Hello, this is some thoughts I collected from last week's discussion about Cover.
It's possible to detect Covered attacks in Hit Determination and
(probably) Damage Modification. This means we can do things like:
- Silently ignore Row
- Take Defend into account (and then unset it)
- Modify Evade (instead of attacker's hit rate, like we do now)
- Modify Defense
- Modify damage multpliers
- Silently ignore Image
Our previous options were to modify/disable Cover on various conditions, like:
Row (Currently disables Cover)
Defend (Is currently disabled by Cover)
Statuses (Currently disables Cover)
As well as the option of unsetting statuses or Defend before taking them
into account. For example, Cover could just remove Image before it's even
considered, like we currently do with Defend.
I think removing Defend before or Covering is the most intuitive; you leave
your defensive stance to jump in front of a teammate to take a hit. Mishrak
argues that removing it after is equally intuitive, and I can see his point,
too. I'd say it's mostly a matter of whether you want Cover to synergize
with Defend or not.
As for Image, either silently ignoring it, or removing it outright, are both
unexpected compare to the normal way Image behaves. However, it does drive
home the point that Cover does not work with Image, without letting you turn
Cover off at will with a Smoke Bomb.
Removing Image after allowing it to let you dodge a covered hit is an option,
however, even if Covering 100% removes it, it might be too powerful to let
Image synergize with Cover at all. Then again, if you have an Image setter
that's fast enough to keep up, you're basically already physically immune, so
it might not be that big of a deal.
The current approach of disabling Cover while having Image is a little less
intuitive, but it already has precedent with Clear. If you want players to be
able to turn Cover off freely, there's nothing wrong with this option.
Finally, I don't think Covering from the back row makes any kind of sense,
but I can see the merit in not allowing Cover to be so easily turned on and
off at will. The option is there to just always take damage as if in front row.
And the (edited) chat log:
3:25 PM] Mishrak: So will you defend and then lose defense or will you not defend at all with cover ? [3:41 PM] Satarack: I'd rather it bypass defend than it remove the defend status [3:56 PM] Mishrak: If it removes defend then you can actually use your turn to defend and then it falls [3:56 PM] Mishrak: If it bypasses defend then defend is useless with cover [3:59 PM] seibaby: It breaks you out of Defend, before damage is resolved [4:00 PM] Mishrak: So you can't use defend with cover at all [4:00 PM] Mishrak: So why not just make it so cover doesn't activate if you're defending ? [4:05 PM] Mishrak: If you defend and it still activates it will give a false impression of synergy. So better to not let it activate at all with defend up [4:08 PM] Satarack: Part of why I'm saying it's getting bloated is how much you have to remember; but the other part is how most of these conditions are things players won't be able to infer [4:09 PM] Satarack: they'll have to be taught it [4:11 PM] Satarack: Things like that the player won't even notice [4:11 PM] Mishrak: Like what ? [4:12 PM] Satarack: But like back row disabling cover, defend disabling cover, image and vanish disabling cover, none of these can be inferred. [4:12 PM] Satarack: The player won't even bat an eye at brushes never triggering cover [4:14 PM] Satarack: Some of the issues, like back row and defend, I was suggesting that the damage formula should ignore the back row and defend steps; but still allow cover [4:15 PM] Satarack: so it doesn't matter what row they're in, if they cover someone they still take damage like they're front row and not defending [4:15 PM] Mishrak: That is probably cleaner actually [4:16 PM] seibaby: I disagree about defend, Mish. I see activating cover as sort pseudo-taking an action, and actions makes you stop defending [4:17 PM] Mishrak: I wouldn't see it that way. Cover is passive [4:17 PM] seibaby: Disabling cover if defending is a valid option, but it IS different than defending and still allowing cover [4:17 PM] Mishrak: I would expect defend to reduce the damage [4:17 PM] Satarack: It makes more sense to