Target Cap Absorption


Aett_Thorn

 

Posted

This is a suggestion I've made in various posts over the years but never officially written down.

One of the things I'd like to see added to a few powers is "Target Cap Modification." This is an attribute that causes a target to count as more than 1 target for the purposes of calculating Max Targets in AoE powers. This is a way of increasing the survivability certain characters bring to teams without directly increasing defenses or resistance caps.

Note that "counting as multiple targets" does not mean you get hit by the power more than once. Rather, it means you have the ability to disrupt/deflect/absorb/refract part of the attack so that it is incapable of hitting as many targets as usual.

I see it in the following powers:

Tanker inherent. -- Tankers automatically count as if they are 6 targets instead of 1.

Kheldians & Brutes -- These ATs automatically count as if they are 3 targets instead of 1.

Force Field --> Dispersion Bubble -- Every target inside the bubble counts as 2 targets instead of 1. In large groups, this cuts down on how many people are hit by AoEs.

Super Reflexes --> Lucky -- Your contagious luck adds an additional 3 targets to your base (so a SR Tanker counts as 9 targets instead of 1).

Sonic Resonance --> Disruption Field & Trick Arrow --> Disruption Arrow Every enemy inside the field counts as if it were 80% of an enemy instead of 1. This raises the effective target cap of a power that hits 16 to approximately 20, as long as the enemies fit in the area.


Special notes:

  • The bonuses are additive. A Tanker inside a Dispersion Bubble counts as 6 (inherent) + 2 (dispersion bubble) = 8 targets. Two Force Fielders next to each other count as 6 targets total.
  • Nukes ignore target modifiers and are capable of hitting the full group.
  • When calculating the targets hit, the mechanic is inclusive. For example, if an AoE power with a target cap of 5 rolls on a Blaster(1) and then a Tanker(6), both are hit by the AoE because the Tanker was partially included. If instead it first hit the Tanker (6), it would never hit the Blaster because the target cap was completely absorbed.
  • This mechanic applies to most AoEs except those specially flagged, not just damage powers. For example, it affects control powers, AoE endurance drains, Ghost Widow's self heal, etc.


 

Posted

Since nearly every power in the game is at the standard cap of 16, I don't think this would make as much difference as you hope. Either that, or it's so unbalanced that it would make too much difference and fundamentally break the game.

A bit of jiggery pokery could abuse this mechanic to the point that no one else on the team would ever get hit, you'd quickly see less need for buffs and an almost complete negation of the usefulness of the AoE buffing mechanic they just added, not to mention heals, rez powers, and about half the types of inspirations most players use all the time.

Two SR tankers and a Force Fielder, and everyone else can bring a tray full of Reds and Blues and never need to do anything but attack. Took me about 6 seconds to come up with that example. Did you put some time into thinking about what that kind of imbalance would mean to teams and other ATs? Welcome back to City of Blasters.

No thanks.


"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad View Post
Took me about 6 seconds to come up with that example. Did you put some time into thinking about what that kind of imbalance would mean to teams and other ATs?

A bit more than 6 seconds.

I have to admit I kind of LOL at the idea of stacked SR Tankers and a Force Fielder being a tipping point of imbalance.


Quote:
Since nearly every power in the game is at the standard cap of 16...
The standard cap on cones and short range PBAoEs is 10.


 

Posted

You really shouldn't be laughing at how broken your own suggestion is. And it did in fact take me 6 seconds. It took me longer to write my post, because I'm cooking dinner.

Doesn't change the fact this would be a horrible change, or that you're explaining it horribly.


"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad View Post
You really shouldn't be laughing at how broken your own suggestion is. And it did in fact take me 6 seconds. It took me longer to write my post, because I'm cooking dinner.

Doesn't change the fact this would be a horrible change, or that you're explaining it horribly.

I don't want to fight with you, but IMO you should think through why 2 SRs and a Force Fielder would be a waste.

My post explains how it could work sequentially. If there are 15 x1 targets between the Tanker and the caster, all 16 get hit. This would be a way to disrupt a portion of the effect. It is actually somewhat less effective than a mezz (which removes the cast entirely).

In any case I feel your language is far too strong for an idea you don't like on a Suggestion forum. Why even read the Suggestion forum if you're going to be so nasty?


 

Posted

Ok, I see the key breakdown now. You don't understand how AoEs work that well. An AoE processes who gets hit based on who the NPC aimed at. If a Tanker has aggro and counts as 10 targets, and a second tank is second on the aggro table and counts as 10 targets, that soaks up nearly every standard AoE before the attack even calculates who else would get hit.

