I don't like the QTE bar, or the design behind it, so no UI customisation to change the visual representation of a golf swing timer is going to change my mind.
I wasn't at PAX, haven't played it. But I don't need to eat a turd to know I won't like it.
People at PAX may have said they didn't mind it, some may have even said they liked it, or loved it. We do have to bear in mind that this was a 10 min demo. How affected were these people by the sheer excitement of the being there and playing it?
Would that opinion change after playing for three hours of constant PvP? As many people do.
We we also need to bear in mind that what was shown at PAX was but a slice of the experience. Classes had no augments, not all skills, not all classes present, etc. The people playing, that I have seen from the vids available on YouTube, all seemed to be pretty good at hitting that sweet spot (except for Steven in that last stream, but let's assume he was distracted).
My question would be, in a much more dynamic environment, where all classes are present and where people are skilled and know what they are doing, where there is real competition with players on all sides and situational awareness needs to be on high alert: how easy is it going to be to focus on a swing timer bar.
That situation is so far from what anyone experienced at PAX that the answer just isn't available. I can only answer for myself. And I would not want to have to deal with that mechanic as it would ruin my immersion and my love of watching the field of battle, the movements of the players, skill animations, etc.
I understand they don't want an auto-attack. I applaud them for that. Please 100% stick to that design as I think auto-attack is lazy, but please implement something other than this QTE event system.
People keep referencing tons of games I have never heard of that have alternatives to this design that also address the lack of an auto-attack. There seem to be heaps of options out there and a lot of dislike for the first option they chose to display in this pre-alpha build for PAX.
Iterate away Intrepid.
Despite the division that some people seem intent on sowing in this thread, we are all here in the hope that Ashes will be the MMO that we have been waiting years for. We all want this game to be successful. Let's just focus on helping Steven and the guys make a game that we can all play for years and years.
Combat is so important to this genre. Games have been unsuccessful, despite an awesome world, lore and established IP with a solid base, simply because the combat was clunky. This is why so many people are passionate about this issue.
Ashes can be amazing, truly amazing, but if the combat turns the average player off, they will slide back to something else, create a negative perception of the game and prevent it from being as successful as it could be.
I, for one, do have faith in the development team, and especially Steven, to produce a fun combat system. It doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be fun.
Edit: sorry, that went on way longer than I thought
@mycroft "The fixed point would never be hit by button spamming, while the QTE will coincidentally be hit whenever it is randomly at the front."
Is it confirmed that you would only be able to hit the button once during the QTE? If so, and a button masher started as soon as the QTE appeared, then this would definitely be true if the sweet spot was never at the beginning, as you said.
If you can, in fact, button mash/spam during the QTE then their chances are pretty much equal regardless of where the sweet-spot is.
You have mentioned this twice, that is the only reason I am asking for confirmation.
Judging by the videos out there, it marks where you first press the button again, and if its in the sweet spot it continues the combo. If additional input updates the marked location then you are right, random or fixed would both allow for button spamming. But then it really wouldn't meet the design goals that Dygz has mentioned.
What would you like Combat to be ? What sorts of an Example(s) would you like to use as a (similar) representation for the Combat in Ashes of Creation ?
I would like to be able to chain attacks as combos. Similar to how, in other MMO's, two abilities boost each other if used in the correct order. With that system I think it would be more fun, more challenging to learn, and feel like more of a pay off if there was more to it that #1 key #2 key #3 key repeat.
I am not necessarily for or against the QTE. My post have mostly just been to clarify semantics. I do like the thought of having to master the feel of the classes/weapons/skills in combat as opposed to choosing a class, picking the right skills, and suddenly you're a master at combat with that class.
I think the theory/suggestion of a QTE is more my style. I am okay with not always performing the most successful chain of attacks and finishing with an ultimate. When I do I am sure I will be happy about it. If we all always used every attack perfectly and finished with an ultimate I don't know what the purpose would be except for looks. I am okay with things not always be the most efficient or perfect.
So, for me, a system that required forethought and attention to make every attack as good as possible with a moderate chance of failure would be ideal.
Your point that I was responding to was that they haven't said they would scrap the system. I sourced a quote that clearly says they would if there was enough negative feedback. Source your claim or stop moving goalposts and concede this point.e combo point is, two things that wouldn't apply to an actual QTE.
I already sourced my claim. And I am not moving goal posts. Steven stated at PAX that they are keeping the QTE and the combo system because the response from those who played it was overwhelmingly positive. And they are not going to scrap it based on the feedback of people who have only watched it but not played.
I wrote: The Ashes devs have chosen to add a QTE with a random sweet spot, regardless of what some players might want. The devs are already going to tweak the initial implementation. And they will also allow players to tweak the UI elements for the feature. But, they aren't going to overhaul the design based on the input of players who have merely watched a vid of the gameplay with no hands-on experience. Especially, since the feedback of those who have hands-on experience was overwhelmingly positive... cosmetics being the primary criticism rather than the mechanics.
You responded: But your QTE example is wrong, because the devs have said that they would overhaul it (the QTE, not just the UI for the QTE) if there is enough negative feedback from the community.
I replied: My QTE example is not wrong because the devs said they planned all along to tweak the design - PAX was just the first iteration. And, what Steven said specifically at PAX is that they're keeping the QTE because the feedback at PAX was overwhelmingly positive - they especially are not going to change the QTE based on negative feedback from people who have only watched the vids but not played the combat. Steven has not said that they will remove the QTE or the random aspects of the QTE based on negative feedback. None of the above means that that they won't make a variety of other changes to the QTE based on player feedback.
You provided a quote from Jeff B where he states: If everybody said "your combo system sucks", I think we would probably get rid of it.
What Jeff did not say is your paraphrase, "We would overhaul it if there is enough negative feedback from the community." Nor did Jeff say, "We will overhaul the combo system if some people don't like it."
The more accurate paraphrase of Jeff's statement is "if everybody had hated the combo system, he thinks they would probably have gotten rid of it. But everybody who played the combo system did not hate it. In fact, the feedback from those who played the combat was overwhelmingly positive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven: What's the purpose of the combo system? I mean, what did we intend with it, right? Having that kind of skill level associated with it, with something that's been monotonous with the auto-attack feature which we really don't want to re-use. And then, if we can break down the essence of our purpose there and then iterate on it in multiple ways to give people a fresh look at it from a different perspective, then maybe we can accomplish that goal.
What Steven did not say is, "During PAX we are going to post videos of the combat on YouTube and if some people who view those videos don't like the combat system, we will ask mycroft for his advice on how to fix the combo system and then implement his suggestions."
What I've been telling you all along is that all the feedback of what you like and don't like is great. But you offering fixes for the combo system is absurd, since you don't know what the purpose of the system is and you seemingly aren't on board with the goals of the system - which are to replace auto-attack and spamming/button-mashing. Also, you have not actually played the system - so, again, it's absurd for you to try to "fix" the system. And, while you don't like the system and seem to think that it needs to be scrapped, the Ashes game designers are good enough designers to have implemented the combo system in such away that the people who played the game overwhelmingly think that the QTE for the combo system is fine, barring a few tweaks...primarily to the UI. I haven't moved any goalposts.
Stating that you are a poor game designer is not ad hominem. That is an assessment of the game design concepts you have shared in these forums. Ad hominem would be saying you are too stupid to comprehend good game design - I haven't said anything like that. So, that is a strawman. ---------------------------------- I have not left QTEs being more susceptible to spam unaddressed. We have discussed it many times already. You can go back and read what I wrote.
Having a fixed sweet spot in the QTE undermine the purpose of having the QTE. People would simply memorize the timing for hitting the sweet spot and spam the combos without much thought - one step down from face-rolling the keyboard. There is a reason that the mechanic builds Focus. Because the intention is for people to focus in order to pull of the combos rather than just rely on muscle memory.
"QTEs generally involve the player following onscreen prompts to press buttons or manipulate joysticks within a limited amount of time. Such actions are either atypical of the normal controls during the game, or in a different context from their assigned functions. Whilst most prompts simply require the player to push the appropriate button in time, some may require different types of actions, such as repeatedly pressing a button a certain number of times within the time limit, or hitting the button with precise timing."
If you want to provide the source for a definition of QTE that includes the word "must be random or unpredictable"; go for it.
(I will try to let you have the last word so other people no longer have to be subjected to our disagreement.)
As I've mentioned previously in other Threads ... the Phrase:
" Consistency & Versatility " , constantly comes to mind ; each Archetype having a default Balance between the too.