stay in line with what the game considers actions; that's what the player will be used to. [4:17 PM] Mishrak: Like if defend was collapsed after the hit. That makes sense [4:17 PM] Mishrak: But ignored entirely ? [4:17 PM] Mishrak: That doesn't make sense [4:19 PM] Mishrak: So if defend isn't gonna synergize with cover - I personally think it should - it should just either do what Sata said or be ignored entirely [4:17 PM] Satarack: maybe ATB should reset every time you cover :opieop: [4:20 PM] seibaby: Satarack I actually considered atb getting a slight pushback, in case Cover still turns out overpowered [4:21 PM] Mishrak: I like simplifying the row/defend thing: let cover still activate, it just bypasses the damage mitigation from those. The only downside to this is you can't then turn it off if you wanted to [4:21 PM] Mishrak: Short of removing the relics [4:22 PM] seibaby: I sort of agree [4:23 PM] seibaby: Let cover remove defend, but allow it to benefit from it first. I disagree about row. [4:24 PM] seibaby: Anyway I agree with the point in theory only, I don't think Cover and defend should synergize [4:26 PM] Mishrak: I can see a case for both sides but I'm sure BTB doesn't want it also so [4:28 PM] Mishrak: That fact remains that cover is probably one of the more complex abilities in the game and the player won't be able to infer the behavior no matter what we do [4:28 PM] Mishrak: Short of redesigning the ability entirely [4:29 PM] seibaby: However, if row silently ignored cover, why wouldn't defend? [4:29 PM] seibaby: (rather than disallowing it outright) [4:30 PM] seibaby: Er sorry, other way around. Cover silently ignoring row/defend [4:30 PM] seibaby: One suggestion was to let cover activate from the back row, but to ignore the row damage reduction [4:31 PM] seibaby: Rather than disabling cover from back row [4:31 PM] seibaby: I disagree with it because it's obtuse, it's easier for players to notice cover just not activating from the back row, I think [4:32 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: I like that way. It makes logical sense, you are breaking your defensive stance and moving forward to eat the hit [4:32 PM] seibaby: That's my thinking [4:32 PM] Mishrak: Sure. I don't disagree [4:33 PM] seibaby: Anyway, this is the fluff we're talking about. The mechanics consideration was to not let cover synergize with defend [4:33 PM] seibaby: Not that fluff isn't important. Intuitive is good. [4:34 PM] Mishrak: My thought about defend is that you're activating it similarly to runic and preparing to take a hit. You're sacrificing a turn(s) to have a chance at reducing a physical damage hit [4:34 PM] Mishrak: Since you can't fully anticipate the cover [4:34 PM] Mishrak: Or the physical [4:34 PM] Mishrak: It's balanced similarly to runic [4:35 PM] Mishrak: Where it differs is that you're mitigating damage the entire defensive stance [4:35 PM] Mishrak: But you still can't act [4:36 PM] Mishrak: And if it breaks the defensive stance the player still has to reset it (rather than just Afk defend) [4:37 PM] Mishrak: And of course unlike runic you won't 100% cover the physical [4:38 PM] Mishrak: You'll have to build a character around that and it'll be impossible to cover 100% [4:39 PM] Mishrak: So that's why I think defend should give the damage reduction from the front row with cover [4:42 PM] seibaby: It would have a nice symmetry with Runic, granted, if cover let you one-time benefit from defend [4:43 PM] seibaby: And it is more intuitive that way. Otoh, if we don't have cover synergize with defend, it's more intuitive to just disallow it if defending. I guess what we have now is sort of a compromise, you can defend yourself, but still break out of Defend to protect someone else [4:44 PM] Mishrak: It actually gives defend a purpose [4:45 PM] seibaby: The current behaviour makes the most sense to me intuitively and mechanically [4:45 PM] Mishrak: I don't think not getting the defend bonus makes sense [4:45 PM] Mishrak: Why even bother using it [4:46 PM] Mishrak: There's even less of a purpose with cover doing its thing [4:46 PM] Mishrak: Substantially less [4:46 PM] Mishrak: It's almost never productive to just straight defend [4:47 PM] seibaby: I have a feeling cover is too strong to let it synergize with defend, that's why I'd