Best Of
Re: [Feedback Request] Alpha Two Citadel of the Steel Bloom & Firebrand Preview | August Livestream
We'd noticed whilst watching the fight, whilst Steven was reviving a downed player, the dragon was hitting him with AoE's and Steven was still able to continue reviving whilst taking damage. I've not watched the fight back thoroughly on YouTube yet but during the stream we didn't see any casting knockback or interrupts.
The folks in our guild voice channel think that it'd be good if those types of abilities could interrupt or knockback spell cast progression.
The folks in our guild voice channel think that it'd be good if those types of abilities could interrupt or knockback spell cast progression.
Re: [Feedback Request] Alpha Two Bard Archetype Preview Shown in July Livestream
First off I would like to congratulate the team on a job well done! The overall Bard arch-type has a great identity and hits much of what my wish list for bards is.
Bucky great job, love all the work you put into the bard along with the rest of the team.
Essentially feel the same way as Greek here. +1
Re: Current Combat in Ashes: Updated
I love that this topic is finally getting more attention. I've brought it up in many livestreams and streams from Ashes content creators, but it often felt like I was in the minority for caring about combat. It’s surprising to me that more people haven’t upvoted questions about this or provided feedback on the issue.
For over a year, I’ve been saying that combat is definitely the weakest part of Ashes of Creation, and it worries me the most as someone who has been following and supporting the game since Kickstarter. While I’m not concerned about the environment, assets, or overall scope of the game—they’re clearly heading in the right direction there—the combat feels so lackluster that it could potentially ruin the whole experience for me if it’s not drastically improved.
It’s not just about the combat, but also the general animations like running, which lack a sense of weight. In the forum thread for the last livestream, I mentioned that the animations and combat look stiff, and here are my main concerns:
- Stiff Animations: The transitions and fluidity of movements are lacking, making combat feel rigid and unnatural.
- Missing Weight: Characters don't feel like they have any physical presence or impact in the world, which detracts from the immersion.
- Limited Body Animations: It seems like not enough body parts are animated, leading to a lack of dynamism and realism in movements.
I’d love to see the developers focus on improving these aspects, perhaps by looking at how other successful games achieve more fluid and weighty combat systems. It’s important for the community to come together and voice these concerns, as improving combat could significantly enhance the overall experience of the game.
This is a divisive issue though.
You're probably in the minority by now. Someone does bring it up in their feedback, nearly every livestream, often with comparisons.
But there are just as many (probably far more) people who think it's great as is. Just a style thing.
Azherae
1
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
That is because you can have PvP in an open world setting without needing to curtail the quality of that PvP. You can not have PvE in an open world setting (PvP or not, honestly) at it's highest quality.Raiders get uppity about it, notice no arena or battleground enjoyers are up in arms and flailing about.
Put another way, a game with open world PvP and no instances is not saying they will only have second rate PvP. A game with open world PvE and no instances is specifically saying they will only have second rate PvE.
There are many other things in this game that PvP players have complained about. However, they complain about things that affect the quality of PvP, they don't (generally) complain about things that do not. Same with PvE players, they don't (generally) complain about things that have no impact on PvE, but will complain about things that do.
I don't know if this is something you simply don't understand (PvE and PvP are affected by the same things, but in different ways), or if you do know this and are just trying to make an argument regardless of how bad it is. Either way, you really aren't making any good arguments here.
Noaani
3
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
The point of instancing pieces of content is so Intrepid can design around a set amount of participants. This is necessary in order to create high-end, highly demanding PvE encounters that only 1% of players will ever clear. They can't design a challenge without knowing how many people will be running around in the combat space. If the answer is "however many want to run in there" then the encounter has to be dumbed down to facilitate a clear in the face of PvP.
Steven mentioned the instances in the last stream as one of the answers to how he will combat zergs who might want to overpower the dragon by bringing a large number of players.
If you have such a zerg, chances are that there is no PvP near the dragon even if that is theoretically possible.
It's the same reason Node Seiges are set to be instanced (aka restricted participation), scheduled PvP events during which the node essentially is turned off until it's successfully defended, if it's successfully defended. Restricting non-registered players effectively means the seige happens in its own little world until the event concludes. If they don't have that common-sense restriction, then they'll find node sieges getting extremely chaotic under influence of people 'joining' just to troll objectives while there's nothing that can be done about them.
We discussed in a thread about what happens/how to prevent the side owning the castle to place players on the attacking side.
The same can happen also if a boss is instanced and allows 2 teams to fight against a boss. They may actually cooperate instead of engaging into PvP.