( Black Bar = Balance-State )
Where as, the Secondary-Archetype will ... " Upset the Balance " by a ... certain percentage ; once a Secondary-Archetype is selected, you will either gain Consistency/ Versatility , but also lose Versatility/ Consistency too
( either or )
In addition i also imagine the image differentiating between the 64 Archetype-Blends.
But this in itself is very Vague ; Consistent with what ? Versatile with what ?
The image i made is basically my assumption of a " Heading " - the end-goal of each Archetype Playstyles ... hence being 64 of them xD ... but each also being viable & unique.
Getting to the point, I think it'll be ideal for Long-Range Abilities & Close-Range Abilities to have a different Mechanics and/or Camera-Angle Perspectives:
Long-Range Abilities having 3rd-Person FPS Style + Action-Combat Style OR a " Free-roam Style ". Because i don't like how each basic attack is like a " Heat-Seeking Missile " - always hitting
If Tab-targeting is preferred ... then ...at least have a RNG-Chance of the Attack missing ; a randomizer of 1% - 30% Chance of missing by default. The Percentage-Spectrum could gradually get smaller depending on the Player's Weapon's Skill Level divided by the the Ability Level ... the resulting Number could be used minimize the Gap ? ( by a small amount in percentages )
Or maybe something entirely different ?
( This RNG-Chance being entirely independent of ... any potential " Accuracy-Stat " System ... via Parry, Deflect, Dodge. In addition to any Parry/ Deflect/ Dodge Action Combat Abilitiy being independent too )
For Long-range, the Closer their Target gets ( by an " X " amount of the distance between them and the Target ) ... the RNG-Randomizer will dramatically change ( by " Y " amount of that distance in percentage ) - increasing their chances of hitting the Target. But if their target is ... " Too Close " ... then ...
( i was going say to like rolling a 20-sided Die or 100-sided Die ... but probably not worth elaborating xD. In short, i was thinking of an " Inverted-Change " if too close )
I mention The RNG-Randomizer idea because ... with Tab-targeting ... the Long-Range never misses. But by having it, it'll be more realistic in how you shouldn't " always hit a target "
I think a Player's Level should only affect the Unique Racial-Stat Growth. but by a small amount ( Hence Slow-Level Progression )
I'm honestly not sure how far i should ... " TheoryCraft " so I'll stop here
I don't need to eat a turd to know I won't like it.
If all you've done is look at a vid of a turd on a plate, you aren't in a position to weigh in on whether you will like the taste. That turd could be 100% chocolate rather than actual feces.
Isarii thought from the preview vid that he wouldn't like the combat, but when he actually tried, he found it to be fun. Enough so that he played the PvP 12 times over the course of 4 days.
A PC Gamer journalist thought he hated the combat before he played it. When he
actually played it, he enjoyed the combat immensely.
People at PAX may have said they didn't mind it, some may have even said they liked it, or loved it. We do have to bear in mind that this was a 10 min demo. How affected were these people by the sheer excitement of the being there and playing it?
It was a 10 minute demo that many people stood in long lines multiple times to replay. Several people returning to play multiple times each day. Some people played PvP 10+ times. One person played PvP 20+ times. I hate PvP and I played it 5 times - I was only there one day. I would have played more, but I preferred to spend my time talking to devs over standing in line for over an hour.
The people playing, that I have seen from the vids available on YouTube, all seemed to be pretty good at hitting that sweet spot (except for Steven in that last stream, but let's assume he was distracted).
How adept people were at hitting the sweet spot largely depended on how experienced people were at gaming over all - and how comfortable they were with the controls.
Hitting the sweet spot isn't particularly difficult if you're just standing still and focused on the weapon combo.
More challenging if you're moving, or determining when and where to use some other skill.
In Steven's case, he was distracted by trying to direct the other devs as well as present the features in the demo.
My question would be, in a much more dynamic environment, where all classes are present and where people are skilled and know what they are doing, where there is real competition with players on all sides and situational awareness needs to be on high alert: how easy is it going to be to focus on a swing timer bar.
That situation is so far from what anyone experienced at PAX that the answer just isn't available. I can only answer for myself. And I would not want to have to deal with that mechanic as it would ruin my immersion and my love of watching the field of battle, the movements of the players, skill animations, etc.
You really will have to wait until after you get your hands on the customizable UI to truly know whether it would ruin your immersion.
But, doesn't hurt to speculate that it most likely will.
I, for one, do have faith in the development team, and especially Steven, to produce a fun combat system. It doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be fun.
Innovative is highly important to the devs and a significant portion of the community.
If Ashes is fun like WoW, I won't be playing it.
I backed Ashes specifically to support the innovative game design.
Innovative is as important as the game being fun. And if the game is not innovative, it won't be fun... from my perspective
I mention The RNG-Randomizer idea because ... with Tab-targeting ... the Long-Range never misses. But by having it, it'll be more realistic in how you shouldn't " always hit a target "
I'm honestly not sure how far i should ... " TheoryCraft " so I'll stop here
You should probably play Ashes combat to determine whether your speculation about Long-Range never missing with tab-target is accurate.
I don't need to eat a turd to know I won't like it.
If all you've done is look at a vid of a turd on a plate, you aren't in a position to weigh in on whether you will like the taste. That turd could be 100% chocolate rather than actual feces.
Isarii thought from the preview vid that he wouldn't like the combat, but when he actually tried, he found it to be fun. Enough so that he played the PvP 12 times over the course of 4 days.
A PC Gamer journalist thought he hated the combat before he played it. When he
actually played it, he enjoyed the combat immensely.
People at PAX may have said they didn't mind it, some may have even said they liked it, or loved it. We do have to bear in mind that this was a 10 min demo. How affected were these people by the sheer excitement of the being there and playing it?
It was a 10 minute demo that many people stood in long lines multiple times to replay. Several people returning to play multiple times each day. Some people played PvP 10+ times. One person played PvP 20+ times. I hate PvP and I played it 5 times - I was only there one day. I would have played more, but I preferred to spend my time talking to devs over standing in line for over an hour.
The people playing, that I have seen from the vids available on YouTube, all seemed to be pretty good at hitting that sweet spot (except for Steven in that last stream, but let's assume he was distracted).
How adept people were at hitting the sweet spot largely depended on how experienced people were at gaming over all - and how comfortable they were with the controls.
Hitting the sweet spot isn't particularly difficult if you're just standing still and focused on the weapon combo.
More challenging if you're moving, or determining when and where to use some other skill.
In Steven's case, he was distracted by trying to direct the other devs as well as present the features in the demo.
My question would be, in a much more dynamic environment, where all classes are present and where people are skilled and know what they are doing, where there is real competition with players on all sides and situational awareness needs to be on high alert: how easy is it going to be to focus on a swing timer bar.
That situation is so far from what anyone experienced at PAX that the answer just isn't available. I can only answer for myself. And I would not want to have to deal with that mechanic as it would ruin my immersion and my love of watching the field of battle, the movements of the players, skill animations, etc.
You really will have to wait until after you get your hands on the customizable UI to truly know whether it would ruin your immersion.
But, doesn't hurt to speculate that it most likely will.
I, for one, do have faith in the development team, and especially Steven, to produce a fun combat system. It doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be fun.
Innovative is highly important to the devs and a significant portion of the community.
If Ashes is fun like WoW, I won't be playing it.
I backed Ashes specifically to support the innovative game design.
Innovative is as important as the game being fun. And if the game is not innovative, it won't be fun... from my perspective
Just a note, Isarii also agreed the changes i suggested would indeed be an improvement. As he finds the current implementation terrible (which we are discussing) but he likes the idea/concept of it.
You will find alot of people at PAX agree to the statement that they didnt like the implementation, and ONLY liked the concept/idea after it was explained to them afterwards, by Steven or another Intrepid staff member.
Which to that point the current iteration/implementation is still not liked, but the concept of moving away from auto-attack is.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system just as much to those that did. The reality is that opinion is more "mixed" than positive, and it not like Steven was going to say it was Mixed. Its PR, ofc hes going to say response is positive, but we can only take his word for it. Just like the "Trion" incident", there isnt evidence of it happening, can only take his word for it that it did.
Just a note, Isarii also agreed the changes i suggested would indeed be an improvement. As he finds the current implementation terrible (which we are discussing) but he likes the idea/concept of it.
I completely disagree with you. I spoke to Isarii at PAX. He played the PvP 12+ times. If the current implementation were terrible, he would not have done that. In his commentary during the From the Ashes podcast, Isarii did not state that the current implementation is terrible - pretty much the opposite. Rather, he states that he thought it would be terrible before he played it, but it actually was pretty decent - albeit needing changes - especially to the UI.
