Feedback talk:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/Blindness Revamp

Plug the loophole - yes

It looks like you've identified a loophole in the base mechanic that ought to be plugged. I like the idea of non-binary conditions (I don't know why computer games have felt stuck with the paper/pencil origins of whole numbers and yes/no conditionals.): instead of being blind or not, instead of being able to hit or not, you're reduced in effectiveness.

I'm not sure about the specifics, but the general concept that you start off nearly useless (cannot hit except with a critical) and gradually mend (the rate of improvement might depend on traits, stacking, or environmental effects). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the "cannot hit except with a critical" suggestion. Maybe with the first attack there's no opportunity for removing the blind condition. Then, as you suggested with the "gradually mend" concept, each attack thereafter has an increasing 10% chance to remove the Blind condition; even if it fails to critical. By the affected player's 11th attack they will be guaranteed to have removed the Blind condition from themselves as the percent chance will have grown to 100% at that point. This assumes they can make 11 attacks prior to the natural expiration of Blind's duration (if it is to be given a duration); a likely possibility with the spammable weapon slot #1 skill. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the amount of mending varies, depending on the application and/or target's behavior. For example, if a thief applies blinding without supporting traits, it's 100% for one hit with a 90% chance of removal each hit, but if the blind is a result of a combo of a trait-spec'd thief AoE and ranger "arrow," then there's only a 10% chance to remove. Or there's a 10% chance of removal using non-cool down attack, but a 90% chance using a skill that has a cool down. (This can be in addition to gradual mend and/or removal-on-crit...or maybe those can be tied to traits.)

Anyhow, I doubt that ANet's going to follow any of our specific suggestions to the letter: the idea is to get them to think more imaginatively and outside the yes/no conditions of games from the 1970s. (Can you tell how big a pet peeve that is? When max health of 89 is reduced by 10%, why does that mean 8 or 9 points? why not 8.9 points?) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions and 100% agree with the assessment of game design being hobbled by legacies of the '70s. Paper-and-pencil D&D and its ilk were great in their day, but it's time to put them to rest. I understand that's where it all started and that informed and influenced early computer game design. But we should be past that now; especially with the several orders-of-magnitude improvement in computational power we have available today. There is so much untapped potential there.

I also agree that ArenaNet is unlikely to follow any of our specific suggestions to the letter. I throw my ideas out there half with the wish to see them implemented verbatim and half with the understanding they never will be; but with the hope they will spur developers to think outside the box. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 02:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If the chance to miss is still there and the chance to remove it goes up, players are still going to spam skill 1 until they manage to remove it (same issue you brought up to making it affect 3 attacks instead). I think any form that removes it with attacks is going to drive players to using skill 1 until it's gone to avoid missing with their stronger, longer recharge skills.

The glancing (GW2W) mechanic could be used to reduce effectiveness, similar to weakness, with a reduced critical hit chance to separate the two. Skills that cause blindness could cause 5 stacks while combos cause 1 stack.

• Blindess — Critical hit chance is reduced by 10...50%; 50% of non-critical hits are glancing blows; stacks intensity.
• Blindess — Critical hit chance is reduced by 20%; 20...100% of non-critical hits are glancing blows; stacks intensity.

Reducing range for attacks is another option. Players would miss if they continued to attack while out of range.

• Blindess — Range is reduced by 50%; 50% of non-critical hits are glancing blows; stacks duration.

Malice (GW2W) could also be used to increase the chance of glancing blows for the two conditions. •••Mora 02:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put; you're absolutely right in stating that my original suggestion wouldn't stop a player from spamming weapon skill #1. Thank you for catching that. I like the alternatives you've suggested. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like the ideas coming out of this suggestion too. GW1 blind and GW2 blind are prime examples of vanilla shut-down. The current Blind condition might as well as be described as "Your character drops his/her weapon for X seconds" as opposed to something that might actually have a creative and dynamic effect on a battle. I really like the idea of blind causing nothing but glancing blows, reducing critical hit chance and (I love this idea) reducing a character's effective range with weapons that attack from a distance. As opposed to "Welp, better attack once so I can shrug this black gunk off the edges of my screen," the player is forced to quickly re-evaluate his or her play style while under the effects of the condition.

I still think that there should be a total miss chance, but something much less black and white than 90% or 100% (maybe 33%-50% in order to keep melee classes worried about spamming skills with cooldowns). All in all, I think that Blindness--if implemented creatively--could end up being the most complex condition in the entire game--and justifiably so since no matter where you go, it almost invariably has one of the biggest impacts on any confrontation between combatants. Mcscamper 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Blind should make the screen go black

Just for a second or two and then fade back in over 1 second. I know, won't work well with NPC enemies but it would still be cool. --Skekzyz 05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Useless?

I dont understand this kind of stuff enough to call it useless or not, but i see some missing stuff in your suggestions. Aegis, one of the strongest boons (seems so, after there is no other boon this hard to get) does the same, it prevents damage once. Furthermore you cant see the enemys skills and you spam skills. You will mostly use the first skill (which is not so weak compared to the normal attack in GW1) and trigger blindness, but if you use one of your other skills, you normally cant stop your action fast enough after getting blind. It has for sure a bit to much randomness, but i wont call it useless.

Also remember the difference between GW1 and GW2. In GW1 are dazing and blinding strong but daze only against casters and blind only against fighters. The numbers of allies was limited and blind were through most skills only inflicted to the target with short duration (Ineptitude and Blinding Surge are not without reason two of the strongest Elites). Lets compare:

The actual way prevents you once from damage, obviously a advantage, especially after there are no monks around. So as selfprotection it is useful. Furthermore blindness in GW2 is nearly always inflicted to foe and nearby foes, so it is also useful against bigger groups. Now lets use it in a way you would like. You make blindness all 10s, the foe not, the foe miss around 3 times each time he is blinded, so you can prevent a lot of damage while doing damage. Even if it is only the first skill, after you can make more damage, you will win for sure. Next you fight with around 20 guys against a boss, all of you can inflict blindness. If not all use blindness at the same time, the once working blind is already strong, but your blindness destroys any danger through the boss.

There are many nice ideas in your suggestions but it is also like reducing the playstyles in GW1 to blinding-surge-eles and warriors and saying, the Ele are not OP after reducing the misschance to 50%... --Naruuu 09:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, this is ugly to read. Why exacly did i write this :D --Naruuu 15:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)