[SUGGESTION] Cast Toggle on Target abilities to be used on Allies

[Kalthea]

I've been playing a Corruptor for a while now, and I enjoy having the use of a variety of powers. However, one ability that's a bit annoying to utilize is Snow Storm, as it requires me to place it on a target. The ability being a toggle doesn't help either, as it can stay on the corpse of a fallen enemy after we have moved on meaning that I have to wait for a cooldown in order to re-cast it if I end up forgetting (just don't forget, I know I know).

 

Is there a way to make it so you can toggle this power on a party member? Being able to cast it on a Tanker in my team, or on a minion if I'm a Mastermind would be very handy, and I would be able to just keep it toggled on. This might cause some struggles with who pulls aggro first, but I feel that it would smooth out the gameplay a good bit on characters that use powersets with a Toggle-On-Target function, allowing for less button presses when you may already have a slew of things you need to press.

[Rudra]

I am against the idea of placing a debuff meant to affect your foes on an ally. (For that matter, why should Snow Storm function differently than similar powers like Radiation Infection?) Snow Storm has a 10 second base recharge. With no recharge enhancements slotted in it, my Corrupter has it down at a 6.9 second recharge. If I were to throw a single generic recharge into it to go with the endurance reduction I plan on only having on it, that drops to 5.34 seconds.

 

(Edit: And this character has minimal global recharges in the build. So someone that uses a fair amount of global recharge will get that recharge down even further.)

Edited May 19, 2023 by Rudra
Edited to add missing closing parenthesis.

[Kalthea]

22 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I am against the idea of placing a debuff meant to affect your foes on an ally. (For that matter, why should Snow Storm function differently than similar powers like Radiation Infection?) Snow Storm has a 10 second base recharge. With no recharge enhancements slotted in it, my Corrupter has it down at a 6.9 second recharge. If I were to throw a single generic recharge into it to go with the endurance reduction I plan on only having on it, that drops to 5.34 seconds.

 

(Edit: And this character has minimal global recharges in the build. So someone that uses a fair amount of global recharge will get that recharge down even further.)

I'm not suggesting that the debuffs should affect the ally that it's placed on, only that the ally should be able to "carry" the effect around with them as if it were a damage aura. And I'm not suggesting that it ONLY affect Snow Storm, it should be a mechanical change for all abilities that function the same. And yeah, my cooldowns are super low as well, the problem is that it's repeated button presses in the middle of combat to keep up a power when a body despawns, or when we're in a different room.

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

I'm not suggesting that the debuffs should affect the ally that it's placed on, only that the ally should be able to "carry" the effect around with them as if it were a damage aura.

I am aware that you don't intend the debuff to affect your ally. I am against taking debuffs like Snow Storm and having a teammate be its anchor.

 

4 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

And yeah, my cooldowns are super low as well, the problem is that it's repeated button presses in the middle of combat to keep up a power when a body despawns, or when we're in a different room.

I can't think of a response that won't be taken as me being rude. So instead I will just say I am opposed.

[biostem]

The problem with this suggestion is that some sets *specifically* permit you to place an enemy-only-affecting debuff on an ally, as a special feature of that set.  To expand it to all or most such debuffs devalues those other powers, and greatly overpowers them...

[Kalthea]

1 minute ago, biostem said:

The problem with this suggestion is that some sets *specifically* permit you to place an enemy-only-affecting debuff on an ally, as a special feature of that set.  To expand it to all or most such debuffs devalues those other powers, and greatly overpowers them...

What sets would function that way? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

3 minutes ago, Rudra said:

I am aware that you don't intend the debuff to affect your ally. I am against taking debuffs like Snow Storm and having a teammate be its anchor.

 

I can't think of a response that won't be taken as me being rude. So instead I will just say I am opposed.

I already had the "git gut" joke in my inital post.

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

What sets would function that way? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Sonic and Mastermind Poison.

[Rudra]

6 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

What sets would function that way? I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

1 minute ago, biostem said:

Sonic and Mastermind Poison.

Disruption Field from the Sonic Resonance set and Noxious Gas from the Poison set is what @biostem is talking about.