prefer to keep defend self-only [4:47 PM] seibaby: Time will tell, perhaps [4:47 PM] Mishrak: It could very well be [4:48 PM] Mishrak: It just means defend is ultimately even more useless than it already is [4:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: I'd prefer for defend to still allow defending (without going directly into if cover should benefit from defend) [4:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: Same for row [4:51 PM] Mishrak: Hmm [4:51 PM] Mishrak: Forcing...front row [4:51 PM] Mishrak: Means you're always gonna see full damage counters [4:51 PM] Mishrak: For cover counter [4:51 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: But with full damage taken [4:51 PM] Mishrak: I guess that's fine [4:52 PM] Mishrak: Yeah I'm just trying to think of who wants to use cover [4:52 PM] Mishrak: The people that get the most stamina really don't like being on the front row (relm / strago) except for terra [4:53 PM] Mishrak: So ultimately you have less stamina to do it properly except for strago and relm [4:53 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: But yeah. I prefer "When covering, a character has to forgo the benefits of defensive stances and rows, and is more likely to be hit by the attack they're attempting to cover"(edited) [4:54 PM] Mishrak: It's very difficult to maximize stamina and still cover counter [4:54 PM] Mishrak: Locke and cyan will never hit crazy stamina levels like Terra and strago [4:54 PM] Mishrak: But Terra needs some hp EL to survive front row [4:54 PM] Mishrak: So can't go Pure trit [4:55 PM] Mishrak: Strago will be soft butter [4:57 PM] Mishrak: Well strago could safe himself I guess [4:57 PM] Mishrak: Refract would be detrimental [4:57 PM] Mishrak: He would be a bad cover unit [4:58 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: As should be expected from the 'frail' old mage [4:59 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: My opinion's still "Cover loses benefit of defend/row but still works" [5:23 PM] seibaby: So should cover leave you in the front row if you try to cover from the back row? It sounds like a coding horror but it makes the most sense [5:30 PM] dn: That's going to require work in C1, most likely [6:05 PM] seibaby: Actually I think you can just queue up the row command [6:05 PM] seibaby: It'll look less smooth than jumping back to the front row though [6:22 PM] seibaby: You know, re-reading the above discussion about cover, I can't help but think pretty much every point made is sensible [6:22 PM] seibaby: It all depends on what t he desired mechanics are, and what is most intuitive to a player [6:24 PM] seibaby: For example, should you really be able to turn cover on and off in battle or should it be a choice made when loading out [10:13 PM] Artemi ?: My big thought with cover and row is that the player should be able to easily tell when it's turned on or turn it off when they want to. Simply switching Sabin to the back row is a very clear, intuitive way to think, "Oh he's not on the front line anymore, that means he can't stand in front of Relm tanking anymore". That's why I think Cover from the back row is a bad idea, simply because it muddles the learning curve for an already complex ability. [10:17 PM] Artemi ?: Hmm... a thought for Image and Clear; could you make it so you still CAN cover with those, but when you do, you take the hit as normal and the status dispels (similar to how Clear fades when you're hit with magic)? That would be a very clear message to the player that those statuses don't work with cover(edited) [10:18 PM] Artemi ?: All the other status effects are intuitive (Oh, I guess I can't cover with Blind since I can't see!), but those two don't make any particular sense and are mostly for balance reasons, so having a clear indicator would probably be a good idea.