Stun resistance

[overtrix]

The effects of stunning could also be broadened, to make them less an increment of death for the intelligence-guided character whilst remaining sufficiently so for the relatively unimaginative target of their wrath. Have it reduce effectiveness across the board, like multiple hexes - lower armor, accuracy, damage, spell power and indeed speed. The player has a chance to get out of the situation if they can, finding that properly difficult if they've been whacked by a cryomancer with little or no stun resistance - while Bill and his cronies will tend to soldier on regardless. A slower, weaker Bill is anyway more fitting to pursue battle with than one who's been knocked out, thou cruel-hearted sneak-thieves

[Mithril]

If you want several partially resisted stun attacks to eventually stack to a complete paralyzing stun then that is easily accomplished under Sus's system if you keep track of each blow and its duration. For example, a character with 60% stun resistance is hit by a monster with a stunning attack. The first stunning hit reduces speed by 40%. The next stunning hit reduces speed by another 40% or 80% in total. If hit by yet another attack the character is paralyzed completely until the duration of the first stunning effect expires and the character can move again with a 80% speed penalty.

[Dervis]

I'll try to summarize, correct what I got wrong:

[*]teach:

• Stunning blows add to a Stun-Meter similar to the Air-Meter when drowning.
• Abilities and item use failure rates are affected by this meter.
• Action speed is reduced (similar/same as Sus's idea)
• At 100% the Actor is knocked out. (just as stun works now every time you get hit.
• Suggestion for balancing: 2-3 stunning hits should knock out an actor (w/o resist?)

[/list]

Unclear to me is how resistance effects teach's solution.

Personally I think both solutions work, teach's seems more interesting, although harder to imagine the overall effect. BOTH solutions will need some serious balancing, so I don't think that is much of an argument, but that's what we are still in beta for, right?

Vee

For what I understand from teaches system, it would work something like this:

- Actors have a new stat:

Code: Select all

self.stun_counter = 0

- This new stat can have values ranging from 0 to inf.
- It will naturally decrease at a slow rate (it could be linked to talents, Con, etc.)

Code: Select all

t.stun_regen = t.stun_regen or -5 -- Stun_counter slowly decreases

- At 0 it will have no effects
- From 1-33 "Shaken" - Actor will have mild penalties to self.combat_atk and self.combat_def (possibly add something else against casters - fatigue?)
- From 34-66 "??" - Actor will have increased penalties + slowing effect
- From 67-99 "??" - Dramatic penalties + pinned down
- 100+ "Knocked Out" - Paralyzed and pretty much dead unless you luck out.
- Stun abilities will have a value linked to it. For example: a Stunning Blow could have a 20 + (10 + self:getStr(5))*self.getTalentLevel(t) - Ranging from around 33 at level 1 to 150+ fully ranked in endgame)
- Stun resist will just decrease the amount of stun_counter increase.

Getting some lunch now...

[Mithril]

Teach's system is very unclear with little agreement on implementation. What abilities will be affected? How much? How will regeneration work? What will stun resistance do?

Furthermore, it seems to nerf stun for those classes depending on stun, and thus these classes themselves, by being much less effective against monsters with 0% stun resistance.

In contrast, Sus's system is clearly defined and simple. Also, it will not nerf the classes depending on stun.

[darkgod]

Or, along the line of sus idea but even simplier, everything is as now (so 30% stun resist mean 30% chance to ignore the stun completly).
In addition each turn you have stun_resist chance to shrug off the stun.
Again this does not nerf stun reliant classes while protecting the player

[Mithril]

Or, along the line of sus idea but even simplier, everything is as now (so 30% stun resist mean 30% chance to ignore the stun completly).
In addition each turn you have stun_resist chance to shrug off the stun.
Again this does not nerf stun reliant classes while protecting the player

I guess this would mean that the average stun duration would be shorter? However, if the rng is unfavorable you may still be instantly killed by a monster with stun attacks even if you have partial stun resistance. So I think Sus's idea is better since the instant kill syndrome is prevented if you have partial stun resistance.

[Zonk]

Or, along the line of sus idea but even simplier, everything is as now (so 30% stun resist mean 30% chance to ignore the stun completly).
In addition each turn you have stun_resist chance to shrug off the stun.
Again this does not nerf stun reliant classes while protecting the player

Your idea, while simple and player-friendly, feels a little weird to me, because it would first check if you are stunned at all and then check every round, with one single check letting you ignore ALL the remaining rounds of stunning - or maybe I misread it.

I think my idea to have stun resist(well technically it was stun resist + physical save, but the latter WOULD nerf stun-reliant classes) be applied to each *potential* turn of stun was better.

So if you have some stun resistance and suffer a 5 round stun attack:
the game makes 5 resistance checks, you pass three, 3 turns of stun are negated..so you are only stunned for 2 turns.

To me this isn't very complicated, and it also 'fits' with the way elemental/damage resistances work - if you have 40% fire resistance, you don't have a 40% chance to completely ignore fire attacks, but rather are 40% less affected by them.