 

8 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

I already had the "git gut" joke in my inital post.

I have never told anyone "git gud" and I never will. I apologize if that is what you took my comment to mean.

[biostem]

Just for the record - I'm not necessarily against allowing some anchor debuffs to be applied to allies - just that their effectiveness would then have to be adjusted to account for the increased flexibility in their use.  Also, can we please get the anchor debuffs to shut off when their target is defeated,  I hate having to manually detoggle them...

[Grums McGuff]

I think that's the perspective one should have here @biostem. I'm personally in the wheelhouse of "Man, this seems like a nice QoL change actually, cuz I constantly forget these moves stick to corpses."

And I'm fine if a blanket switch to "Staple this debuff field to my Tanker plz" means costs go up or numbers get tweaked.

[Kalthea]

9 minutes ago, Rudra said:

 

Disruption Field from the Sonic Resonance set and Noxious Gas from the Poison set is what @biostem is talking about.

 

I have never told anyone "git gud" and I never will. I apologize if that is what you took my comment to mean.

Oh, sure.  But those powers existing doesn't really make the change all that much different, if anything it just makes me think "So they CAN do it." 

 

7 minutes ago, biostem said:

Just for the record - I'm not necessarily against allowing some anchor debuffs to be applied to allies - just that their effectiveness would then have to be adjusted to account for the increased flexibility in their use.  Also, can we please get the anchor debuffs to shut off when their target is defeated,  I hate having to manually detoggle them...

I'm perfectly fine with some tweaks here and there, but functionality wise I think powers LIKE Snow Storm would benefit from being able to be toggled on an Ally.

[CFIndustries]

56 minutes ago, biostem said:

Also, can we please get the anchor debuffs to shut off when their target is defeated,  I hate having to manually detoggle them...

 

That's how it used to be back on Live for a time, then it got changed to "manually turn it off."

 

I assumed the reason back then was "we're sick of getting the toggle on, only for that particular anchor dying too quick and having downtime to get the toggle moved." I still remember the begging of "please don't kill the anchor!" and people not paying attention.

 

I prefer the occassional forgeting to turn it off manually and letting a corpse keep the toggle (until the corpse fades away). This means I can put the toggle on even minions and if they die in the right place, the debuff continues and is handy. Less micro-managing of anchored toggles.

[biostem]

1 minute ago, CFIndustries said:

the debuff continues and is handy

Pardon my ignorance, but do they in fact continue to provide the debuff, even once the target is defeated?

[CFIndustries]

Just now, biostem said:

Pardon my ignorance, but do they in fact continue to provide the debuff, even once the target is defeated?

 

Good question…I assumed they did since F/X cues indicate they should be. If they don't then…yeah, detoggle when the mob dies. 😜

[Rudra]

10 minutes ago, CFIndustries said:

That's how it used to be back on Live for a time, then it got changed to "manually turn it off."

 

I assumed the reason back then was "we're sick of getting the toggle on, only for that particular anchor dying too quick and having downtime to get the toggle moved." I still remember the begging of "please don't kill the anchor!" and people not paying attention.

The reason why those toggles don't turn off when the anchor dies is because players were complaining that the toggles turned off when the anchor died. It used to be that a player would place a debuff toggle on a target, the team would kill that target instead of anything else, and the power would then turn off without providing any benefit despite the presence of more foes. So players asked for that to be changed. A defeated anchor still provides the toggle's benefits now, with the power turning off automatically when the anchor despawns.

[Grums McGuff]

22 minutes ago, Rudra said:

The reason why those toggles don't turn off when the anchor dies is because players were complaining that the toggles turned off when the anchor died. It used to be that a player would place a debuff toggle on a target, the team would kill that target instead of anything else, and the power would then turn off without providing any benefit despite the presence of more foes. So players asked for that to be changed. A defeated anchor still provides the toggle's benefits now, with the power turning off automatically when the anchor despawns.

I'm of two minds regarding anchoring a debuff to a corpse. On the first, I very clearly see why Homecoming made the change, as it does resolve the issue mentioned above. On the other, I myself (and I'd wager many others) tend to treat toggles as "OK! It's on! Now I don't have to think about it" and don't consider having to manage/recast them when a corpse vanishes into the aether; I'd much rather just slap it onto a team mate and effectively increase the blue cost of the move by making it have 100% uptime.