(edited) [10:27 PM] seibaby: That's not a bad idea [10:28 PM] seibaby: Although I think Blind is the least intuitive status to disable Cover, tbh [10:32 PM] seibaby: It's nice to be able to swap between covering and defensive mode (image) without sacrificing offense though. [10:35 PM] seibaby: Tbf it's a little unintuitive that Image disables cover, but breaking it outright...I don't know. [10:39 PM] Artemi ?: The other thought I had, and I have no idea how possible it is, would be to have them still jump up to cover, but then the wiff animation comes up and the defender gets hit anyway. To show them "failing" to cover. [10:47 PM] seibaby: It's honestly not a bad idea, it's a bit weird but very clearly communicates that Cover doesn't work with Image/Clear [10:48 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: is it possible for cover to bypass image/clear's evasion? [10:49 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: similar to our discussion of "just ignore row/defend" earlier [10:49 PM] seibaby: The only problem is it could interfere with multiple bodyguards, since it picks the one with the highest HP....Although I'm sure that can be solved. I'm not too keen on complicating the cover code much more though, it's already a giant space hog [10:53 PM] seibaby: There's a temporary variable that gets set as the bodyguard's ID, if it's preserved in hit calc, I could check to see if it matches the target.... [10:54 PM] seibaby: Welp, I don't want to muck around much more with the cover code this close to release, but I'll make some notes for future revisions [10:54 PM] Mishrak: I was discussing the merits of a defend synergy with cover [10:57 PM] BTB: I'd like to see some sort of synergy with Defend and Cover, but right now we're sort of in the process of nerfing Cover so it's running in two opposite directions [10:57 PM] seibaby: I was mulling this over before and had the idea to have Cover gear replace Row or Defend with Cover [10:58 PM] seibaby: But creating a new command seems like a bitch [10:58 PM] BTB: Defend is very niche, but it does have its uses [10:59 PM] BTB: I think the correct approach is to make defend more functional rather than axing it [10:59 PM] seibaby: I favor keeping Defend for self-use only because I think synergizing may cause Cover to be too strong [10:59 PM] Mishrak: Dadaluma and ultros 1 [10:59 PM] Mishrak: That's it [11:00 PM] Nowea & Knuckles: The issue with defend is that it requires the one defending to be the target, the damage to be predicted, and for the person to not be able to survive it otherwise. [11:00 PM] Mishrak: Otherwise you wanna heal or buff or attack [11:00 PM] Mishrak: Nowea is exactly correct [11:01 PM] BTB: My gut instinct would be to have the defend stance raise the chances for covering a healthy target. [11:01 PM] seibaby: Have Defend guarantee the next hit is taken by Cover, and break Defend when it does? Like Runic [11:01 PM] BTB: While still having cover break the defender out of the defense stance. [11:01 PM] BTB: Not guarantee. [11:01 PM] BTB: Never guarantee. [11:01 PM] Mishrak: Increasing chances is bad also [11:02 PM] BTB: Increasing chances for the first cover only. [11:02 PM] BTB: Since defense stance is broken afterward [11:02 PM] seibaby: still, use a turn to increase chances, or use a turn to do something definitely useful like heal? [11:04 PM] Mishrak: I still dunno how useful that ends up being [11:04 PM] Mishrak: It's still entirely contingent on a physical attack happening and wastes a turn and what merit do you really gain [11:04 PM] Mishrak: Over attacking healing or buffing [11:05 PM] Mishrak: Cover only works because it's passive [11:05 PM] seibaby: well, it's defend that's crummy, not cover. maybe using defend to buff cover isn't the only way to make defend better [11:06 PM] Mishrak: I'm just saying. Controlling cover with defend doesn't really provide much [11:06 PM] seibaby: Yeah, you can already control cover with row and image [11:07 PM] seibaby: Although row costs two turns if you only use it to switch off cover temporarily [11:07 PM] seibaby: (assuming we'd use Defend to disable cover rather than the other way around) 3:06 AM] seibaby: I think I've found a way to check for cover in hit determination and probably damage mod too :stuck_out_tongue: [3:07 AM] seibaby: So there's the option of just silently ignoring row, or to have defend be accounted for once, then unset [3:08 AM] seibaby: and to have image be just ignored and/or unset [3:08 AM] seibaby: as well as properly halving actual evasion, rather than doubling hit rate [3:16 AM] seibaby: it should also for example, be possible to add a damage multiplier or modify defense [3:16 AM] thzfunnymzn: Interesting [3:16 AM] thzfunnymzn: Whelp, don't forget to ask BTB on all that