Rifleman Archive
Thread: Discussion on invisible vs invulnerable
Cover should provide a degree of protection.
Concealment should only protect from targeting a person.
Never the two shall meet.
In other words you can be 100% concealed but still take a bullet between the eyeballs.
You can be 100% under cover and take a pounding.
AOEs should show no difference to a person concealed, and only be modified by a person under cover.
There my .02 cents.
Invisible does not equal invulnerable. I thought of that as soon as I saw that question in the chat log. How exactly does hiding yourself keep you from getting hit by anarea attack? Here's my opinion....
Cloaked, Camoflaged, or Under Cover vs Ranged Attack: 50% chance of taking damage from the area attack (25% chance if prone)
Cloaked, Camo'd, or Covered vs Melee Area Attack: 100% chance of damage (60% chance if prone)
Cloacked, Camo'd, or Cover'd vs Explosive or Commando weapon Area Attack: 100% chance of damage (100% if prone)
The Ranged Area is less accurate at hitting people because its just spray of shots rather than filling an entire area, and obviously being prone reduces your chance of being hit by a spray further.
Melee Area is 100% accurate because it consists of spinning the weapon around in a 360 degree radius. If your close enough to get hit, you will, unless your on the ground which is the reason for the modifier to prone.
Explosive is 100% accurate because it fills an entire area with damage. The Commando area attack weapons are either an entire cone of sprayed fire, a splash of acid, electricity that arcs to other possible targets, or explosions in themselves, all of which will hit a target regardless. Plus it gives Commando a bit of a boost, however small it is.
Ackehece wrote:Brekkee - *Nerfed_Jedi* Will cloaked jedi be untargettable, un-followable, totally unattackable(including AOE)?
Helios - We're working on fixing all issues that would allow hidden people to be detected/targeted outside of the intended game mechanics. Currently, AOE attacks will affect all players in the area, as a weapon has no concept of what is visible and what is not.
- Cover is hiding behind something
- cloak is making someone think you are not there
- camo/project hides your image using technology
now... AOEs are bullets being sprayed in a random pattern. hiding on the ground should give you some protection but not 100%, standing in the middle of a hail of bullets should give no protection other then a chance that the spray field was to wide so it missed the target. Mind tricks do not a bullet stop (unless they manipulate you so that you don't fire for a sec when it is aimed at them) nor does a holo projector.
my feelings are ...
- prone + invisible = 80% chance of not being hit with an aoe
- invisible but standing 50%
- invisible but kneeling 65%
I pretty much agree. The principal sounds completely reasonable.
However, I woud personally tweak the percentages to this:
- prone + invisible = 80% chance of not being hit with an aoe
- invisible but standing 25%
- invisible but kneeling 50%
Phenix1050 wrote:
Ackehece wrote:
I did consider 100% protection for prone/cover but that would seem unfair. I do think that an AOE should hit but not break concealments after all it was a random hit with the user having no idea what they hit and where (other then a small fly text (aka: blood trail) Ever seen predator.
it's not all that unfair in my opinion, as long as cover still breaks when you get close. Think about it like this-- If you're trying to find a jedi or ranger, you spray randomly. If you're trying to find the rifleman, you go poking around. As long as cover still breaks within a certain area, then the target has a way of hurting you. Multiple stratigies for multiple opponants.
Or, cover could just provide additinal protection. prone- 50% chance of AoE missing, invisible- 75% chance, under cover - 90%.
just a thought. and don't worry about the Rangers. I think somebody installed a tracking device on me. They pretty much seem to know where I am at all times. But I will send them over. but you feel free to grab the Jedi.
- Standing = +5% to chance of getting hit.
- Kneeling = +0% to chance of getting hit.
- Prone = -5% to chance of getting hit.
- /cover = -5% to chance of getting hit.
- running= -5% to chance of getting hit.
Visibility:
- Visible = +0% to chance of getting hit by AoE cone attack.
- Invisible = -25% to chanceof getting hit AoE cone attack.
AoE Attack:
- AoE Cone Attack (i.e, spray of fire): = -10% to chance of getting hit.
- AoERadius Attack (i.e. grenades)= -0% to chance of getting hit.