 

By and large in my opinion it just seems like a more functionally preferable approach.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Grums McGuff

[Rudra]

9 minutes ago, Grums McGuff said:

On the first, I very clearly see why Homecoming made the change, as it does resolve the issue mentioned above.

Homecoming did not implement this change. This was done back on Live.

[Grums McGuff]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

Homecoming did not implement this change. This was done back on Live.

Ah, my mistake.

[Rudra]

I get your viewpoint on the toggles. I really do. (I still disagree with the OP, but I do understand where you are coming from.)

 

I know this won't change your or anyone else's mind, but for me at least, activating a personal toggle is the only activate and forget thing. Activating a targeted toggle is not. I have to watch to see if that mob suddenly rabbits so I can turn off the toggle so I don't wind up with more aggro than I or my team can manage. I have to watch to see if the fight shifted away from the anchor, possibly necessitating me turning off the toggle to re-apply. I have to watch to see if my own attacks layered on top of the toggle is END manageable or if I'm working myself into a corner. (This last one also applies to personal toggles.) So to me, the benefit of a toggle isn't fire and forget, it is that depending on what I am fighting, it is there for a more extended duration than your typical click and able to be moved whenever I please. (And I think less END than the typical click for the same effect.)

 

On top of that is the theme. I understand why my character would afflict another with a snow storm. I am trying to hamper that target. It makes much less sense to me to afflict an ally with a snow storm. What did that ally do to upset me? And why isn't my power affecting him/her/them/it? Now, as far as theme goes, I can still figure out how that works. As in I will figure one out eventually. My question then becomes, why wouldn't I maintain the power on myself if it is instead an aura effect instead of a targeted affliction? Placing ice armors on others but not myself is something I've learned a plausible reason for. Maintaining a storm effect of my creation though? Hello, Hurricane. It doesn't make sense to me to apply that to another instead of myself, especially since I can only have 1 snow storm going at a time.

 

Another consideration? I've watched teammates run off and do their own thing randomly. I've watched the team leader just up and abandon the team randomly, just running off to do something else. Sometimes I agree with their reason. Other times I think that person is just an... nevermind. While not a frequent occurrence, that still puts you back in the same position as with the defeated anchor. Your buff ran off and now you have to de-toggle, select a new anchor, and re-apply.

 

Or less trollish, your anchor, presuming a Tanker or Brute so the anchor isn't likely to die, may not be where the main fight is because (s)he/them/it are trying to keep another group from overwhelming the team. Now you are again back to the same problem.

 

Would I be upset if the OP were to be implemented and we were able to place our debuffs on allies? No. Most definitely frustrated, but not upset.

[Luminara]

There'd have to be an aggro redirect to prevent them from being used as a griefing tool (placing the debuff AoE on another player character specifically to draw enemies to that character).  And an additional graphics option to allow the effects to be disabled by the anchor, to prevent another type of griefing.

 

But I don't see this happening at all unless yet another change is made, that of allowing the player to choose, on the fly, whether to toggle it on an enemy or ally.  An outright switch to targeting would impact gameplay for a lot of players who are already accustomed to enemy-targeted toggles.  It would also make it impossible to use this type of toggle solo for any player who doesn't have a pet.  I'm sure there are any number of people would would strenuously object to having their primary method of mitigation taken away, and more who would object to being "forced" to respec into a PPP and take a pet they don't want, or feel they need.

[Rudra]

1 minute ago, Luminara said:

There'd have to be an aggro redirect to prevent them from being used as a griefing tool (placing the debuff AoE on another player character specifically to draw enemies to that character).  And an additional graphics option to allow the effects to be disabled by the anchor, to prevent another type of griefing.

Forgot about that. Thanks, @Luminara.

[Kalthea]

1 hour ago, Luminara said:

There'd have to be an aggro redirect to prevent them from being used as a griefing tool (placing the debuff AoE on another player character specifically to draw enemies to that character).  And an additional graphics option to allow the effects to be disabled by the anchor, to prevent another type of griefing.

