Rethinking Nano Resist

Right now many professions use a lower QL version of their CC tools (roots, snares, etc) because they have the same chance of landing on any target regardless of the nanos QL and the fact that you can spam the lower QL versions for much cheaper nano cost with similar results. In essence there really is no reason to use the "best" versions of many roots/snares/other cc tools because of how it is handled currently.

I think one of the major flaws in AO that leads to broken toolsets and overpowered fixes is what nanoresist does and represents from the ground up. Essentially, nano resist is "evades vs casters", not resisting the nano.

In most games I've played spells have a series of checks and balances in form of cast times (AO has inits which allow for instacasting), interruptibility, innate hit/miss chance for failures, and so on. But rarely do you see CC tools so greatly marginalized as in AO due to Nanoresist and what it does differently than the rest.

The way AO is setup, theoretically, if the target has a higher NR than the caster then the nano will be next to impossible to land. It's been said a dozen times that diminishing returns with greater chances to land for shorter duration debuffs/snares/roots/etc, would be preferred by many in the forums.

So the question is, do you believe NR is fine as it is and the nanos left with long durations/huge effects but incredibly difficult to land or instead change NR to work as a resistance for real by making it have some type of formula like this:

For every (x) points of NR you gain -1% nano damage modifier and -1% to nano debuff duration and a +1% chance to resist.

What that means is let's say that we take the classic "Fixer vs NT" situation of today. An NT can get we'll say approx 700 more Nanoskills than a Fixer can get NR in a typical nothing special for either player setup. As a result currently the NT just blinks at the fixer and they die.

Now with the proposed adjustments to how NR could work instead, where (x) = 100, a fixer with 2500 NR will have a 25% -damage modifier (making the Nuke hit for less damage), will shorten the duration of a blind/root/snare by 25% and give a base 25% chance to resist the effects entirely.

Now this might not solve the fixer vs nt balance equation itself nor is that the direct intent, moreover, I just used it as an example due to the extreme nature of the situation.

Then I would use Nanoskills vs nano QL with an inverse OE formula to handle the base caster chance to miss. Such as if the casters skills are 700 points higher than the targets NR and the nano that is being used is 30 levels lower than the target will essentially never land because it would be UE (under equipped). Mind you it's late and these are theoretical math formulas to illustrate a point rather than decide the "defacto numbers" to fit into the equation.

Quote:

---

It would actually majorly benefit nanoskill twinking because using a higher QL nano with "more" nanoskills than is required would in my idea either increase the chance of landing or work as an ADD Nano effect modifier.

So let's say that you have a nano that requires 1500 BM and 1800 MC. You have 1689 BM and 1948 MC; in my line of thinking this should add an effect modifier of 337. That effect modifier could be over healing effects/extra damage/extra duration of the nano effect, etc.

Right now if I as a non caster put more IP / buffs / twinking effort into my weapon skills my damage and thusly the effect of the button I am pressing is increased as a result of my effort. In terms of nanos, that is not the case. You simply either have enough skills to cast the nano and it land or not.

---

Anyway, not sure if anyone will agree or if this will just get flamed into oblivion but when I was talking about the subject with NR with a friend this came to me and I figured I'd flesh it out and then post it up for discussion and it's late so sorry for my horridly tl;dr version. I'll try to clean it up some tomorrow when I wake up.

Cheers,
Rick

So ... on the other hand, do you think it would be good if enforcers did take 30% less dmg from nanos?

NTs do not have 700 more nanoskills than Fixers have NR.

I like the basic idea. It's a relatively simple set of rules to apply - though FC would probably have to completely build it from ground up as NR goes deep into the darkest corners of the game engine, so it's probably a huge and very difficult job from a dev point of view.

But....

Essentially, there is a system a bit like this at the moment for resistance. If you look at some of the testing work that's been done recently in the MP forum, skill Vs NR does in fact create a situation where the resistance scales quite well with skill. Given equal attack and def skills, there's a percentage landing rate - and dependent upon how far attacker/defender is above the other, the percentage rate for landing vares. The NT Vs Fixer example you quote is really more a case of the skills-budgets in AO being out of whack. The curve for resist could perhaps be altered somewhat, but the mechanic is there already to provide graded returns on both attack and NR checks.

