/tg/Station 13

It got a bit buried in the other thread, so here it is again:

I propose reworking stamina damage to remove a portion of said stamina damage after it has stunned.

100 stamina damage -> 5-7 second stun AND removes ~50 stamina damage at the end of the stun.

Additional stamina damage while being stunned has no effect.

This way stamina damage can be slowly replace hard stuns without being total aids.

Please keep this thread relatively about this specific rework.

I like the flat removal and do think it's a step in a good direction, but considering how much stamina damage things like disabler beams do that damage can still just be applied again for very little cost and the permastun is still very easy to maintain. It also doesn't fix stamina damage causing debilitating slowdown which is a massive aspect of what makes it so disgusting.

PKPenguin321 wrote:I like the flat removal and do think it's a step in a good direction, but considering how much stamina damage things like disabler beams do that damage can still just be applied again for very little cost and the permastun is still very easy to maintain. It also doesn't fix stamina damage causing debilitating slowdown which is a massive aspect of what makes it so disgusting.

Well you would at least have some window to act, which is contrary to the hard stackable stuns we have now.

Stamina slowdowns might be revised, but is outside of the scope of this idea.

I think this proposal improves our stamina system enough for the effort required to be actionable.

Nobody actually has an opinion about this?

Stamina was never supposed to exist at the same time as one-and-done stuns. You dont need to rework stamina, the entire combat system from the ground up needs to be hit. The fact that this was implemented in such a fashion still annoys me... Cheridan chose the wrong path.

Ergovisavi wrote:Stamina was never supposed to exist at the same time as one-and-done stuns. You dont need to rework stamina, the entire combat system from the ground up needs to be hit. The fact that this was implemented in such a fashion still annoys me... Cheridan chose the wrong path.

I think if we had 0 hard stuns and exclusively stamina damage and it worked the way it does right now, the game would be worse for it. As it is, stamina damage is essentially just better than hard stuns (wont list all the reasons why here unless I'm asked to). At the same time, though, someone with a hard stun can stun somebody with a disabler before the guy with the disabler can stamina stun them, meaning that disablers are better in every instance except for when you're fighting another disabler. Without a hard stun to counter guys with disablers, combat would still be "land the first hit and congrats you have the stun and win" only slower and the stuns are stronger + they have slowdown.

You don't suffer slowdown on the first shot, so no, first shot "doesn't win". Unless someone changed the way we calculate that.

Ergovisavi wrote:You don't suffer slowdown on the first shot, so no, first shot "doesn't win".

This assumes you have exactly 100 health, doesn't it?

PKPenguin321 wrote:

Ergovisavi wrote:You don't suffer slowdown on the first shot, so no, first shot "doesn't win".

This assumes you have exactly 100 health, doesn't it?

You don't assume combat starts at 2 HP. Anyway, damage slowdown is the real issue here, in that instance, not stamina.

I think stamina damage contributing to damage slowdown is the issue. Damage slowdown calculations should ignore stamina damage.

PKPenguin321 wrote:I think stamina damage contributing to damage slowdown is the issue. Damage slowdown calculations should ignore stamina damage.

Damage slowdown existing in the first place is the issue, as it causes a snowball effect in combat encounters. Stamina is irrelevant.

I disagree. I think stamina accentuates the issues of damage slowdown. Damage slowdown is a good thing in my opinion, as if you beat someone to an inch of their life, literally one health, they should not be able to get up and sprint away at full speed. At the same time, though, being slowed does make you extremely vulnerable in combat, something disablers don't need to have considering they already have permanent stuns. If you get up by some miracle from a stamina stun (which will almost never happen, as any type of damage will re-apply the stun, so once you go down from stamina damage literally any weapon can be used to permastun you as they also do damage), you deserve the chance to run away at top speed. It's different from getting physically beaten to 1 health.

Except it has nothing to do with stamina and it in no way accentuates the issue. If they were using lasers, you'd be in crit, which is LITERALLY an indefinite stun until you die. The only difference is that one is labeled STAMINA and the other BURN.

Slightly more detailed and reworked proposal:

Being stunned restores 5 stamina damage per second.

Stamina damage counts for medium slowdown but not for heavy.

yes, I think that if the (some)stamina damage is removed AFTER the stun and the stun is not lengthened by more inflicted stamina damage it would be better. No more permastunning

DireVictory wrote:yes, I think that if the (some)stamina damage is removed AFTER the stun and the stun is not lengthened by more inflicted stamina damage it would be better. No more permastunning

To be honest I don't think it is that bad that reaching 100 stamina damage means you have lost the fight.

You aren't getting up from 100 regular damage either.

And its also extremely likely that someone will just put cuffs on you that also almost permanently incapacitate you.

If you do get up after getting 100 stamina damage however you will have regenerated most of it away.

If the stamina resets to 50 assuming full health wouldn't that be a slow already?

I think the movement decrease threshold for stamina is around 33 or so stamina damage.