 

But I don't see this happening at all unless yet another change is made, that of allowing the player to choose, on the fly, whether to toggle it on an enemy or ally.  An outright switch to targeting would impact gameplay for a lot of players who are already accustomed to enemy-targeted toggles.  It would also make it impossible to use this type of toggle solo for any player who doesn't have a pet.  I'm sure there are any number of people would would strenuously object to having their primary method of mitigation taken away, and more who would object to being "forced" to respec into a PPP and take a pet they don't want, or feel they need.

The person who is tagged with the ability wouldn't be pulling aggro unless they used something to damage the enemies or taunt them before the effect of the ability hits the enemy. This would be less "griefing" and more "pre-pulling", as it would cause someone in the back who has placed the effect on the Tanker to be taking aggro before before the Tanker does (as an example), but then that can be resolved with communication (or the person who used the ability dying because they over-pulled before the tank could get aggro).

 

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

I know this won't change your or anyone else's mind, but for me at least, activating a personal toggle is the only activate and forget thing. Activating a targeted toggle is not. I have to watch to see if that mob suddenly rabbits so I can turn off the toggle so I don't wind up with more aggro than I or my team can manage. I have to watch to see if the fight shifted away from the anchor, possibly necessitating me turning off the toggle to re-apply.

...[SNIP]...

 

Another consideration? I've watched teammates run off and do their own thing randomly. I've watched the team leader just up and abandon the team randomly, just running off to do something else. Sometimes I agree with their reason. Other times I think that person is just an... nevermind. While not a frequent occurrence, that still puts you back in the same position as with the defeated anchor. Your buff ran off and now you have to de-toggle, select a new anchor, and re-apply.

 

Or less trollish, your anchor, presuming a Tanker or Brute so the anchor isn't likely to die, may not be where the main fight is because (s)he/them/it are trying to keep another group from overwhelming the team. Now you are again back to the same problem.

This interaction is what I'm suggesting this change for. By applying the ability to an ally as an "Anchor" for it, then I wouldn't need to worry about an enemy running off and pulling more aggro than is necessary. Perhaps you enjoy that situation, which is fine. As for teammates running off on their own, that would occur far less than enemies running off towards another group, dying, being left behind in other rooms and forgetting to un-toggle, and what have you. And I don't consider assisting an off-tank with some slow or extra damage to be a problem? Sure, they're in another area holding off a group, but I'm still assisting them. Heck, maybe they're too far away at that point and the power toggles off, so you can re-apply it to a different teammate.

 

2 hours ago, Rudra said:

On top of that is the theme. I understand why my character would afflict another with a snow storm. I am trying to hamper that target. It makes much less sense to me to afflict an ally with a snow storm. What did that ally do to upset me? And why isn't my power affecting him/her/them/it? Now, as far as theme goes, I can still figure out how that works. As in I will figure one out eventually. My question then becomes, why wouldn't I maintain the power on myself if it is instead an aura effect instead of a targeted affliction? Placing ice armors on others but not myself is something I've learned a plausible reason for. Maintaining a storm effect of my creation though? Hello, Hurricane. It doesn't make sense to me to apply that to another instead of myself, especially since I can only have 1 snow storm going at a time.

 

The term "affliction" is loaded here, and implies that I'm "debuffing" my ally. This is not what I'm suggesting, and since it's my super power, and I have control over the weather (with Snow Storm as the example), then why wouldn't I be able to just decide that the Snow Storm is following around my ally while they sit in the eye of the storm being unaffected by the Snow Storm a friend gave them? And your suggestion of why you wouldn't apply it to yourself is easily answered by "Because I want people near my friend to be slowed down to help give them an advantage." And your example of Ice Armor is a bit silly, as I don't see a reason why you wouldn't want to place Ice Armor on yourself if it helps increase your survival. Also, Hurricane is a Knockback/Repel effect, and doesn't suit the same function as Snow Storm other than "it has CC".