I'd also like if this system was applied to knockback/confusion/some other status effects.

[Mithril]

Two problems with the latest systems above:

1. Effectively decreasing stun duration using various saves or other means will nerf the character classes depending on stun since also their opponents will get saves and shorter stun duration. EDIT: DG's system does not have this problem since the save only occurs if you have stun resistance which most monster do not have.

2. If the rng does not favor you, then you can still be instantly killed by a monster with stun attacks, even if you have partial stun resistance.

Sus's system avoids both problems.

[Zonk]

Two problems with the latest systems above:

1. Effectively decreasing stun duration using various saves or other means will nerf the character classes depending on stun since also their opponents will get saves and shorter stun duration.

As was already said, not many monsters have stun resistance...and those that do have it at 100% anyway.
I've found only 5 NPCs that have non 100% resist(the master, pale drake, alatar, pallando, aeryn...and the last is not even an enemy).
So this is not really an issue.

2. If the rng does not favor you, then you can still be instantly killed by a monster with stun attacks, even if you have partial stun resistance.

Sus's system avoids both problems.

However, you DO have a point on this.
But you'd need really bad RNG to fail all/most resistance checks(and with such horrible RNG you might be dead anyway even if not stunned), and it would certainly be better than the system we have right now.
Instead of 'resist once or be stunned for X turns', it's "resist X times, with each failed check meaning one turn of stunning'.
The average "turn spent stunned during the game" might end up being the same, but it does mitigate the effects of both bad and good RNG, which I'm ok with.

I do agree that monsters should usually not have too much stunning - I think that's been dealt with by nerfing the Shade and Bill in 14, for example.

[Mithril]

2. If the rng does not favor you, then you can still be instantly killed by a monster with stun attacks, even if you have partial stun resistance.

Sus's system avoids both problems.

However, you DO have a point on this.
But you'd need really bad RNG to fail all/most resistance checks(and with such horrible RNG you might be dead anyway even if not stunned), and it would certainly be better than the system we have right now.
Instead of 'resist once or be stunned for X turns', it's "resist X times, with each failed check meaning one turn of stunning'.
The average "turn spent stunned during the game" might end up being the same, but it does mitigate the effects of both bad and good RNG, which I'm ok with.

I do agree that monsters should usually not have too much stunning - I think that's been dealt with by nerfing the Shade and Bill in 14, for example.

A problem with this reasoning being that some monster that hit really hard also stun. So failing just once and the monster paralyzing you for just one turn may be enough to instantly kill you while this would not happen under Sus's system where you get a chance to do something if you have partial stun resistance.

[Grey]

If they can kill you in one turn then you really should be more careful around them :P

I'm personally quite happy with all the nerfing ideas. DarkGod's I probably like best, since I suggested the same myself earlier ;) It leads to less guarantee of having monsters stunned for exactly x turns (especially ridiculous when using Flameshock). I'd personally like to see a lot more monsters with 10-50% stun resistance if this is implemented.

[Mithril]

If they can kill you in one turn then you really should be more careful around them

My example above was that the monster can kill you in two turn without stunning attacks but effectively in one turn if you fail one stun resistance save and the monster thus can hit twice unopposed. Under Sys''s system you get a chance to act after the first attack, under many other suggestions you do not.

[Mithril]

I'm personally quite happy with all the nerfing ideas. DarkGod's I probably like best, since I suggested the same myself earlier It leads to less guarantee of having monsters stunned for exactly x turns (especially ridiculous when using Flameshock). I'd personally like to see a lot more monsters with 10-50% stun resistance if this is implemented.

So how are you going to compensate rouges and warriors?

[Dervis]

I'm starting to think some people don't understand the issue that started this... I'll try to explain it someway simple and sorry if someone feels offended or something.

Early game: Stun abilities do around a 3 round stun. 0% stun resistance means it'll be and effective 3 turns paralyze if it lands - dangerous but generally won't one-shot people.

End game: Stun abilities do around a 7 round stun. A 7 turns paralyzation will kill pretty much every character.
- With 0% stun resistance, you'll be pretty much dead after having a stun on you.
- With 100% stun resistance, you won't be stunned. period. You simply don't care.
- 90% stun resistance as it is now means that in average you'll resist 9 stuns, the nr. 10 stun will land for 7 turns and you'll be dead. It's completely unreliable... considering Murphy's Law this feels much closer to 0% than 100%.

Possible solutions:
1 - Nerfing the effect itself.
2 - Changing stun resist so that it reduces duration of the effect rather than chance, so it's more reliable.
3 - Completely revamping the mechanic.

Any of these can and will work as long as their properly designed and balanced... giving cheap stun resistance to everyone is just sweeping it under the rug in my opinion.

[darkgod]

I dont think anybody is still considering "giving stun immunity for free", at least I am not

I have implemented the "stun will reduce energy" idea (aka slow you heavily). We will see how it rolls.
PS: This does *NOT* mean you get to act the turn after the stun, since you are slower