The advantage I see with an interference free battle against a boss is that a team from a small guild might sneak to the boss room even when a larger guild tries to lock down the area and prevent others to kill the boss. A team may arrive early and while fighting, another one can arrive late and ruin the fight even though they might not be able to defeat it themselves. So being interference free, such possibility is prevented and the reward can be contested later through PvP, while trying to leave the dungeon... if the winners don't logout on the spot. And if the dungeon is designed to allow PvP afterward. Because dungeons can also be designed to have separate exit or multiple exit paths to increase the chance of escaping with the loot. People ask for such design changes even in full loot PvP games. There is nothing worse than a large guild being able to lock down the content. Better to die fighting an NPC because you don't have the skill than not even trying to reach it because you know a large number of players will prevent you going there. Imagine paying subscription to farm low quality stuff to make money to pay to those who locked down the dungeon.
Otr
2
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
Power already exists in instanced PvP and as a direct result of instanced PvP. Clearly if that fundamental gameplay mechanic was a deal breaker for you, you’d already be long gone, so what’s the deal? What are you actually complaining about??
Im going to correct your ignorance on sieges only once. As of now, castle sieges are PvX, the player power comes from one of the three raid bosses (PvE). The political power of entire alliance comes from sieges, but that system isn’t even complete.
Read the wiki a little more carefully if you bothered at all.
And I’ve already voiced my preference for castles being open world way before you showed up on the forums.
Can you start by reading my posts accurately before you harp on someone not reading the wiki? You've misread posts multiple times now which make trying to discuss anything with you frustrating, to put it lightly. (Not helped by your lack of clarity, apparent misunderstanding of the systems as they're designed, along with not knowing what 'instanced' means in the context of Ashes of Creation.)
Castle seiges (which I've never even mentioned anywhere in this thread) are objective-based PvP events, which you ought to know considering you took part in one. The existence of an objective does not negate that it's a PvP event. The only time it's a PvX encounter is the first capture, an I have no doubt it's not going to be remotely considered 'top-end' bosses considering it's designed for the express purpose of being cleared out to promote player politicking.
Also, instanced content is planned there too already.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_siegesThere may be instanced locations within otherwise open-world castle and node sieges, where specific groups can participate in small, short duration objective-based battles that will affect the overall outcome of the siege.[12]
It was previously stated that castle sieges may or may not be (entirely) instanced in the final game.[13]
Alpha-1 castle sieges occurred in an open-world zone that was accessible via a NPC teleporter.[14][15][13][16]
Dungeons being open but the final boss encounters being instanced to allow for more finely-tuned combat encounters falls entirely in line with how the PvP events are being handled. ' Fight all the way here but only one group/guild/whatever can take their shot at the boss.' Open world to a point, and then they can really crank up the difficulty where no zerging of a boss can happen.
The point of instancing pieces of content is so Intrepid can design around a set amount of participants. This is necessary in order to create high-end, highly demanding PvE encounters that only 1% of players will ever clear. They can't design a challenge without knowing how many people will be running around in the combat space. If the answer is "however many want to run in there" then the encounter has to be dumbed down to facilitate a clear in the face of PvP.
It's the same reason Node Seiges are set to be instanced (aka restricted participation), scheduled PvP events during which the node essentially is turned off until it's successfully defended, if it's successfully defended. Restricting non-registered players effectively means the seige happens in its own little world until the event concludes. If they don't have that common-sense restriction, then they'll find node sieges getting extremely chaotic under influence of people 'joining' just to troll objectives while there's nothing that can be done about them.
The only instanced “PvP” event so far were sieges. It was both PvP and PvE simultaneously, the dragons (PvE) dropped the power. Destroying assets is PvE.
Good lord. Well, if nothing else thank you for confirming you don't know the difference between a PvP objective and a PvE encounter. Certainly puts the whole thread into perspective.
Caeryl
3
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
Indeed.After reading boss pages and looking for videos regarding PvP in their top end encounters (Gauntlet it seems), absolutely nothing about the game’s boss mechanics come across as complex or precision based.
Since this is a neccessity of all PvE encounters in a PvP environment, people that haven't played games that seperate the two simply don't understand that such encounters are the basic bitch version of PvE. To these people, it may well be the best they have ever seen.
Noaani
2
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
Power already exists in instanced PvP and as a direct result of instanced PvP. Clearly if that fundamental gameplay mechanic was a deal breaker for you, you’d already be long gone, so what’s the deal? What are you actually complaining about??
Im going to correct your ignorance on sieges only once. As of now, castle sieges are PvX, the player power comes from one of the three raid bosses (PvE). The political power of entire alliance comes from sieges, but that system isn’t even complete.
Read the wiki a little more carefully if you bothered at all.
And I’ve already voiced my preference for castles being open world way before you showed up on the forums.
Can you start by reading my posts accurately before you harp on someone not reading the wiki? You've misread posts multiple times now which make trying to discuss anything with you frustrating, to put it lightly. (Not helped by your lack of clarity, apparent misunderstanding of the systems as they're designed, along with not knowing what 'instanced' means in the context of Ashes of Creation.)