Your system would really also need a set of similar rules for the attack skills of the casters if you went ahead. For every X skill points on the attack skills, casters should see at the very least a 1% increase in the likelihood of landing the nano. There needs to be something that the caster can do to overcome the increases in chances of resistance. In the end, you'd be likely to have a base chance of landing a nano (say 50%) on top of which the modifiers based on skill would be applied.

It strikes me that NR reducing damage and duration would also need some kind of real counter on the attacker side. You could say that these are managed by the requirements on the nanos for the higher versions in a line - but keep in mind that not all hostile nanos actually have lines at all and others increase power through varying skillchecks. But still, if a TL7 Doc is casting his top init debuff and has worked to get much higher attack skills than the requirement - there should be some benefit for that skill effort in the same way that the defender benefits from further NR twinking.

Your system also doesn't really solve the problem that you yourself actually state though: that lower level nanos are essentially more effective than higher level ones. It seems to me that since you're basing attack and defence on skills at time of casting, that particular dynamic would still be a problem. A lower level snare will still land just as easily as a higher level snare... and since the reductions are %age based, your system wouldn't really change anything.

All in all, the thought is basically good. I'm not sure whether the benefits would really be worth the implementation costs and risks. I think you need to extend your idea to include how the attacker can counter NR effects, rather than focussing just on the defender side.... and I'm not at all sure how that would really fit with existing nano-lines.

X

I would go so far as saying that NR itself is less broken then the retarded amounts of resist to specific lines. There is a massive imbalance between the %root/snare/blind resist available vs %resist to other lines. Where is the 100% GTH resist? 100% DOT resist? 100% e/NSD resist? Alternatively the massive amounts of %resist could be cut to be in line with the %resist available for other lines.

@Ciekafsky Dislike enforcers huh? Aren't they supposed to be the anti-caster profession? So yeah I think it fits.

@Hacre O'rly? You can't break 3200 nano skills? Are you sure?

@XtremeTech Yeah lot of good in that post, except regarding the chance to land. In my post I stated that the lower QL versions of the nanos will gradually get harder to land based on a scaling percent using the UE formula (which isn't even finished really just proposed). Essentially, the lower the QL nano you use the less chances it should have of landing vs a same level opponent as you. I agree with your point about the skills being higher than their NR to give a boost to their chances of landing it. I was tired and actually forgot to type that in the last paragraph where it belonged. lol

@Solstiare Yeah but part of the problems I see is that most of these CC nanos have long durations, massive debuffs, and so on so essentially as a non-cc user or rather as a victim of CC yes I can understand the heavy whinage to get proper resistances against CC in AO. Now if the CC tools themselves were different using diminishing returns on very potent, short duration nanos the absolute need to have such insane resists would be dealt with. Yes getting hit by a nano sucks, but, it isn't the end of your world/fun for the next 5-15m or until you can spam your stims. However, casters would be able to use their nanos more strategically with their timing instead of just spam spam spam spam splat.

Why do you assume that NTs have the highest nanoskills and not MP's? A pvp NT has 2300-2400 MC while other nanoskills are lower. A pvm NT has 2500-2650ish MC, other nanoskills are lower. 3200? No way. MP's today, making severe sacrifices can push 3000 self (phulaks etc.) and NTs are below MP's in terms of whats possible. Also, the only profession I know that uses a lower ql root than the best possible at 220 is crats, and it's only one root. And using that root is not for its nanocost savings (most CC is dated pre SL...), it's for the defcheck.

With your idea, I see no benefit of nanoskill twinking. Am I not seeing something? Chance to "miss" looks to be solely based on the defender?

Resists are also a contributing problem which makes it way harder to balance NR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountaingoat

Why do you assume that NTs have the highest nanoskills and not MP's? A pvp NT has 2300-2400 MC while other nanoskills are lower. A pvm NT has 2500-2650ish MC, other nanoskills are lower. 3200? No way. MP's today, making severe sacrifices can push 3000 self (phulaks etc.) and NTs are below MP's in terms of whats possible. Also, the only profession I know that uses a lower ql root than the best possible at 220 is crats, and it's only one root. And using that root is not for its nanocost savings (most CC is dated pre SL...), it's for the defcheck.

With your idea, I see no benefit of nanoskill twinking. Am I not seeing something? Chance to "miss" looks to be solely based on the defender?