You will find a lot of people at PAX agree to the statement that they didn't like the implementation, and ONLY liked the concept/idea after it was explained to them afterwards, by Steven or another Intrepid staff member.
That didn't like the implementation of what, specifically?
The primary thing that was explained was which keys to use - especially because there is no auto-attack, there is a weapon key, the weapon key is also used to combo - in addition to the more traditional skills on keys 2-9.
Also, people had to be told to use the K key to toggle off/on the window which explained the abilities.
Many people immediately tried to spam the hotbar keys - which is meaningless in Ashes combat and most likely to result in missing the combos.
So, it's not really accurate to say that a lot of people didn't like the implementation and only liked the concept after it was explained to them.
Rather, many people the first day were confused and frustrated that the controls didn't work like they do in previous MMORPGs. You have to be more deliberate about choosing when to activate the hot-bar keys. You can't just faceroll.
Which to that point the current iteration/implementation is still not liked, but the concept of moving away from auto-attack is.
Uh. Noooo.
The current implementation is clunky and needs refinement, but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from those who played the demos - especially for a first iteration. The primary complaint has been about the UI - which the devs have said will be customizable by players.
Overwhelmingly, people were fine with the QTE mechanic, but they would like the placement of that UI display element to be to be somewhere less intrusive on the screen.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system just as much to those that did. The reality is that opinion is more "mixed" than positive, and it not like Steven was going to say it was Mixed. Its PR, ofc hes going to say response is positive, but we can only take his word for it. Just like the "Trion" incident", there isnt evidence of it happening, can only take his word for it that it did.
That, again, would be a no.
Someone at PAX asked Steven if they would be removing the QTE - and Steven responded they would not be removing the QTE because the response to their combat system has been overwhelmingly positive from those who actually played it and that the primary complaint has been about the UI. He then went on to explain the various ways that they will allow players to customize the UI to place the QTE where they want on the screen.
The evidence that the feedback for the combat system was overwhelming positive is that it was very common for people to stand in the long lines multiple times to re-play the demos.
If Isarii thought that the combat system was terrible, he would not have stood in the line play multiple times each day he was there and he would not have played the PvP demo 12+ times. Isarii was not the only person to play the PvP demo 12+ times.
One person I spoke to had played the PvP 20+ times - and, despite having an issue with nerve damage in one hand, he said it was surprisingly easy for him to find a comfortable method of handling the controls... and that the combat was fun.
More evidence is the PC Gamer journalist who had panned the combat based on the pre-PAX vid that introduced the QTE, thinking that he hated the design... and did a complete 180 after actually playing the demo.
Steven was pretty open about stating that the responses to the combat system were mixed. Akil mentions on the last livestream that they got some great feedback from PAX on how to change how the combo system is currently presented.
Just because Isarii likes your suggestion about the QTE being incorporated into spell animations doesn't mean that is truly feasible.
I am quite certain it is not.
And we will have to wait to see whether the devs end up incorporating the QTE into spell animations.
Also, I don't see Isarii really agreeing with you that they need to get rid of the bar - he specifically states that allowing players to customize the bar into a WoW-like arc display would be good.
Design decisions for Warlords of Draenor isn't what halved subscription numbers. What has halved WoW subscription numbers is trying to add expansions to an archaic MMORPG. They need to, instead, create a completely new version with a revolutionary game design rather than expand on the old design.
No, the incompetent designers was the ones who caused wow to lose so many players. They dumbed that game to a so low level that some mobas have literately more complex combat than wow does nowdays. The overall skill requirement for wow is continuously dropped with every expansion since it's release. By wotlk it was at the optimum. It was easy enough so everyone could play, but still had enough depth, so skilled play was possible. It's no wonder that it's playerbase increased continuously until the end of wotlk, where it reached the peak, and started to drop with further expansion, where the whole game got so dumbed down, that you could get basically the entire high end PvP gear by just afking at battlegrounds. They removed most of the depth from that classes, and filled them with shiny but pointless chose that they called "class mechanisms" which heavily limited what can you do with the class while adding zero to the fun factor. That random bar garbage is just like that. 100%pointless chore added to the game. It maybe look good for a random casual or someone who doesn't really play, it maybe fun for the first few time, but after you play hundreds of hours with it, it will end up becoming a boring chore instead.
Many nowdays MMO things that shiny combat features will going to sell the game, but the statistic shows otherwise. Actually even the fact that after so much years and self destructing design, still wow is the most popular(and profiting) mmorpg in the whole word with great margin shows, how bad the current era's mmorpg market is. The designers are clueless, and thinks that random shiny combat will going to sell, which maybe look good for sure, but probably not practical to play. Those designers who design those mechanisms have no real gaming experience, they didn't have years worth of played time, so it's no wonder that they have no clue about what to do. IMAO they should just create a simple tab/ability based combat what wow had in it's better days, and let the players develop the tactic instead of forcing them on comboing or other bullshit.
I agree changing animations to fit the qte would not work but having your character or weapon pulse/flash and then having X time to hit the comb would let you keep your eyes on the action. Or making the ui easier to see wth curves etc.
I still think once you play for a while you will be able to see the bar out the corner of your eye and see it easily. Its the same as watching cooldowns on a hotbar. You glance quickly and move on, combined with muscle memory, timing and a small bit of skill it shouldnt be hard.
As long as it gets polished smooth its not worth throwing a fit about. And obvious its going to get polished in the years to come.
What would you like Combat to be ? What sorts of an Example(s) would you like to use as a (similar) representation for the Combat in Ashes of Creation ?
My perfect MMORPG would iterate on Wildstar's telegraph system and LAS. I've accepted that Ashes isn't going that route, so I'd be happy with greater skill choice, which I'm sure we'll see over the months, and a weapon skill that you can actually get better at.
You provided a quote from Jeff B where he states: If everybody said "your combo system sucks", I think we would probably get rid of it.
What Jeff did not say is your paraphrase, "We would overhaul it if there is enough negative feedback from the community." Nor did Jeff say, "We will overhaul the combo system if some people don't like it."
Google's definition of would:
would
wo͝od,wəd,(ə)d/
verb
modal verb: would; modal verb: wouldst
1.
past of will1, in various senses.
"he said he would be away for a couple of days"
2.
(expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.
"he would lose his job if he were identified"
Given the second definition, I don't see how my paraphrase is inappropriate. On the other hand, yours incorrectly tries to push it all into a past tense, as if the point to change from QTEs is long gone and will never come up again.
since you don't know
what the purpose of the system is and you seemingly aren't on board
with the goals of the system - which are to replace auto-attack and
spamming/button-mashing.
When have I said any of that? I am all for getting rid of auto attacks and punishing button mashing. But this QTE isn't the only way to do that, which is something you don't seem to understand.
People would simply memorize the timing for hitting the sweet spot and
spam the combos without much thought - one step down from face-rolling
the keyboard.
How is pressing the keys in an intentional rhythm spamming? That's almost the opposite of spamming, and the intentionality of it makes it several magnitudes better than face-rolling.
And this still doesn't address the point that actually spamming the key (i.e. pressing it repeatedly and rapidly) will never trigger a combo with a point fixed in the middle but will occasionally hit the QTE if its at the beginning of the bar.
"As you gather clues to Lan Di's whereabouts, random interruptions in
gameplay called Quick Timer Events will erupt from time to time. These
QTEs, which are similar to the quick-response games found in Beatmania
and Dragon's Lair, require split-second controller responses to
hazardous stimuli."
Additionally, I'm looking at the intent behind the mechanic. QTEs are testing your reaction and focus, just like the random sweet spot. A fixed sweet spot wouldn't test either of those. So provide all the italics you want with all inclusive QTE definitions, it should be clear which mechanic is about reaction time and which is about developing skill with a weapon.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system
Personally, and somewhat cynically, I take claims of "overwhelmingly positive" responses with a grain of salt. As far as I know, there wasn't any sort of formal survey of participants, nor is there any indication of how many are Kickstarter backers. I fully expect people with a financial interest in the game to find it positive, cognitive dissonance can be tough to recognize and avoid.
Just a note, Isarii also agreed the changes i suggested would indeed be an improvement. As he finds the current implementation terrible (which we are discussing) but he likes the idea/concept of it.
I completely disagree with you. I spoke to Isarii at PAX. He played the PvP 12+ times. If the current implementation were terrible, he would not have done that. In his commentary during the From the Ashes podcast, Isarii did not state that the current implementation is terrible - pretty much the opposite. Rather, he states that he thought it would be terrible before he played it, but it actually was pretty decent - albeit needing changes - especially to the UI.
You will find a lot of people at PAX agree to the statement that they didn't like the implementation, and ONLY liked the concept/idea after it was explained to them afterwards, by Steven or another Intrepid staff member.
