Solution to Block Casting

DDuke

How about making blocking change your skill bar entirely to one focused on tanking (perhaps new skills could be implemented for this), where there'd be no damaging skills. When you stop blocking, skill bar would swap back to normal (whatever weapon you had equipped).
Sidenote: would be nice to get a new skill bar while stealthing as well, perhaps with stealth skills once DB/Thieves Guild are released.

This way, you'd have no tanks dealing tons of damage while holding block, but instead you'd have more depth to the whole tanking & blocking in this game.


On top of that, I'd also make block 180 for more skill based combat, but that could be more difficult to implement.


Let me know what you think

Wolfsspinne

I think they should simply decrease Spellpower and Weapon Damage while blocking.

Vandril

@DDuke‌ - It actually wouldn't be too difficult to implement 180 blocking. Where attacks are coming from is already taken into account for Sneak Attacks, so this determining factor is already in the game.

When Sneaking, if you hit a mob, even while hidden, in their exact front (the 90 degree angle or so where you're exactly in front of them), you tend not to get the sneak attack bonus.

I'm not sure how I feel about your suggestion, though. I'm not sure adding more abilities able to be used in combat will work well with the way this game is designed.

@Wolfsspinne - This is easily implementable and a good balancing measure. It would have to be a very strong debuff, though. Maybe around 70% loss in WD/SD while blocking, which would amount to approximately a 35% damage reduction for Stamina/Magicka-based builds, respectively.

(Note: From my testing, I determined that 1 WD is about as strong as 10 Stamina on live. I assume the same applies to SD and Magicka. You can get a bit over10x Stamina/Magicka than you can WD/SD, generally, making Stamina/Magicka half of your skill's damage, with the other half coming from WD/SD. That it why a 70% loss to WD/SD would result in approximately 35% less skill damage.)

I'd rather see Block-casting gone entirely, so that players need to actively choose between moments of defense and moments of offense, but this change would at least help balance it out a bit.

jdroebuckb16_ESO

I was thinking they could add an effect to certain abilities that break block and put a 3 second cool down on being able to block again.

For example, critical charge/rush or any skill that rushes in from range could stagger the opponent back, break block and apply the 3 second cool down.

This would give the players some option to break the block but would come at a consequence of using a resource/ability to do so... and having to keep re-applying that ability to keep the block down.

PvE bosses could have a similar block busting skill but you would need to make that identifiable and interruptible.

Cody

decrease weapon and spell damage by 75-90% while blocking. Yes it is harsh, but if one wants to have high defense, they should have to sacrifice high offense for it, NOT have both.

FallenProphet

DDuke wrote: »

On top of that, I'd also make block 180 for more skill based combat, but that could be more difficult to implement.

This , it just makes sense.

jdroebuckb16_ESO

They have checks in for mob positions on other abilities so it shouldn't be that hard to have 180 arc block only.

cozmon3c_ESO

Tried block casting on pts, stay drains so fast now. Things are changing, its just in 1.6.

DanielMaxwell

best fix to block casting is to make it so that when you are blocking you can not use any spells/skills while maintaining the block

Vandril

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

best fix to block casting is to make it so that when you are blocking you can not use any spells/skills while maintaining the block

That wouldn't work too well, though, due to animation canceling.

Animation canceling is when actions with animations are granted "priorities". If a lower priority animation is playing when a higher priority skill is used, the animation cancels so that the skill can go off without waiting for the end of the animation.

In ESO, blocking has higher animation than any skill animation in the game (though the "channeling" animation for cast-time skills has a higher priority than blocking). What does that mean? All block-casters would need to do then is unblock, use instant cast, reblock, repeat. They'd still have an ~90% uptime on blocking, because they can block the MOMENT they get off the cast, before the animation for said offensive cast actually plays.

Try doing it in PvE. You'll see what I mean.

DanielMaxwell

Vandril wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

best fix to block casting is to make it so that when you are blocking you can not use any spells/skills while maintaining the block

That wouldn't work too well, though, due to animation canceling.

Animation canceling is when actions with animations are granted "priorities". If a lower priority animation is playing when a higher priority skill is used, the animation cancels so that the skill can go off without waiting for the end of the animation.

In ESO, blocking has higher animation than any skill animation in the game (though the "channeling" animation for cast-time skills has a higher priority than blocking). What does that mean? All block-casters would need to do then is unblock, use instant cast, reblock, repeat. They'd still have an ~90% uptime on blocking, because they can block the MOMENT they get off the cast, before the animation for said offensive cast actually plays.

Try doing it in PvE. You'll see what I mean.

if block was flagged so that it canceled out all actions when activated that would get rid of the animation canceling

Rev Rielle

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

I think they should simply decrease Spellpower and Weapon Damage while blocking.

I think this is a good idea actually. Perhaps reduce it by 50%.