---

My mistake on how I worded it. What I meant by that is combined Nanoskills as AR vs NR during the check. It would actually majorly benefit nanoskill twinking because using a higher QL nano with "more" nanoskills than is required would in my idea either increase the chance of landing or work as an ADD Nano effect modifier.

So let's say that you have a nano that requires 1500 BM and 1800 MC. You have 1689 BM and 1948 MC; in my line of thinking this should add an effect modifier of 337. That effect modifier could be over healing effects/extra damage/extra duration of the nano effect, etc.

Right now if I as a non caster put more IP / buffs / twinking effort into my weapon skills my damage and thusly the effect of the button I am pressing is increased as a result of my effort. In terms of nanos, that is not the case. You simply either have enough skills to cast the nano and it land or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aethyrguard

@Hacre O'rly? You can't break 3200 nano skills? Are you sure?

---

Not without OBs and doing so creates one incredibly squishy NT. Please don't use unrealistic setups to make a point.

All that's broken about NR is two things:

People seem to think it should work like a perk check. "I have 3k NR, HOW ON EARTH DID THAT NANO LAND?!"

NR works as a defense against 2 types of nanos. Nanos with a 90-100% check with a long recharge and nanos with a high NR check, 120%+. It doesn't function as a defense against nanos with a recharge shorter than 2s with a 90-100% check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacre

Not without OBs and doing so creates one incredibly squishy NT. Please don't use unrealistic setups to make a point.

---

Read my last post. I wasn't referring to raw nanoskills but the combined effect as AR I didn't specify in my post and I thought I had.. too many things going on today my bad.

What if Nano Resist checks were made against the requirements of the nano being cast. This would fix the lower level nanos being used. Here is my idea.

Player A has 1000 NR.
Player B cast Nano 1 reqs MC >= 500.

1000 NR checks against 500 MC

Base resist is 50%.
NR is greater use this math:
NR - MC = 500 / MC = 1 * 100 = 100% additional resist.
Total Resist = Base Resist + 100%
So Player A would have 150% Resist to Nano 1. He would resist every time thus punishing using the lower nano.



Player B cast Nano 2 reqs MC >=2200
1000 NR check against 2200 MC
Base resist is 50%
Reqs are greater use this math:
MC - NR = 1200 / MC = 0.54 * 100 = 54% resist reduction.
Total Resist = Base Resist - 54%
So Player A would have -4% Resist of Nano 2. He would get hit every time basicly. Rewarding using the bigger nano.


Player B cast Nano 3 reqs MC >= 1200 & PM >= 900
1000 NR checks against 1050 ( 1200 + 900 / 2 )
Base resist is 50%
Averaged reqs are geater use this math:
1050 - NR = 50 / 1050 = 0.047 * 100 = 4.7% resist reduction.
Total Resist = Base resist - 4.7%
So Player A would have 45.3% Resist of Nano 3.


I like this as it makes the nano you choose to cast matter and reward both nano skills twinking to cast the bigger nanos and yet rewards NR twinking. But most importantly this math works for Level 1 to 220 toons across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacre

NTs do not have 700 more nanoskills than Fixers have NR.

---

Right, it's 1200 with cb :rolleyes:

Instead of reworking NR you could add something like a must not have effected by thisnthat running check which would run for 10 sec no matter if the debuff or nuke or so landed or not. That would fix annoying spammable nanos and could actually be also applied to friendly nanos so docs for example would have some more fun playing :p Think of it like a quick-forgetting immune system for your ncu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aethyrguard

Read my last post. I wasn't referring to raw nanoskills but the combined effect as AR I didn't specify in my post and I thought I had.. too many things going on today my bad.

---

3200 AR on cyberdeck is still highly unrealistic, if possible at all. Even so, cyberdeck AR isn't what matters with nukes, only perks make use of that AR (CoNC n Starfall). Nukes and nanos in general are straight nanoskills vs. NR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mountaingoat

Why do you assume that NTs have the highest nanoskills and not MP's? A pvp NT has 2300-2400 MC while other nanoskills are lower. A pvm NT has 2500-2650ish MC, other nanoskills are lower. 3200? No way. MP's today, making severe sacrifices can push 3000 self (phulaks etc.) and NTs are below MP's in terms of whats possible. Also, the only profession I know that uses a lower ql root than the best possible at 220 is crats, and it's only one root. And using that root is not for its nanocost savings (most CC is dated pre SL...), it's for the defcheck.