That didn't like the implementation of what, specifically?
The primary thing that was explained was which keys to use - especially because there is no auto-attack, there is a weapon key, the weapon key is also used to combo - in addition to the more traditional skills on keys 2-9.
Also, people had to be told to use the K key to toggle off/on the window which explained the abilities.
Many people immediately tried to spam the hotbar keys - which is meaningless in Ashes combat and most likely to result in missing the combos.
So, it's not really accurate to say that a lot of people didn't like the implementation and only liked the concept after it was explained to them.
Rather, many people the first day were confused and frustrated that the controls didn't work like they do in previous MMORPGs. You have to be more deliberate about choosing when to activate the hot-bar keys. You can't just faceroll.
Which to that point the current iteration/implementation is still not liked, but the concept of moving away from auto-attack is.
Uh. Noooo.
The current implementation is clunky and needs refinement, but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from those who played the demos - especially for a first iteration. The primary complaint has been about the UI - which the devs have said will be customizable by players.
Overwhelmingly, people were fine with the QTE mechanic, but they would like the placement of that UI display element to be to be somewhere less intrusive on the screen.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system just as much to those that did. The reality is that opinion is more "mixed" than positive, and it not like Steven was going to say it was Mixed. Its PR, ofc hes going to say response is positive, but we can only take his word for it. Just like the "Trion" incident", there isnt evidence of it happening, can only take his word for it that it did.
That, again, would be a no.
Someone at PAX asked Steven if they would be removing the QTE - and Steven responded they would not be removing the QTE because the response to their combat system has been overwhelmingly positive from those who actually played it and that the primary complaint has been about the UI. He then went on to explain the various ways that they will allow players to customize the UI to place the QTE where they want on the screen.
The evidence that the feedback for the combat system was overwhelming positive is that it was very common for people to stand in the long lines multiple times to re-play the demos.
If Isarii thought that the combat system was terrible, he would not have stood in the line play multiple times each day he was there and he would not have played the PvP demo 12+ times. Isarii was not the only person to play the PvP demo 12+ times.
One person I spoke to had played the PvP 20+ times - and, despite having an issue with nerve damage in one hand, he said it was surprisingly easy for him to find a comfortable method of handling the controls... and that the combat was fun.
More evidence is the PC Gamer journalist who had panned the combat based on the pre-PAX vid that introduced the QTE, thinking that he hated the design... and did a complete 180 after actually playing the demo.
Steven was pretty open about stating that the responses to the combat system were mixed. Akil mentions on the last livestream that they got some great feedback from PAX on how to change how the combo system is currently presented.
Just because Isarii likes your suggestion about the QTE being incorporated into spell animations doesn't mean that is truly feasible.
I am quite certain it is not.
And we will have to wait to see whether the devs end up incorporating the QTE into spell animations.
Also, I don't see Isarii really agreeing with you that they need to get rid of the bar - he specifically states that allowing players to customize the bar into a WoW-like arc display would be good.
And yet he did. And you have no proof that response was overwhelming again, its a baseless claim. I can most likely match you with any claim that you find someone say its good, with another thats says it wasnt. I already provided 4 within this thread.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system
Personally, and somewhat cynically, I take claims of "overwhelmingly positive" responses with a grain of salt. As far as I know, there wasn't any sort of formal survey of participants, nor is there any indication of how many are Kickstarter backers. I fully expect people with a financial interest in the game to find it positive, cognitive dissonance can be tough to recognize and avoid.
@mycroft Exactly. The effect of "Buyers Bias" is also heavily involved. People spent alot of money to attend such an event, they invested alot of money in the game. You are indeed correct. Coming away from the Event, there were blogs/videos by people who attended who didnt like the systems, and funnily enough they were people who hadnt invested as much as some. Also considering the actual amount of people played, if @Dygz statement is true about playing "20+" times or more, then the sample size from a survey would indeed be quite small if you do the maths.
Good thing during the lastest stream they said "They WANT our feedback from playing both positive and negative. On top of this they will be taking a second look at the combo system and determine the purpose and how to implement it visually in multiple ways."
So it seems the feedback has been heard and accepted atleast, which is good.
A lot of us had fun and i think that's what we told the staff but I waited in the line ~18 hours and i don't think i met anyone who actually liked the combo bar. I don't think i heard anyone even praise the combat system and i can't count how many people were disappointed that it was tab target. I think most people there were excited about what ashes promises and not the demo we were playing.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system
Personally, and somewhat cynically, I take claims of "overwhelmingly positive" responses with a grain of salt. As far as I know, there wasn't any sort of formal survey of participants, nor is there any indication of how many are Kickstarter backers. I fully expect people with a financial interest in the game to find it positive, cognitive dissonance can be tough to recognize and avoid.
@mycroft Exactly. The effect of "Buyers Bias" is also heavily involved. People spent alot of money to attend such an event, they invested alot of money in the game. You are indeed correct. Coming away from the Event, there were blogs/videos by people who attended who didnt like the systems, and funnily enough they were people who hadnt invested as much as some. Also considering the actual amount of people played, if @Dygz statement is true about playing "20+" times or more, then the sample size from a survey would indeed be quite small if you do the maths.
Good thing during the lastest stream they said "They WANT our feedback from playing both positive and negative. On top of this they will be taking a second look at the combo system and determine the purpose and how to implement it visually in multiple ways."
So it seems the feedback has been heard and accepted atleast, which is good.
I've invested a substantial amount of money myself, probably the 3rd most expensive game I've backed. But I'm completely the opposite of most people who back games. I wont lie to myself about game mechanics I see, if they look terrible, I'll say so. I don't like the QTE system. It's dumb. But until I play it, my opinion cannot be concrete. I am still heavily leaning against it. Now, for @Dygz to be so blindly in love with a system that favors ping and fps is mind-boggling. It's completely unbalanced. And just because somebody played something 12+ times, doesn't mean they were enjoying it. I went to School for 14+ years and that doesn't mean I enjoyed it.
Given the second definition, I don't see how my paraphrase is inappropriate. On the other hand, yours incorrectly tries to push it all into a past tense, as if the point to change from QTEs is long gone and will never come up again.
lmao. I bolded all the problematic words for you and you chose to ignore those and focus on one word that we apparently agree did not invalidate your claim.
The example you tried to refute was my statement that the devs are not going to overhaul the QTE based on the feedback of some players who only watched the vids of combat rather than having hands-on experience - especially when the feedback of the people who played at PAX was overwhelmingly positive.
Jeff B stated that if everybody said the combat system sucked they would probably get rid of it.
Everybody did not say the combo system sucked.
And the better paraphrase is past tense because we are already past the point where the devs know that it isn't the case that everybody said the combo system sucks - doesn't matter whether you believe that.
Steven said that the response to the combo system was overwhelmingly positive, so they would not be getting rid of it - especially not based on feedback from those who hadn't played it - but they would be extensively changing the UI to allow players to customize it.
Steven is my source. I was standing right next to him when he said it. I did not record it.
That you aren't convinced he said that just from my assertion that he did because I don't have a link is fine.
You don't have to be convinced. I am simply informing you.
Which is beside the point because you still have not provided adequate support to invalidate my statement. The support you provided states that if everybody said the QTE sucks, the devs would probably get rid of the combo system.
So, to demonstrate that my statement was wrong, you would have to show evidence that everybody says the QTE sucks.
Which you can't do. Especially since you didn't even attend PAX, you just watched the vids.
While I actually was at PAX and talked to players and devs. In addition to watching the same vids you watched. I know what people said at PAX, first-hand as well as second-hand.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
When have I said any of that? I am all for getting rid of auto attacks and punishing button mashing. But this QTE isn't the only way to do that, which is something you don't seem to understand.
I'm fine with the combo system. I'm even pretty much fine with the bar. I just want the sweet spot to be a fixed point, so that its something that can be learned and practiced, and a player's experience with a weapon would matter more than their ping or framerate. Instead, we have the lowest form of hand-eye coordination being trumped up as a skillful auto attack replacement.
Being able to memorize the rhythm is a good thing. That lets player show skill and experience with a weapon. Hitting the key in the appropriate rhythm would be the opposite of spamming or button mashing.
Hitting the key in the appropriate rhythm to hit a fixed sweet spot allows people to rely on muscle memory to trigger the combos and button mash them out rather than actively focusing on hitting a random sweet spot. Once players memorize the timing of a fixed sweet-spot they no longer have to focus on successfully completing that skill.
How is pressing the keys in an intentional rhythm spamming? That's almost the opposite of spamming, and the intentionality of it makes it several magnitudes better than face-rolling.