Even if the second tank isn't figured in the calculation that way, all a team has to do is make sure those 2 tankers are in the front, with the Force Fielder behind them, and everyone else on the team behind them and targeting though the tankers. The taunts of the two tankers soak all the single target attacks for 2 spawns, and your little broken mechanic soaks all the potential AoE spillover.

Thus, everyone else on the team is in perfect safety and doesn't have to worry about any sort of mitigation. To get a mechanic like you suggest to work, it would require a fundamental re-engineering of AoEs and aggro. This is not something smart developers do to a seven year old game.

Saying a broken mechanic is broken isn't being nasty. I'm being factual, not personal.


"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad View Post

Saying a broken mechanic is broken isn't being nasty. I'm being factual, not personal.
Correct.

Replace the words I bolded with "suggestion is badly broken" and that can be applied any time anyone gets upset that flaws are pointed out with their suggestion.

I really don't get why folks come in here thinking that when they post a suggestion up in this part of the forums that what they post is some how holy and should be endowed in a shrine where no one who disagrees has a right to post. That's just silly. (and this statement is not only for the OP, but anyone who thinks that way).


Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia View Post
I really don't get why folks come in here thinking that when they post a suggestion up in this part of the forums that what they post is some how holy and should be endowed in a shrine where no one who disagrees has a right to post. That's just silly. (and this statement is not only for the OP, but anyone who thinks that way).
Most likely to counter the d**ches that think their viewpoint is just as infallible, but declare themselves the 'winner' so the OP should shut up, slit their kitty's throat then hang themselves for ever thinking outside the box.

Or what I'd like to call: Close-minded >_>


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo_G View Post
Most likely to counter the d**ches that think their viewpoint is just as infallible, but declare themselves the 'winner' so the OP should shut up, slit their kitty's throat then hang themselves for ever thinking outside the box.

Or what I'd like to call: Close-minded >_>
I don't treat suggestions like PvP and I'm not in it to win. I disagreed with the idea and I said why.


"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill

 

Posted

Both the healing Nictus and Ghost Widow would benefit the most from this...


Quote:
Originally Posted by VoodooGirl View Post
[*]Watching out for the Spinning Disco Portal of D00M!*

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mega_Jamie View Post
Both the healing Nictus and Ghost Widow would benefit the most from this...

The basic concept came to me when looking at the question of "What would it take for me to consider multiple Tankers competitive with multiples of other classes?" Survivability via Tankers isn't really currently stackable; generally if you have 1, you have enough, and adding more doesn't do a whole lot.

With these mechanics, generally speaking 1 Tanker would cut down a cone or small PBAoE from 10 targets to 5 (the Tanker takes up the first 6 targets and there are 4 more). Two Tankers at melee could theoretically cut it down as low as 2, but only on attacks where the shot order is Tanker >>> Tanker. The number hit would vary depending on the chain. The order could be Blaster >> Blaster >> Defender >> Defender >> Controller >> Tanker if the Blaster was the first to get hit.

One person has suggested that this would so extremely overpowered that everyone would bring 2 SR Tankers and a Force Fielder. I don't really get that. It might mean that if you end up with 2 SR Tankers and a Force Fielder it wouldn't be a complete waste, like it is now.

The reason I don't think this is overpowered is that this is how almost how Masterminds work already. But at least in those cases the pets take a hit too.


 

Posted

Just out of curiosity, since I've never really looked into this, but do enemy attacks even have a target cap? I know that player attacks do, but I wouldn't think there would have been a reason for the Devs to code enemy attacks that way.


Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo_G View Post
Most likely to counter the d**ches that think their viewpoint is just as infallible, but declare themselves the 'winner' so the OP should shut up, slit their kitty's throat then hang themselves for ever thinking outside the box.

Or what I'd like to call: Close-minded >_>

I don't think it was quite that bad, but I do think the Suggestions section is the scariest place on the entire forum.


 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aett_Thorn View Post
Just out of curiosity, since I've never really looked into this, but do enemy attacks even have a target cap? I know that player attacks do, but I wouldn't think there would have been a reason for the Devs to code enemy attacks that way.
Historically there wouldn't be a need, but these days with potential 48 player leagues (and more commonly 24 player leagues) it's something that could come into play.

No idea what the answer is, but City of Data might know.


Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes

My Characters
CoX Chatlog Parser
Last.fm Feed