---

Agents too, but that's because of the lower def check on the third highest root.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacre

Not without OBs and doing so creates one incredibly squishy NT. Please don't use unrealistic setups to make a point.

All that's broken about NR is two things:

People seem to think it should work like a perk check. "I have 3k NR, HOW ON EARTH DID THAT NANO LAND?!"

NR works as a defense against 2 types of nanos. Nanos with a 90-100% check with a long recharge and nanos with a high NR check, 120%+. It doesn't function as a defense against nanos with a recharge shorter than 2s with a 90-100% check.

---

Basically my thought. The only time that NR simply does not work is low def check, spammable nanos (RI, GTH, BR, etc.) Other times it actually works decently. Also, unless you lower the nano reqs on NT nanos (No thanks), they wouldn't be able to get enough nanoskills to negate the % resists other people can gain. You can't "balance" NTs if you take away their ability to land nanos, CB not included.


Also, what's the problem with using lower level versions of nanos? I've never been too concerned with it since they are (1) easy to remove with FMs/Scanners, and (2) at least roots and snares have a high %level defense check. Compare the low level roots with 250-300% level check, and high level roots with 0-20% level check. Does this mechanic function at all? It sounds like it accomplishes something similar, without the part where defense nerfs the actual nano itself.

Quote:

---

What if Nano Resist checks were made against the requirements of the nano being cast. This would fix the lower level nanos being used.

---

It's an interesting idea... but penalises all sorts of nanos that are only available in RK versions or are short lines.

So, if as an MP I want to cast a dominate, I'm stuck with an attack skill of about 650 because that's the average casting requirement. I have no way to make it more likely to land by maximising my attack skills... so this useful debuff becomes unlandable after TL4 perhaps?

Similar thing happens with Nanocost Reduction debuff, which is a nanoline that has only one nano in it and so doesn't scale up.

You have to include some way for attackers to increase their chances of landing by maximising skills... because the defenders can increase their chances of resisting by maximising their NR.

X

im not 100% sure if i remember correcly but i thought that nanos had their resist chance increased with lvl.
atleast the NT calms scales with lvl on the target and NR i think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacre

All that's broken about NR is two things:

People seem to think it should work like a perk check. "I have 3k NR, HOW ON EARTH DID THAT NANO LAND?!"

NR works as a defense against 2 types of nanos. Nanos with a 90-100% check with a long recharge and nanos with a high NR check, 120%+. It doesn't function as a defense against nanos with a recharge shorter than 2s with a 90-100% check.

---

Funny, I see NR issues from another point of view but we kinda agree. I see nanos working just like perks (all or nothing) BUT they have a lot faster recharge and a lot higher chance to land (but never 100%).

So yeah fix the way recharge works on all debuffs and players will feel it as more fair.

OP, I can see where you are going with the NR idea here. And while it is a good intention it doesnt solve issues I (personally and this is only my way of thinking) think are really major. While debuffs are indeed annoying when I get hit with one in a bs I think its well played. So in fact when my MP cant cast her highest nuke I have to think fast and switch to lower less damaging ones. Sure I cant kill as fast but at least I still have a fighting chance because they will in fact land. Docs and traders can sometimes be slow killers so debuffs keep them in the game, and in turn i can debuff them too so no harm no foul. If an enfo comes up and beats the holy hell out of me well played also. My problem with NR not seeming to work properly is that root tends to keep me out of any real pvp almost the entire duration of a bs because its my character plus pets I have to get unstuck. Further, in the event I get hit by one of those long aoe roots I pray for death. Nothing more annoying than to be hopelessly chain rooted just out of range of pets so you have no way of getting out of the current situation. Also in the event that some kind person does kill me, root doesnt end on pets when you hit the dc room, so i spend the entire time trying to get roots off, or term resummon rebuff to go out and get snared again. very simple fix for this is just to have battle station nanos and nanos for everything else. would also be something that could possibly be realised instead of waiting for testing for months/ years while someone develops codes.

This is in semi response to another thread where this thread was pointed out, Less Ability Combat. I think all anyone really wants is a fighting chance to get in the action sometimes instead of feeling they have to sit the sidelines spamming stims.