And this still doesn't address the point that actually spamming the key (i.e. pressing it repeatedly and rapidly) will never trigger a combo with a point fixed in the middle but will occasionally hit the QTE if its at the beginning of the bar.
There is only one solution for that puzzle. After I had sufficiently I practiced the 170 moves required to solve the puzzle, I could complete the puzzle in less than 10 seconds simply relying on muscle memory - there was no real "intentionality" at that point.
Initially mapping out the sequence of moves took a great deal of focus - once in muscle memory, solving the puzzle in seconds took no focus at all - I could do that blindfolded.
Spamming the key repeatedly and rapidly will trigger the combos the vast majority of the time once you remember the fixed timing - it's always going to be the same interval because that interval is fixed - especially if the sweet spot is fixed square in the middle of the QTE.
But, where the fixed sweet spot is won't matter once the fixed timing is placed into muscle memory, you can just idly tap out the correct timing or... rather than focusing on hitting the sweet spot - which a random sweet spot forces you to do. Because the placement of the sweet spot is random, the timing is random, which means you can't simply memorize the timing, rather you have to visually focus to get the traveling marker to successfully hit the random sweet spot - hence why that activity builds Focus to power the ultimate.
I haven't said anything like "the QTE at PAX is the only way to replace auto-attacks and spamming/button-mashing". You will not find a quote from me stating that the QTE is the only way to meet the goals of the combo system's purpose.
Rather, what I said is that Steven said they are keeping the QTE because the feedback at PAX for the combo system was overwhelmingly positive.
And that they wouldn't be overhauling that system due to negative feedback from some people who merely watched the vids but had no hands-on experience.
I also said that a fixed sweet spot in the QTE would undermine the purpose of the QTE.
The whole purpose of the QTE is to prevent people from relying on muscle memory to quickly tap out the combos. Which is why the sweet spot is random rather than fixed.
I have also said that spell animations and glowing weapons or hands aren't feasible solutions.
"As you gather clues to Lan Di's whereabouts, random interruptions in gameplay called Quick Timer Events will erupt from time to time. These QTEs, which are similar to the quick-response games found in Beatmania and Dragon's Lair, require split-second controller responses to hazardous stimuli."
lmfao I asked you to provide a definition for a QTE that includes the words "must be random or unpredictable". You did not provide a definition for a QTE. What you provided was a description of how a specific QTE works in a specific game. Also, what is described is the random initiation of the QTE. By that "definition", the Ashes system isn't a QTE in any case since the initiation of the QTE is not random. What makes that QTE a QTE is not that they are triggered to start by random interruptions in gameplay, what makes it a QTE is that it requires split-second controller responses to successfully complete the challenge - which is button-mashing. If the required split-second responses for this QTE are fixed and can be successfully completed with muscle memory - that would be the epitome of button-mashing. Which is what the Ashes devs are trying to avoid. The quote you provided doesn't weigh in on whether the split-second controller responses are fixed or random.
Additionally, I'm looking at the intent behind the mechanic. QTEs are testing your reaction and focus, just like the random sweet spot. A fixed sweet spot wouldn't test either of those. So provide all the italics you want with all inclusive QTE definitions, it should be clear which mechanic is about reaction time and which is about developing skill with a weapon.
QTEs test your reaction time. Ya know, that's the quick time of the event.
Whether focus is tested depends upon whether the solutions can be memorized (especially in muscle memory) because they are fixed or whether you have to focus because the solutions within the QTE are random.
A fixed sweet spot would still test reaction - what your quote calls split-second controller responses. A fixed sweet spot would no longer test focus once the rhythm of the fixed solution was memorized.
Personally, and somewhat cynically, I take claims of "overwhelmingly positive" responses with a grain of salt. As far as I know, there wasn't any sort of formal survey of participants, nor is there any indication of how many are Kickstarter backers. I fully expect people with a financial interest in the game to find it positive, cognitive dissonance can be tough to recognize and avoid.
That's funny. You are free to be as cynical as you want. I'm not really trying to convince you. Most important to me is that you accurate reflect back what I've actually stated rather than arguing about stuff you mistakenly think I've stated. But, you know... My grandma didn't need a formal survey to figure whether I like what she prepared for dinner - she paid attention to see what I left on my plate and the thinks I went back for second helpings.
People would not have been standing in line multiple times to replay the combat if the combat sucked. I hate PvP. I was expecting to hate PvP in the Ashes demo. But, it was actually pretty fun. The controls are clunky. It's first iteration - everyone agrees that the combat system needs refinement. Most people were fine with the mechanics of the QTE. But, you weren't there, so you don't know. All you can really do is argue from ignorance.
I think we are winding down - not much more can be said.
Have a great weekend!
mycroft Exactly. The effect of "Buyers Bias" is also heavily involved. People spent alot of money to attend such an event, they invested alot of money in the game. You are indeed correct. Coming away from the Event, there were blogs/videos by people who attended who didnt like the systems, and funnily enough they were people who hadnt invested as much as some. Also considering the actual amount of people played, if @Dygz statement is true about playing "20+" times or more, then the sample size from a survey would indeed be quite small if you do the maths.
Good thing during the lastest stream they said "They WANT our feedback from playing both positive and negative. On top of this they will be taking a second look at the combo system and determine the purpose and how to implement it visually in multiple ways."
So it seems the feedback has been heard and accepted atleast, which is good.
lmfao Y'all just make crap up and then pretend like it's reality!!! I'm done. Have a great weekend Death's! smdh
@mycroft "The fixed point would never be hit by button spamming, while the QTE will coincidentally be hit whenever it is randomly at the front."
Is it confirmed that you would only be able to hit the button once during the QTE? If so, and a button masher started as soon as the QTE appeared, then this would definitely be true if the sweet spot was never at the beginning, as you said.
If you can, in fact, button mash/spam during the QTE then their chances are pretty much equal regardless of where the sweet-spot is.
You have mentioned this twice, that is the only reason I am asking for confirmation.
You need to hit the sweet spot on your first try. You only get one try to hit the sweet spot each time the QTE appears. Once you miss the sweet spot, you have to start the combo over.
However, if you successfully hit the sweet spot, it basically instantly triggers another QTE. So, once you memorize the rhythm of a fixed sweet spot, you wouldn't have to worry much about missing the sweet spot - you just quickly tap out the correct rhythm as the combos quickly cycle through.
If you tried to just spam as fast as your fingers will fly, as soon as the QTE appeared, you would rarely hit even the fixed sweet spot.
mycroft is saying that spamming the weapon key as soon as the QTE appears would be a highly ineffective tactic. I agree.
But, once the rhythm of the fixed sweet spot combo is memorized, the button-mashing won't necessarily start with the appearance of the QTE, rather the button-mashing combo would start the moment the marker meets meets the sweet spot of the basic weapon ability. You wouldn't have to watch the display of the QTE element to know when that happens. Rather, you would rely on the fixed rhythm starting from when the QTE appears ... if the sweet spot is in the middle, the fixed rhythm would start with rest notes.
mycroft is saying that button-mashing won't work if as soon as the QTE appears you tap out the rhythm of quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick.
I'm saying that once you have memorized the correct fixed rhythm, you might be using rest notes depending on where the fixed sweet spot is located on the QTE bar. If it's at the beginning of the bar, the rhythm might be something like: quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick If it's in the middle of the bar, the rhythm might be something like: rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick
If it's at the end of the bar, the rhythm might be something like: rest-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick
What would prevent button-mashing for a fixed sweet spot would be long intervals of rest, but that would be a slow time event rather than a quick time event.
The devs want us to be focused on the QTE to pull off combos, rather than merely relying on muscle-memory to tap out the correct timing/rhythm.
Which is why the QTE has a random sweet-spot rather than a fixed sweet spot.
Vortigern said: I've invested a substantial amount of money myself, probably the 3rd most expensive game I've backed. But I'm completely the opposite of most people who back games. I wont lie to myself about game mechanics I see, if they look terrible, I'll say so. I don't like the QTE system. It's dumb. But until I play it, my opinion cannot be concrete. I am still heavily leaning against it. Now, for @Dygz to be so blindly in love with a system that favors ping and fps is mind-boggling. It's completely unbalanced. And just because somebody played something 12+ times, doesn't mean they were enjoying it. I went to School for 14+ years and that doesn't mean I enjoyed it.
lmfao I am not in love with the combo system.
Kids have to go to school whether they want to or not. Nobody was forced to stand in lines multiple times over the course of 4 days. The people who did so didn't do so because they though the combat was terrible.