[biostem]

2 hours ago, Luminara said:

There'd have to be an aggro redirect to prevent them from being used as a griefing tool (placing the debuff AoE on another player character specifically to draw enemies to that character).  And an additional graphics option to allow the effects to be disabled by the anchor, to prevent another type of griefing.

But the player would have to be within like the 25' radius of enemies to affect them, right?  Even if you used it on an unwitting player, if they were within that radius of enemies, that's kind of on them.  I'm not saying it's ok to grief players, but if you afk within a group of enemies that could potentially defeat you, then that's just being negligent.  I suppose player A could put the debuff on player B, then drag enemies to player B, hoping that they then aggro on that player, but that'd be no different than trying to train enemies on an unwitting player either way, which, AFAIK, falls under such code of conduct violation regardless...  

[Rudra]

4 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

The person who is tagged with the ability wouldn't be pulling aggro unless they used something to damage the enemies or taunt them before the effect of the ability hits the enemy.

Incorrect. All debuff toggles are flagged as notify enemy effects. So the moment a debuff toggle was placed on a friendly, whether that friendly was part of the team or not, and there are any enemies within the range of the debuff toggle from the anchor, they are notified and begin attacking. Which means they would start attacking the player character that had the unwanted toggle placed on them for the sake of griefing. Like say a Stalker trying to sneak suddenly having another player placing a debuff toggle on them and now all enemies are active and attacking the Stalker. When you apply the toggle to an enemy, your character is the source of the effect. When you apply an effect to another character, that other character is the source of the effect. And the source of the effect notifies enemies when those toggles are activated.

 

8 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

By applying the ability to an ally as an "Anchor" for it, then I wouldn't need to worry about an enemy running off and pulling more aggro than is necessary. Perhaps you enjoy that situation, which is fine.

I think you are misreading my post.

 

9 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

The term "affliction" is loaded here, and implies that I'm "debuffing" my ally.

The term affliction is from the power's own description. Nothing loaded about it. The power afflicts a target with its debuff effect.

 

10 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

And your suggestion of why you wouldn't apply it to yourself is easily answered by "Because I want people near my friend to be slowed down to help give them an advantage."

Which we already do by afflicting the target with the power.

 

11 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

And your example of Ice Armor is a bit silly, as I don't see a reason why you wouldn't want to place Ice Armor on yourself if it helps increase your survival.

I used that example because htat is how the ice armors from Corrupters and Defenders work. You apply them to others, never yourself.

 

12 minutes ago, Kalthea said:

Also, Hurricane is a Knockback/Repel effect, and doesn't suit the same function as Snow Storm other than "it has CC".

The point of the Hurricane comment is that it is a debuff storm effect that is centered on the character. Not what its specific effects are.

[Rudra]

52 minutes ago, biostem said:

But the player would have to be within like the 25' radius of enemies to affect them, right?  Even if you used it on an unwitting player, if they were within that radius of enemies, that's kind of on them.  I'm not saying it's ok to grief players, but if you afk within a group of enemies that could potentially defeat you, then that's just being negligent.  I suppose player A could put the debuff on player B, then drag enemies to player B, hoping that they then aggro on that player, but that'd be no different than trying to train enemies on an unwitting player either way, which, AFAIK, falls under such code of conduct violation regardless...  

There are trolls in the game. (And I don't mean the Trolls faction. *smirk*) A person doesn't have to be AFK in a group of mobs to troll them with the suggestion. They just need to be near enough to the mobs and not wanting to be in combat with them. See my comment above for an example.

 

(Edit: And the toggle wouldn't even need to stay on. Just apply and then turn off. Sneaking player is now in combat regardless. And good luck proving it was from being trolled.)

 

Edit again: Or the other form of griefing @Luminara mentioned: applying an unwanted, obscuring effect that hides the character's appearance. Or to just cause annoyance in a group of players. Like say a group of RP'ers chatting it up in Pocket D. No combat required.

 

Edit yet again: There is also the consideration of whether the OP would change Snow Storm, Darkest Night, et al. to targeting allies to affect enemies, or to targeting either/or. If it is changed to targeting allies, then I can't solo with most of my characters any more because I very much rely on those toggles to carry me through things like boss fights. If it is an either/or bit, then at least I can still solo.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Rudra