Soa few scenarios are:
- /cover + prone+ invisible vs. AoE cone attack = -45% to chance of getting hit.
- /cover + prone + invisible vs. AoE radius attack = -35% to chance to getting hit.
- standing + invisible vs. AoE cone attack = -20% to chance of getting hit.
- standing + invisible vs. AoEraduis attack = -10% to chance of getting hit.
- kneeling+ invisible vs. AoE cone attack = -25% to chance of getting hit.
- kneeling + invisble vs. AoE radius attack = -15% to chance of getting hit.
There already is a chance to NOT get hit by a AoE throe defences. I say if you escape that and thus do not take damage you get to stay hidden. If you are hit and take damage you are revealed.
However for letting riflemen under /cover stay hidden even after they take damage would be a nice feature. Then it would be up to the individual rifle mans nerves if they would stay under /cover, or brake out of it to heal up, run or what ever.
Landorien wrote:
Cover is hiding behind something.. is not completely accurate. That would put you out of view, and unable to shoot anything else than your foot. It's using the terrain to hide yourself as far as game machination is concerned. Movement, albeit slow, during cover verifies this.
Cloak isn't making them think your not there, its making them not think you were there at all. So, if you don't think they are there.. why are you shooting?
Camo/maskscent is similar to the cover skill imho, only more advanced seeing as its a whole branch and gadget and gizmos and mud and dirt and sticks and stone and not just a single skill.. so suggesting that cover should be more powerful than camo defensivelysounds like sacrilege in my ears. To not only be able to attack under cover, and additionally get some defensive mods doubly so.
Landorien wrote:
I may be a jedi now, but I was ranger forever before that. And "most" rangers will back some of this up because ranger/rifleman is probably The most popular current template and thus any improvement to rifle is an improvement to their template. That will all change if carbines become a prereq and all things go blurrg, but I digress.
He may be standing next to someone, but ultimately you do not aim for him, so he is "harder" to hit. Far from invincible I agree. But hitting things _randomly_ should be significantlyharder than actively aiming even if visually they might be standing next to your wouldbe victim/duelling ally(which would be exploited to no end of course as however people detect cloaked jedi today)
You do realize that you've basically summarized Ack's position on this...right? What are you arguing about? The only corrolary that he would like to see put on to this position is having conditional defensive bonuses depending on your posture. Afterall, standing up right next to a bullseye means you'll likely get hit with the SAW; meanwhile kneeling gives you a lesser chance of getting hit by a stray; and prone even more so.
"Most" sane people should back something like this up since it does nothint to restrict any of the cloaking classes it simply makes them partially vulnerable to AoE attacks. We would technically be the most defensive of the cloaking skills. That would be the requirement of prone posture to even attempt at being /covered in the first place. If a jedi went prone then /cloaked they'd be just as effective, if not moreso. I really don't see a negative here beyond code time.
Landorien wrote:
I agree on some points, but I do not summarize his opinions in that he speaks on behalf of mainly the riflemen with this tweak.
Firstly, if the person you are refering to is Ackehece, then you may be confusing which letter of chromosone SHE has. About a day ago, I had a thread asking what would or wouldn't be changing in our Concealment line due to the Ranger Revamp - and towards the end of that thread I referd to Ackehece as "he" like you did. Ackehece informed me thta I should watch my pronoun usage, which leads me to believe that Ackehece is a SHE.
Secondly, she is the Rifleman Corespondent. She was literally CHOSEN to speak for our profession by the Developers themselves.
Thirdly, I interpreted her starting this thread as an attempt to answer the main question of my thread. She said there were indications the Devs we planning some changes to Rifleman Cover, but she didn't know what...and then this thread appears. While you are insinuating some ill-will, I believe that the very fact that she made this thread to discuss the topic indicates her wish to do exactly the opposite of what you are implying. She didn't say "We talked about it in the hidden Corespondants boards, and it has been decided". She has asked us what we think...chances are what she suggested may be the general line of thinking the Devs mentioned to her, and she is trying to see if those she represents have any strong feelings for or against it. I think she started this thread so she actually could speak for all of us becasue whe would know what all of our issues with this topic were.