Vortigern said: I've invested a substantial amount of money myself, probably the 3rd most expensive game I've backed. But I'm completely the opposite of most people who back games. I wont lie to myself about game mechanics I see, if they look terrible, I'll say so. I don't like the QTE system. It's dumb. But until I play it, my opinion cannot be concrete. I am still heavily leaning against it. Now, for @Dygz to be so blindly in love with a system that favors ping and fps is mind-boggling. It's completely unbalanced. And just because somebody played something 12+ times, doesn't mean they were enjoying it. I went to School for 14+ years and that doesn't mean I enjoyed it.
lmfao I am not in love with the combo system.
Kids have to go to school whether they want to or not. Nobody was forced to stand in lines multiple times over the course of 4 days. The people who did so didn't do so because they though the combat was terrible.
I'm genuinely curious, to be this delusional and easily annoyed, how much money have you invested?
How much money I've invested has nothing to do with my assessment of the gameplay. I am expecting that the game will be vaporware and, even if it releases, that it will be too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing it.
I hate PvP for the most part. Ashes PvP at PAX turned out to be fun. No one who played the demos loved the combo system. The combat needs quite a bit of work. it was a first iteration pass of the cobo system. The vast majority of people who played enjoyed the combat and the QTE mechanic was not so terrible that they hated it. The primary complaint was about the placement and shape of the UI; not the mechanics of the UI.
And that's it. I am reporting what Steven said on the floor at PAX and what I experienced on the floor at PAX. I had pretty much the same assessment of the combat as the guys on From the Ashes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uir5c7hAIe0 The delusions are coming from mycroft and Death's Proxy - neither of whom have actually played the game.
If the combat had been a turd -as it may appear from just watching the vids- I would be reporting that the combat is a turd. Instead, it looks like a turd but is actually chocolate.
How much money I've invested has nothing to do with my assessment of the gameplay. I am expecting that the game will be vaporware and, even if it releases, that it will be too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing it.
I hate PvP for the most part. Ashes PvP at PAX turned out to be fun. No one who played the demos loved the combo system. The combat needs quite a bit of work. it was a first iteration pass of the cobo system. The vast majority of people who played enjoyed the combat and the QTE mechanic was not so terrible that they hated it. The primary complaint was about the placement and shape of the UI; not the mechanics of the UI.
And that's it. I am reporting what Steven said on the floor at PAX and what I experienced on the floor at PAX. I had pretty much the same assessment of the combat as the guys on From the Ashes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uir5c7hAIe0 The delusions are coming from mycroft and Death's Proxy - neither of whom have actually played the game.
If the combat had been a turd -as it may appear from just watching the vids- I would be reporting that the combat is a turd. Instead, it looks like a turd but is actually chocolate.
If I am deluded, and people who went to PAX and played the game like my suggestion... does that make them deluded also?
A lot of us had fun and i think that's what we were told the staff but I waited in the line ~18 hours and i don't think i met anyone who actually liked the combo bar. I don't think i heard anyone even praise the combat system and i can't count how many people were disappointed that it was tab target. I think most people there were excited about what ashes promises and not the demo we were playing.
That seems a more realistic statement. And yeah that cements my point, people are more excited about "what could be" opposed to whats actually there, and my input and judgement focuses solely currently on "whats there" and not "what could be".
Comments
I wasn't at PAX, haven't played it. But I don't need to eat a turd to know I won't like it.
People at PAX may have said they didn't mind it, some may have even said they liked it, or loved it. We do have to bear in mind that this was a 10 min demo. How affected were these people by the sheer excitement of the being there and playing it?
Would that opinion change after playing for three hours of constant PvP? As many people do.
We we also need to bear in mind that what was shown at PAX was but a slice of the experience. Classes had no augments, not all skills, not all classes present, etc. The people playing, that I have seen from the vids available on YouTube, all seemed to be pretty good at hitting that sweet spot (except for Steven in that last stream, but let's assume he was distracted).
My question would be, in a much more dynamic environment, where all classes are present and where people are skilled and know what they are doing, where there is real competition with players on all sides and situational awareness needs to be on high alert: how easy is it going to be to focus on a swing timer bar.
That situation is so far from what anyone experienced at PAX that the answer just isn't available. I can only answer for myself. And I would not want to have to deal with that mechanic as it would ruin my immersion and my love of watching the field of battle, the movements of the players, skill animations, etc.
I understand they don't want an auto-attack. I applaud them for that. Please 100% stick to that design as I think auto-attack is lazy, but please implement something other than this QTE event system.
People keep referencing tons of games I have never heard of that have alternatives to this design that also address the lack of an auto-attack. There seem to be heaps of options out there and a lot of dislike for the first option they chose to display in this pre-alpha build for PAX.
Iterate away Intrepid.
Despite the division that some people seem intent on sowing in this thread, we are all here in the hope that Ashes will be the MMO that we have been waiting years for. We all want this game to be successful. Let's just focus on helping Steven and the guys make a game that we can all play for years and years.
Combat is so important to this genre. Games have been unsuccessful, despite an awesome world, lore and established IP with a solid base, simply because the combat was clunky. This is why so many people are passionate about this issue.
Ashes can be amazing, truly amazing, but if the combat turns the average player off, they will slide back to something else, create a negative perception of the game and prevent it from being as successful as it could be.
I, for one, do have faith in the development team, and especially Steven, to produce a fun combat system. It doesn't have to be innovative, it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to be fun.
Edit: sorry, that went on way longer than I thought
I agree with what @Whocando had to say. I don't like the system, but we'll see how well it works with higher ping. I expect it to perform poorly.
Is it confirmed that you would only be able to hit the button once during the QTE?
If so, and a button masher started as soon as the QTE appeared, then this would definitely be true if the sweet spot was never at the beginning, as you said.
If you can, in fact, button mash/spam during the QTE then their chances are pretty much equal regardless of where the sweet-spot is.
You have mentioned this twice, that is the only reason I am asking for confirmation.
What would you like Combat to be ? What sorts of an Example(s) would you like to use as a (similar) representation for the Combat in Ashes of Creation ?
I am not necessarily for or against the QTE. My post have mostly just been to clarify semantics. I do like the thought of having to master the feel of the classes/weapons/skills in combat as opposed to choosing a class, picking the right skills, and suddenly you're a master at combat with that class.
I think the theory/suggestion of a QTE is more my style. I am okay with not always performing the most successful chain of attacks and finishing with an ultimate. When I do I am sure I will be happy about it. If we all always used every attack perfectly and finished with an ultimate I don't know what the purpose would be except for looks. I am okay with things not always be the most efficient or perfect.
So, for me, a system that required forethought and attention to make every attack as good as possible with a moderate chance of failure would be ideal.
Steven stated at PAX that they are keeping the QTE and the combo system because the response from those who played it was overwhelmingly positive. And they are not going to scrap it based on the feedback of people who have only watched it but not played.
I wrote: The Ashes devs have chosen to add a QTE with a random sweet spot, regardless of what some players might want.
The devs are already going to tweak the initial implementation. And they will also allow players to tweak the UI elements for the feature.
But, they aren't going to overhaul the design based on the input of players who have merely watched a vid of the gameplay with no hands-on experience.
Especially, since the feedback of those who have hands-on experience was overwhelmingly positive... cosmetics being the primary criticism rather than the mechanics.
You responded: But your QTE example is wrong, because the devs have said that they would overhaul it (the QTE, not just the UI for the QTE) if there is enough negative feedback from the community.
I replied: My QTE example is not wrong because the devs said they planned all along to tweak the design - PAX was just the first iteration.
And, what Steven said specifically at PAX is that they're keeping the QTE because the feedback at PAX was overwhelmingly positive - they especially are not going to change the QTE based on negative feedback from people who have only watched the vids but not played the combat.
Steven has not said that they will remove the QTE or the random aspects of the QTE based on negative feedback.
None of the above means that that they won't make a variety of other changes to the QTE based on player feedback.
You provided a quote from Jeff B where he states: If everybody said "your combo system sucks", I think we would probably get rid of it.
What Jeff did not say is your paraphrase, "We would overhaul it if there is enough negative feedback from the community."
Nor did Jeff say, "We will overhaul the combo system if some people don't like it."
The more accurate paraphrase of Jeff's statement is "if everybody had hated the combo system, he thinks they would probably have gotten rid of it.
But everybody who played the combo system did not hate it.
In fact, the feedback from those who played the combat was overwhelmingly positive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven: What's the purpose of the combo system? I mean, what did we intend with it, right? Having that kind of skill level associated with it, with something that's been monotonous with the auto-attack feature which we really don't want to re-use.
And then, if we can break down the essence of our purpose there and then iterate on it in multiple ways to give people a fresh look at it from a different perspective, then maybe we can accomplish that goal.
