harder to outpace their health regeneration.

 

I'm just not sure I agree with the specific reasoning that lots of -Movement is practically an Immob, and they're already susceptible to Immobs, so they should also be susceptible to -Movement. AV protection is missing Immobs and Sleeps for a specific function, which is allowing Controllers to get Containment on them. Movement slows don't really have any functionality like that.

 

Basically, I guess I agree with what you want, but not why you want it. 😅

[Blackfeather]

Just now, Trickshooter said:

I just want to be clear that I'm not against the idea of making AVs less resistant to movement slows. I think it would be really helpful, because sometimes AVs go crazy and run around, making it difficult to fight them and making it harder to outpace their health regeneration.

 

I'm just not sure I agree with the specific reasoning that lots of -Movement is practically an Immob, and they're already susceptible to Immobs, so they should also be susceptible to -Movement. AV protection is missing Immobs and Sleeps for a specific function, which is allowing Controllers to get Containment on them. Movement slows don't really have any functionality like that.

 

Basically, I guess I agree with what you want, but not why you want it. 😅

Well, that's fair enough! I take it your reasons for wanting this then would be for other things in that case, such as making it easier to combat them when they start running about, as mentioned before? I'm certainly interested in hearing about the potential benefits reducing AV resistance to -Movement might provide (and of course, whether or not that'd be too powerful, if specific resistance numbers were proposed, and so on).

[tidge]

On 1/20/2020 at 4:26 PM, OrionJA said:

From a game balance perspective, movement slows work out very differently fromimmobillizes and can actually end up becoming much more powerful.

 

If you immobilize an Archvillain, they stand still and fire all their ranged attacks. If you slow their movement to a crawl, they may waste their time trying to chase someone down and punch them.

 

The utility of slow movement on bosses/EBs/AVs is one more reason why I detest the forced secondary Traps T1 (Web Grenade) over the T2 (Caltrops). There is simply too much utility to be had from a placed AoE -Movement as opposed to the (weak) single-target Immob which requires a ToHit check. I've read the folks who try to defend Web Grenade as a -Fly, but the circumstances where that ST attack is actually valuable are so very rare. The few times when I find myself actually wanting to -Fly an enemy are Spectrals in the giant cavern rooms with small ledges present in Orenbega maps...and those villains will apply their -Perception *anyway*, so just waiting with some Caltrops out is more useful to catch them upon their return.

[Blackfeather]

7 hours ago, tidge said:

 

The utility of slow movement on bosses/EBs/AVs is one more reason why I detest the forced secondary Traps T1 (Web Grenade) over the T2 (Caltrops). There is simply too much utility to be had from a placed AoE -Movement as opposed to the (weak) single-target Immob which requires a ToHit check. I've read the folks who try to defend Web Grenade as a -Fly, but the circumstances where that ST attack is actually valuable are so very rare. The few times when I find myself actually wanting to -Fly an enemy are Spectrals in the giant cavern rooms with small ledges present in Orenbega maps...and those villains will apply their -Perception *anyway*, so just waiting with some Caltrops out is more useful to catch them upon their return.

Looking at the wiki, it seems like Web Grenade reduces attack speed and movement speed along with being an immobilise. Out of curiosity, have you had experience with -Movement debuffs on Archvillains? It'd be great to know if they're effective on them in their current state - more information as to whether or not this sort of change ought to be considered.

[siolfir]

2 hours ago, Blackfeather said:

Looking at the wiki, it seems like Web Grenade reduces attack speed and movement speed along with being an immobilise. Out of curiosity, have you had experience with -Movement debuffs on Archvillains? It'd be great to know if they're effective on them in their current state - more information as to whether or not this sort of change ought to be considered.

 

Currently movement and recharge slows are resisted by the purple patch and by special AV resistance, so you don't see much effect.

[Blackfeather]

9 hours ago, siolfir said:

Currently movement and recharge slows are resisted by the purple patch and by special AV resistance, so you don't see much effect.

Gotcha - in that case, just having that purple patch resistance would personally sound like enough resistance to -Movement debuffs, personally.