Castle seiges (which I've never even mentioned anywhere in this thread) are objective-based PvP events, which you ought to know considering you took part in one. The existence of an objective does not negate that it's a PvP event. The only time it's a PvX encounter is the first capture, an I have no doubt it's not going to be remotely considered 'top-end' bosses considering it's designed for the express purpose of being cleared out to promote player politicking.
Also, instanced content is planned there too already.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Castle_sieges
There may be instanced locations within otherwise open-world castle and node sieges, where specific groups can participate in small, short duration objective-based battles that will affect the overall outcome of the siege.[12]
It was previously stated that castle sieges may or may not be (entirely) instanced in the final game.[13]
Alpha-1 castle sieges occurred in an open-world zone that was accessible via a NPC teleporter.[14][15][13][16]
Dungeons being open but the final boss encounters being instanced to allow for more finely-tuned combat encounters falls entirely in line with how the PvP events are being handled. ' Fight all the way here but only one group/guild/whatever can take their shot at the boss.' Open world to a point, and then they can really crank up the difficulty where no zerging of a boss can happen.
The point of instancing pieces of content is so Intrepid can design around a set amount of participants. This is necessary in order to create high-end, highly demanding PvE encounters that only 1% of players will ever clear. They can't design a challenge without knowing how many people will be running around in the combat space. If the answer is "however many want to run in there" then the encounter has to be dumbed down to facilitate a clear in the face of PvP.
It's the same reason Node Seiges are set to be instanced (aka restricted participation), scheduled PvP events during which the node essentially is turned off until it's successfully defended, if it's successfully defended. Restricting non-registered players effectively means the seige happens in its own little world until the event concludes. If they don't have that common-sense restriction, then they'll find node sieges getting extremely chaotic under influence of people 'joining' just to troll objectives while there's nothing that can be done about them.
Caeryl
1
Re: Instanced Content Should Not Offer Power Gains
Instanced content can be used to unlock archetype skills and other character strengthening features, except for XP. Meaning they should be a one off, you are high enough to unlock that skill, you go with your groups help to complete a challenging raid at the end of the instanced dungeon and you are done.
You cannot hide inside instanced content and expect to Lv up.
Another reward could be certain parts needed for certain crafts. That means that players still need to face the challenges of the open world to complete 100% of the crafted items, and the economy is protected and totally unaffected.
Another idea is a mix with L2s Hero system. Here it is:
If Intrepid chooses to lift the strongest player from every class(64) to a higher status as part of a periodic competotion design, then these players, heroes champions, demigods whatever the title end up being, may be required to complete certain quests, going through challenging instanced content to unlock unique weapons, or small skill lines, or armor.
For a very small percentage of players, there is a whole new group/raid size gameplay available tied to those heroes and their supporters.
The simpliest solution is the cosmetic/title rewards that has been mentioned by many ppl, many times.
There is room for choreographed content in the form of instanced challenges, which gives the devs to create great looking areas and mechanisms (who may require appropriate non combat archetype skills, giving further depth to CERTAIN archetypes) but certain people seem hellbend on arguing about pedantic terms, numbers and "data".
And then there are those that refuse to understand that instanced character progress and item rewards hurt the open world design of player driven conflict and economy, because they are based to brainless faction wars (kill this guy because you are with faction red and he is with faction blue) and boring Vendor NPC daily content, with an AH as a garbage bin to throw your endless loot for peanuts in an effort to make some gold.
Good job forum.
You cannot hide inside instanced content and expect to Lv up.
Another reward could be certain parts needed for certain crafts. That means that players still need to face the challenges of the open world to complete 100% of the crafted items, and the economy is protected and totally unaffected.
Another idea is a mix with L2s Hero system. Here it is:
If Intrepid chooses to lift the strongest player from every class(64) to a higher status as part of a periodic competotion design, then these players, heroes champions, demigods whatever the title end up being, may be required to complete certain quests, going through challenging instanced content to unlock unique weapons, or small skill lines, or armor.
For a very small percentage of players, there is a whole new group/raid size gameplay available tied to those heroes and their supporters.
The simpliest solution is the cosmetic/title rewards that has been mentioned by many ppl, many times.
There is room for choreographed content in the form of instanced challenges, which gives the devs to create great looking areas and mechanisms (who may require appropriate non combat archetype skills, giving further depth to CERTAIN archetypes) but certain people seem hellbend on arguing about pedantic terms, numbers and "data".
And then there are those that refuse to understand that instanced character progress and item rewards hurt the open world design of player driven conflict and economy, because they are based to brainless faction wars (kill this guy because you are with faction red and he is with faction blue) and boring Vendor NPC daily content, with an AH as a garbage bin to throw your endless loot for peanuts in an effort to make some gold.
Good job forum.
Re: Steven's response to secondary archetypes
"Class fantasy" has always been in the design for Secondary Archetypes.I think the class fantasy concept development is even more likely to be useful to them now.
We know some of the differences for Necromancer and Shaman.
We don't know the "class fantasy" differences for Templar and Highsword - but Steven and the devs do.
Dygz
1