What Steven did not say is, "During PAX we are going to post videos of the combat on YouTube and if some people who view those videos don't like the combat system, we will ask mycroft for his advice on how to fix the combo system and then implement his suggestions."
What I've been telling you all along is that all the feedback of what you like and don't like is great.
But you offering fixes for the combo system is absurd, since you don't know what the purpose of the system is and you seemingly aren't on board with the goals of the system - which are to replace auto-attack and spamming/button-mashing.
Also, you have not actually played the system - so, again, it's absurd for you to try to "fix" the system.
And, while you don't like the system and seem to think that it needs to be scrapped, the Ashes game designers are good enough designers to have implemented the combo system in such away that the people who played the game overwhelmingly think that the QTE for the combo system is fine, barring a few tweaks...primarily to the UI.
I haven't moved any goalposts.
Stating that you are a poor game designer is not ad hominem.
That is an assessment of the game design concepts you have shared in these forums.
Ad hominem would be saying you are too stupid to comprehend good game design - I haven't said anything like that. So, that is a strawman.
----------------------------------
I have not left QTEs being more susceptible to spam unaddressed. We have discussed it many times already. You can go back and read what I wrote.
Having a fixed sweet spot in the QTE undermine the purpose of having the QTE. People would simply memorize the timing for hitting the sweet spot and spam the combos without much thought - one step down from face-rolling the keyboard.
There is a reason that the mechanic builds Focus. Because the intention is for people to focus in order to pull of the combos rather than just rely on muscle memory.
"QTEs generally involve the player following onscreen prompts to press buttons or manipulate joysticks within a limited amount of time. Such actions are either atypical of the normal controls during the game, or in a different context from their assigned functions. Whilst most prompts simply require the player to push the appropriate button in time, some may require different types of actions, such as repeatedly pressing a button a certain number of times within the time limit, or hitting the button with precise timing."
If you want to provide the source for a definition of QTE that includes the word "must be random or unpredictable"; go for it.
(I will try to let you have the last word so other people no longer have to be subjected to our disagreement.)
As I've mentioned previously in other Threads ... the Phrase:
- " Consistency & Versatility " , constantly comes to mind ; each Archetype having a default Balance between the too.
- ( Black Bar = Balance-State )
- Where as, the Secondary-Archetype will ... " Upset the Balance " by a ... certain percentage ; once a Secondary-Archetype is selected, you will either gain Consistency/ Versatility , but also lose Versatility/ Consistency too
- ( either or )
- In addition i also imagine the image differentiating between the 64 Archetype-Blends.
But this in itself is very Vague ; Consistent with what ? Versatile with what ?The image i made is basically my assumption of a " Heading " - the end-goal of each Archetype Playstyles ... hence being 64 of them xD ... but each also being viable & unique.
Getting to the point, I think it'll be ideal for Long-Range Abilities & Close-Range Abilities to have a different Mechanics and/or Camera-Angle Perspectives:
- Long-Range Abilities having 3rd-Person FPS Style + Action-Combat Style OR a " Free-roam Style ". Because i don't like how each basic attack is like a " Heat-Seeking Missile " - always hitting
- If Tab-targeting is preferred ... then ...at least have a RNG-Chance of the Attack missing ; a randomizer of 1% - 30% Chance of missing by default. The Percentage-Spectrum could gradually get smaller depending on the Player's Weapon's Skill Level divided by the the Ability Level ... the resulting Number could be used minimize the Gap ? ( by a small amount in percentages )
- Or maybe something entirely different ?
- ( This RNG-Chance being entirely independent of ... any potential " Accuracy-Stat " System ... via Parry, Deflect, Dodge. In addition to any Parry/ Deflect/ Dodge Action Combat Abilitiy being independent too )
- For Long-range, the Closer their Target gets ( by an " X " amount of the distance between them and the Target ) ... the RNG-Randomizer will dramatically change ( by " Y " amount of that distance in percentage ) - increasing their chances of hitting the Target. But if their target is ... " Too Close " ... then ...
- ( i was going say to like rolling a 20-sided Die or 100-sided Die ... but probably not worth elaborating xD. In short, i was thinking of an " Inverted-Change " if too close )
I mention The RNG-Randomizer idea because ... with Tab-targeting ... the Long-Range never misses. But by having it, it'll be more realistic in how you shouldn't " always hit a target "I think a Player's Level should only affect the Unique Racial-Stat Growth. but by a small amount ( Hence Slow-Level Progression )
I'm honestly not sure how far i should ... " TheoryCraft " so I'll stop here
EDIT: I don't mind Tab-Targeting, but in some situations, Tab-Targeting is not always the Best way in expressing/ conveying an Ability
Isarii thought from the preview vid that he wouldn't like the combat, but when he actually tried, he found it to be fun. Enough so that he played the PvP 12 times over the course of 4 days.
A PC Gamer journalist thought he hated the combat before he played it. When he actually played it, he enjoyed the combat immensely.
It was a 10 minute demo that many people stood in long lines multiple times to replay.
Several people returning to play multiple times each day.
Some people played PvP 10+ times. One person played PvP 20+ times.
I hate PvP and I played it 5 times - I was only there one day.
I would have played more, but I preferred to spend my time talking to devs over standing in line for over an hour.
How adept people were at hitting the sweet spot largely depended on how experienced people were at gaming over all - and how comfortable they were with the controls.
Hitting the sweet spot isn't particularly difficult if you're just standing still and focused on the weapon combo.
More challenging if you're moving, or determining when and where to use some other skill.
In Steven's case, he was distracted by trying to direct the other devs as well as present the features in the demo.
We will figure that out once Alpha 1 arrives.
You really will have to wait until after you get your hands on the customizable UI to truly know whether it would ruin your immersion.
But, doesn't hurt to speculate that it most likely will.
Innovative is highly important to the devs and a significant portion of the community. If Ashes is fun like WoW, I won't be playing it. I backed Ashes specifically to support the innovative game design. Innovative is as important as the game being fun. And if the game is not innovative, it won't be fun... from my perspective
You will find alot of people at PAX agree to the statement that they didnt like the implementation, and ONLY
liked the concept/idea after it was explained to them afterwards, by Steven or another Intrepid staff member.
Which to that point the current iteration/implementation is still not liked, but the concept of moving away
from auto-attack is.
Also in regards to the "overwhelmingly positive" well plenty of people who went to PAX didnt enjoy the system
just as much to those that did. The reality is that opinion is more "mixed" than positive, and it not like Steven
was going to say it was Mixed. Its PR, ofc hes going to say response is positive, but we can only take his word
for it. Just like the "Trion" incident", there isnt evidence of it happening, can only take his word for it that it did.
Plus ... after thinking it over, The Image i used is too Linear
I spoke to Isarii at PAX. He played the PvP 12+ times.
If the current implementation were terrible, he would not have done that.
In his commentary during the From the Ashes podcast, Isarii did not state that the current implementation is terrible - pretty much the opposite.
Rather, he states that he thought it would be terrible before he played it, but it actually was pretty decent - albeit needing changes - especially to the UI.
That didn't like the implementation of what, specifically? The primary thing that was explained was which keys to use - especially because there is no auto-attack, there is a weapon key, the weapon key is also used to combo - in addition to the more traditional skills on keys 2-9. Also, people had to be told to use the K key to toggle off/on the window which explained the abilities. Many people immediately tried to spam the hotbar keys - which is meaningless in Ashes combat and most likely to result in missing the combos. So, it's not really accurate to say that a lot of people didn't like the implementation and only liked the concept after it was explained to them. Rather, many people the first day were confused and frustrated that the controls didn't work like they do in previous MMORPGs. You have to be more deliberate about choosing when to activate the hot-bar keys. You can't just faceroll.
Uh. Noooo. The current implementation is clunky and needs refinement, but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from those who played the demos - especially for a first iteration. The primary complaint has been about the UI - which the devs have said will be customizable by players. Overwhelmingly, people were fine with the QTE mechanic, but they would like the placement of that UI display element to be to be somewhere less intrusive on the screen.
That, again, would be a no.
Someone at PAX asked Steven if they would be removing the QTE - and Steven responded they would not be removing the QTE because the response to their combat system has been overwhelmingly positive from those who actually played it and that the primary complaint has been about the UI. He then went on to explain the various ways that they will allow players to customize the UI to place the QTE where they want on the screen.
The evidence that the feedback for the combat system was overwhelming positive is that it was very common for people to stand in the long lines multiple times to re-play the demos.