Panda244

I see no problem with blockcasting... If you're a NB, fear them and throw shades on them, will *** their stamina very quickly, if you're a Nb with bow, fear, shades, snipe. If you're a sorc it shouldn't matter since most, if not all sorc damage bypasses block anyway, but if you have to, use pets. If you're a DK, weave and animation cancel with bash, if you're a templar, hit them with puncturing strike or eclipse. Or both.

There is a multitude of ways to deal with a permablocker... Blocking should not decrease damage done, makes tanks even more useless. Also... (skip to 1:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w#t=80

Oh look. Blockcasters!?! It's not even an argument from my perspective, someone who drops block, with a shield, in a battle, is a complete. And utter. Idiot. The only people that shouldn't have to block are Sorcerors and Templars, imo, they should buff the dmg shields on both of those classes so you don't have to block... Could also make it so while a certain shield is active you can't be stunned.

Cody wrote: »

decrease weapon and spell damage by 75-90% while blocking. Yes it is harsh, but if one wants to have high defense, they should have to sacrifice high offense for it, NOT have both.

Most perma blockers have *** offense, the only blockcasting people you have to be afraid of are DKs... Which.. Have 99.99% melee abilities. Just back up, and dodge roll their charge, or root them, and keep backing away.

FallenProphet wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

On top of that, I'd also make block 180 for more skill based combat, but that could be more difficult to implement.

This , it just makes sense.

A good swordsman with a shield can block multiple attacks with his shield, sword, and armor. There shouldn't be an angle where you can hit them no matter what, what they should do is multiply the stamina drain depending on how many people you're fighting. 1-3 people, normal drain, 4-5, doubled, 5-7, 65%, 7+, costs 80% more to block.

Cody

block casting dies with 1.6 so no worries. Stamina drains like crazy when blocking. I've even seen players with shields lose block quick when I was in PTS

Vandril

Panda244 wrote: »

I see no problem with blockcasting... If you're a NB, fear them and throw shades on them, will *** their stamina very quickly, if you're a Nb with bow, fear, shades, snipe. If you're a sorc it shouldn't matter since most, if not all sorc damage bypasses block anyway, but if you have to, use pets. If you're a DK, weave and animation cancel with bash, if you're a templar, hit them with puncturing strike or eclipse. Or both.

There is a multitude of ways to deal with a permablocker... Blocking should not decrease damage done, makes tanks even more useless. Also... (skip to 1:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w#t=80

Oh look. Blockcasters!?! It's not even an argument from my perspective, someone who drops block, with a shield, in a battle, is a complete. And utter. Idiot. The only people that shouldn't have to block are Sorcerors and Templars, imo, they should buff the dmg shields on both of those classes so you don't have to block... Could also make it so while a certain shield is active you can't be stunned.

Cody wrote: »

decrease weapon and spell damage by 75-90% while blocking. Yes it is harsh, but if one wants to have high defense, they should have to sacrifice high offense for it, NOT have both.

Most perma blockers have *** offense, the only blockcasting people you have to be afraid of are DKs... Which.. Have 99.99% melee abilities. Just back up, and dodge roll their charge, or root them, and keep backing away.

FallenProphet wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

On top of that, I'd also make block 180 for more skill based combat, but that could be more difficult to implement.

This , it just makes sense.

A good swordsman with a shield can block multiple attacks with his shield, sword, and armor. There shouldn't be an angle where you can hit them no matter what, what they should do is multiply the stamina drain depending on how many people you're fighting. 1-3 people, normal drain, 4-5, doubled, 5-7, 65%, 7+, costs 80% more to block.

What? People would use shields in real life for defense, and attack from behind them (not true, btw - read below)? No way! <.< >.> <.<

Unfortunately, the way it is now translates to terrible gameplay design.

Note how the "blockcasters" in that video lowered their shield slightly to allow for their attacks. This works both ways, for the enemy's weapons as well, causing a momentary lapse in the otherwise powerful wall of shields. That's why the archers were there, to COMPENSATE for the LOSS OF DEFENSE when the ones using shields ATTACKED or RETALIATED.

Also note that those who actually accomplished any real "damage" in that video either had spears (which are much longer than swords and designed for "behind the shield" attacking) or were forced to forsake shields entirely (the dude with the 2-hander, the archers).

Of course you never completely drop a shield when you attack with your weapon. Even when not blocking in this game, you still get the huge defensive benefit from shields from their armor (the stat). Armor (the stat) exists to simulate the mitigation of blows, since it's hard to perfectly simulate aiming for "breaks" in armor or breaking through armor with sheer force and weaponry, as it would work in real life, inside of a game. That's why the armor value on shields exist, because you're "blocking" with them all the time, just not with the game's active block mechanic.

And since you're apparently trying to go for realism in weaponry and armor, here, let's also bring up the fact that 2-handed maces should absolutely OBLITERATE any shield it comes across with a few heavy attacks. Those types of weapons were designed from the ground up to bend and penetrate enemy plate armor. In fact, they were often used to crush the enemies inside of their own armor.

