Reasonable Discussion About Deterrence

#0 - Sept. 18, 2009, 12:36 p.m.

While making Deterrence a 360 skill instead of the (shudder) facing requirement it used to have was a step in the right direction (thanks, Blue!), Deterrence still suffers from some serious drawbacks that often make it a BAD idea to use.

Considering that this is supposed to be our "Oh NOES!" button and the hunter's premier defensive CD, the fact that it is so lackluster is a significant weakness for the class.

Please consider the following things that can happen...while you can do NOTHING in return (!!):

1. Pallies can still destroy you; holy dmg goes right through Deterrence.
2. Locks (and to a lesser extent SPs) can still destroy you; DoTs continue to tick and Chaos Bolt goes right through Deterrence.
3. We cannot use it if disarmed or dismantled (i.e. Rogues, Warriors and SPs can effectively remove this from the hunter's list of options prior to a burn)
4. Rogues can Vanish and Cheap Shot you...how does it make sense that you can get stunned THROUGH your "immunity"? And of course, once stunned, you can get comprehensively owned.
5. All ranged dmg can still crush you - Hunters are the most obvious problem, but Pally Hammers and other ranged attacks can still destroy you right through Deterrence.

Considering its many weaknesses, Deterrence functions very poorly relative to what it is SUPPOSED to do (serve as a brief, but effective Defensive CD). As it stands now, because Deterrence prevents you from attacking while it is up, popping it is often a very BAD idea...leaving you worse off than you would have been had you NOT pressed the button. Sort of a questionable trait for a Defensive Skill to have, no?

Given its flaws and considering that it is primarily a PVP-based skill, does it not make sense to address Hunters' well-documented and persistent Arena weakness by improving this skill? Would it not make sense to buff Deterrence somewhat?

I propose:

A. Reducing the "exceptions" that can pierce Deterrence. Chaos Bolt seems like it should stay as is, but please consider removing Holy Dmg and Ranged Attacks from the list of things that Deterrence is useless against. This would be a big step in the right direction toward making this skill a potent Defensive CD instead of a quasi-liability. And no stuns should be able to go through Deterrence.

B. Remove the "must have a melee weapon equipped" requirement. The times when you are disarmed are often those that you MOST NEED to use a Defensive skill...this sort of makes no sense.

C. The penalty for using Detterence (unable to attack at all) seems a bit steep. Perhaps, in keeping with the design vision of Deterrence as a Defensive CD, it could be changed to where the Hunter cannot use RANGED attacks, but can still use melee. This would allow us to do things like Wing Clip and Counterattack - no real dmg, but a bit of utility and a chance to actually get melee off you briefly.

Thanks for reading, Blue. I hope you give these ideas some thought.

- Smoot

Ghostcrawler

#54 - Sept. 21, 2009, 8:05 p.m.

Q u o t e:
What I've always seen GC respond positively to are things like:

Having a defensive CD that is really unreliable is not fun. If there is a hunter on the opposing team then it is not only bad, but borderline useless. I feel like I am always the first target in arenas simply because of this.

What he does not seem to respond to are things like:

We've been at the bottom forever, plz buff.

Both of these approaches are technically accurate, but only one seems to garner positive responses from the one person that actually matters in these forums.

Quoting Crowmagnum.

I can totally understand that there is a perception problem with Deterrence because it affects melee and spells but not ranged attacks. Because there are exceptions to what it protects against, it can earn a reputation for being unreliable or for being actually buggy. (We haven't found any evidence that it is buggy though.)

Something we could use feedback on is if the ranged damage is really a problem or just complicates the issue by leading to players not understanding how Deterrence is supposed to work. Is it really a big deal versus other hunters? If we changed it, then it would be both a buff and a nerf to hunters in some sense.

On a philosophical level, we don't like defensive abilities that confer an offensive advantage. We aren't likely to take the penalty off of Deterrence, or it just becomes the thing you pop when you want to kill someone and don't want to be stopped instead of the thing you do to survive when the other team is doing it to you.

We also didn't want the ability to just be the same defensive cooldown that other classes have. It's important to us that different classes have different mechanics that players need to learn instead of saying "This is your Ice Block with a different name and graphic." I mention this not to say that Deterrence must stay as it is forever, but to steer your suggestions towards ideas we are more likely to embrace.

Ghostcrawler

#67 - Sept. 21, 2009, 8:40 p.m.

If dots are the thing that you think really make hunters suffer right now, then that is a fair thing to discuss. I'm not sure making Deterrence break dots is necessarily the best answer to that though.

What I'm fishing for is some discussion of whether Deterrence is a big weakness for hunters (Plops and a few others don't seem to think it is), or if hunters have big weaknesses and Deterrence is a way to mitigate some of those, or if hunters just have weaknesses period and talking about Deterrence just muddies the waters. Those are three slightly different situations with different potential resolutions.

Saying other classes have better cooldowns doesn't carry that much weight with us. Other classes might have better heals or better snares or better crowd control or whatever. Comparing the individual abilities can only get you so far. Prot warriors have great defensive cooldowns, but you don't see many balance concerns about them. DKs and paladin "tanks" are another story, in part because you have to look at the whole package.