Besides, did you know that REAL historical Sword+Shield wielders didn't actually attack with their sword? Most of the time, they actually attacked with their shield. That's right, shield bash was a thing irl, and it was OP. The sword was ACTUALLY a defensive tool for parrying attacks that got around the shield AND for finishing off wounded enemies. They rarely really swung the sword, they either parried or stabbed downed enemies.

So, let's face it, this game is nothing like real life (nor should it be like that clip you linked). Which leaves us with game mechanics. Which I once again reiterate: blockcasting makes for TERRIBLE gameplay design. It removes almost all of the tactical thought and timing behind blocking, aside from the stamina cost.

trimsic_ESO

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

I think they should simply decrease Spellpower and Weapon Damage while blocking.

Simple, elegant, and efficient.

DanielMaxwell

Panda244 wrote: »

I see no problem with blockcasting... If you're a NB, fear them and throw shades on them, will *** their stamina very quickly, if you're a Nb with bow, fear, shades, snipe. If you're a sorc it shouldn't matter since most, if not all sorc damage bypasses block anyway, but if you have to, use pets. If you're a DK, weave and animation cancel with bash, if you're a templar, hit them with puncturing strike or eclipse. Or both.

There is a multitude of ways to deal with a permablocker... Blocking should not decrease damage done, makes tanks even more useless. Also... (skip to 1:20)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTYz439cA5w#t=80

Oh look. Blockcasters!?! It's not even an argument from my perspective, someone who drops block, with a shield, in a battle, is a complete. And utter. Idiot. The only people that shouldn't have to block are Sorcerors and Templars, imo, they should buff the dmg shields on both of those classes so you don't have to block... Could also make it so while a certain shield is active you can't be stunned.

Cody wrote: »

decrease weapon and spell damage by 75-90% while blocking. Yes it is harsh, but if one wants to have high defense, they should have to sacrifice high offense for it, NOT have both.

Most perma blockers have *** offense, the only blockcasting people you have to be afraid of are DKs... Which.. Have 99.99% melee abilities. Just back up, and dodge roll their charge, or root them, and keep backing away.

FallenProphet wrote: »

DDuke wrote: »

On top of that, I'd also make block 180 for more skill based combat, but that could be more difficult to implement.

This , it just makes sense.

A good swordsman with a shield can block multiple attacks with his shield, sword, and armor. There shouldn't be an angle where you can hit them no matter what, what they should do is multiply the stamina drain depending on how many people you're fighting. 1-3 people, normal drain, 4-5, doubled, 5-7, 65%, 7+, costs 80% more to block.

you do realize the video you linked was a highly choreographed fight scene that has little reality to it since a shield wall formation would not be used on an open beach as that would invite the opposing force to use an envelopment maneuver (surround them) reducing the shield wall to a death trap

LordTareq

If you guys want directional blocking, then there would also need to be collision detection so tanks can actualy prevent players from getting in their blind spot. Otherwise this would just destroy tanks in PvP.

DanielMaxwell

LordTareq wrote: »

If you guys want directional blocking, then there would also need to be collision detection so tanks can actualy prevent players from getting in their blind spot. Otherwise this would just destroy tanks in PvP.

adding player collision to PvP would add a lot of new strategy and tactical game play for PvP , not sure if all of the PvPers would welcome that change.

DDuke

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

LordTareq wrote: »

If you guys want directional blocking, then there would also need to be collision detection so tanks can actualy prevent players from getting in their blind spot. Otherwise this would just destroy tanks in PvP.

adding player collision to PvP would add a lot of new strategy and tactical game play for PvP , not sure if all of the PvPers would welcome that change.

Having block be directional doesn't even require collision tbh

Games like WoW have done fine without it, while having directional block.

deepseamk20b14_ESO

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

I think they should simply decrease Spellpower and Weapon Damage while blocking.

Actually, this is an extremely simple yet effective idea. I block cast and have zero issues with this. +100.

O and Panda244.....WTF are you talking about? Go back to LARPING.....You know nothing about real combat.

DanielMaxwell

DDuke wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

LordTareq wrote: »

If you guys want directional blocking, then there would also need to be collision detection so tanks can actualy prevent players from getting in their blind spot. Otherwise this would just destroy tanks in PvP.

adding player collision to PvP would add a lot of new strategy and tactical game play for PvP , not sure if all of the PvPers would welcome that change.

Having block be directional doesn't even require collision tbh

Games like WoW have done fine without it, while having directional block.

true collision detection is not required for block to be directional , but adding in collision detection for PvP would have a significant effect on the strategies and tactics used in PvP , I am just not sure if most of the PvPers would welcome that change.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO

blockcasting is already nerfed, if you permablock in 1.6 you drain stam and die unless your built to do it. a good tank can do it but simply equipping sword and board will no longer save a glass cannon.

technohic

Wolfsspinne wrote: »

I think they should simply decrease Spellpower and Weapon Damage while blocking.

The only problem with this is latency with when you hit block and see it drop and cast the spell; and when the system actually acknowledges you dropped block to calculate when to penalize you.

Same things can be said with positional requirements.

I actually think with the cost being very prohibitive without specking into it goes far enough.