If Isarii thought that the combat system was terrible, he would not have stood in the line play multiple times each day he was there and he would not have played the PvP demo 12+ times. Isarii was not the only person to play the PvP demo 12+ times.
One person I spoke to had played the PvP 20+ times - and, despite having an issue with nerve damage in one hand, he said it was surprisingly easy for him to find a comfortable method of handling the controls... and that the combat was fun.
More evidence is the PC Gamer journalist who had panned the combat based on the pre-PAX vid that introduced the QTE, thinking that he hated the design... and did a complete 180 after actually playing the demo.
Steven was pretty open about stating that the responses to the combat system were mixed. Akil mentions on the last livestream that they got some great feedback from PAX on how to change how the combo system is currently presented.
Just because Isarii likes your suggestion about the QTE being incorporated into spell animations doesn't mean that is truly feasible.
I am quite certain it is not.
And we will have to wait to see whether the devs end up incorporating the QTE into spell animations.
Also, I don't see Isarii really agreeing with you that they need to get rid of the bar - he specifically states that allowing players to customize the bar into a WoW-like arc display would be good.
The overall skill requirement for wow is continuously dropped with every expansion since it's release. By wotlk it was at the optimum. It was easy enough so everyone could play, but still had enough depth, so skilled play was possible. It's no wonder that it's playerbase increased continuously until the end of wotlk, where it reached the peak, and started to drop with further expansion, where the whole game got so dumbed down, that you could get basically the entire high end PvP gear by just afking at battlegrounds.
They removed most of the depth from that classes, and filled them with shiny but pointless chose that they called "class mechanisms" which heavily limited what can you do with the class while adding zero to the fun factor.
That random bar garbage is just like that. 100%pointless chore added to the game. It maybe look good for a random casual or someone who doesn't really play, it maybe fun for the first few time, but after you play hundreds of hours with it, it will end up becoming a boring chore instead.
Many nowdays MMO things that shiny combat features will going to sell the game, but the statistic shows otherwise.
Actually even the fact that after so much years and self destructing design, still wow is the most popular(and profiting) mmorpg in the whole word with great margin shows, how bad the current era's mmorpg market is. The designers are clueless, and thinks that random shiny combat will going to sell, which maybe look good for sure, but probably not practical to play.
Those designers who design those mechanisms have no real gaming experience, they didn't have years worth of played time, so it's no wonder that they have no clue about what to do.
IMAO they should just create a simple tab/ability based combat what wow had in it's better days, and let the players develop the tactic instead of forcing them on comboing or other bullshit.
I agree changing animations to fit the qte would not work but having your character or weapon pulse/flash and then having X time to hit the comb would let you keep your eyes on the action. Or making the ui easier to see wth curves etc.
I still think once you play for a while you will be able to see the bar out the corner of your eye and see it easily. Its the same as watching cooldowns on a hotbar. You glance quickly and move on, combined with muscle memory, timing and a small bit of skill it shouldnt be hard.
As long as it gets polished smooth its not worth throwing a fit about. And obvious its going to get polished in the years to come.
Google's definition of would:
1. past of will1, in various senses. "he said he would be away for a couple of days" 2. (expressing the conditional mood) indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation. "he would lose his job if he were identified"
Given the second definition, I don't see how my paraphrase is inappropriate. On the other hand, yours incorrectly tries to push it all into a past tense, as if the point to change from QTEs is long gone and will never come up again.When have I said any of that? I am all for getting rid of auto attacks and punishing button mashing. But this QTE isn't the only way to do that, which is something you don't seem to understand.
How is pressing the keys in an intentional rhythm spamming? That's almost the opposite of spamming, and the intentionality of it makes it several magnitudes better than face-rolling.
And this still doesn't address the point that actually spamming the key (i.e. pressing it repeatedly and rapidly) will never trigger a combo with a point fixed in the middle but will occasionally hit the QTE if its at the beginning of the bar.
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/shenmue-review/1900-2540599/
"As you gather clues to Lan Di's whereabouts, random interruptions in gameplay called Quick Timer Events will erupt from time to time. These QTEs, which are similar to the quick-response games found in Beatmania and Dragon's Lair, require split-second controller responses to hazardous stimuli."
Additionally, I'm looking at the intent behind the mechanic. QTEs are testing your reaction and focus, just like the random sweet spot. A fixed sweet spot wouldn't test either of those. So provide all the italics you want with all inclusive QTE definitions, it should be clear which mechanic is about reaction time and which is about developing skill with a weapon.
Typically, on the internet, people source things with links. Not just italics.
This is now my favorite statement of yours.
Personally, and somewhat cynically, I take claims of "overwhelmingly positive" responses with a grain of salt. As far as I know, there wasn't any sort of formal survey of participants, nor is there any indication of how many are Kickstarter backers. I fully expect people with a financial interest in the game to find it positive, cognitive dissonance can be tough to recognize and avoid.
@mycroft Exactly. The effect of "Buyers Bias" is also heavily involved. People spent alot of money to attend such an event, they invested alot of money in the game. You are indeed correct. Coming away from the Event, there were blogs/videos by people who attended who didnt like the systems, and funnily enough they were people who hadnt invested as much as some. Also considering the actual amount of people played, if @Dygz statement is true about playing "20+" times or more, then the sample size from a survey would indeed be quite small if you do the maths.
Good thing during the lastest stream they said "They WANT our feedback from playing both positive and negative. On top of this they will be taking a second look at the combo system and determine the purpose and how to implement it visually in multiple ways."
So it seems the feedback has been heard and accepted atleast, which is good.
Jeff B stated that if everybody said the combat system sucked they would probably get rid of it.
Everybody did not say the combo system sucked.
And the better paraphrase is past tense because we are already past the point where the devs know that it isn't the case that everybody said the combo system sucks - doesn't matter whether you believe that.
Steven said that the response to the combo system was overwhelmingly positive, so they would not be getting rid of it - especially not based on feedback from those who hadn't played it - but they would be extensively changing the UI to allow players to customize it.
Steven is my source. I was standing right next to him when he said it. I did not record it. That you aren't convinced he said that just from my assertion that he did because I don't have a link is fine. You don't have to be convinced. I am simply informing you.
Which is beside the point because you still have not provided adequate support to invalidate my statement. The support you provided states that if everybody said the QTE sucks, the devs would probably get rid of the combo system.
So, to demonstrate that my statement was wrong, you would have to show evidence that everybody says the QTE sucks.
Which you can't do. Especially since you didn't even attend PAX, you just watched the vids.
While I actually was at PAX and talked to players and devs. In addition to watching the same vids you watched. I know what people said at PAX, first-hand as well as second-hand.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hitting the key in the appropriate rhythm to hit a fixed sweet spot allows people to rely on muscle memory to trigger the combos and button mash them out rather than actively focusing on hitting a random sweet spot. Once players memorize the timing of a fixed sweet-spot they no longer have to focus on successfully completing that skill.
Triggering combos by memorizing the rhythm of a fixed sweet spot in a QTE is spamming because once you learn the fixed rhythm you only have to rely on muscle memory to successfully hit the sweet spot.
It's like that puzzle toy, the Brain: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+brain+puzzle&rlz=1C1NHXL_enUS684US685&oq=the+brain+puzzle&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.8384j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
There is only one solution for that puzzle. After I had sufficiently I practiced the 170 moves required to solve the puzzle, I could complete the puzzle in less than 10 seconds simply relying on muscle memory - there was no real "intentionality" at that point.
Initially mapping out the sequence of moves took a great deal of focus - once in muscle memory, solving the puzzle in seconds took no focus at all - I could do that blindfolded.
Spamming the key repeatedly and rapidly will trigger the combos the vast majority of the time once you remember the fixed timing - it's always going to be the same interval because that interval is fixed - especially if the sweet spot is fixed square in the middle of the QTE.
But, where the fixed sweet spot is won't matter once the fixed timing is placed into muscle memory, you can just idly tap out the correct timing or... rather than focusing on hitting the sweet spot - which a random sweet spot forces you to do.
Because the placement of the sweet spot is random, the timing is random, which means you can't simply memorize the timing, rather you have to visually focus to get the traveling marker to successfully hit the random sweet spot - hence why that activity builds Focus to power the ultimate.
I haven't said anything like "the QTE at PAX is the only way to replace auto-attacks and spamming/button-mashing". You will not find a quote from me stating that the QTE is the only way to meet the goals of the combo system's purpose.
Rather, what I said is that Steven said they are keeping the QTE because the feedback at PAX for the combo system was overwhelmingly positive.
And that they wouldn't be overhauling that system due to negative feedback from some people who merely watched the vids but had no hands-on experience.
I also said that a fixed sweet spot in the QTE would undermine the purpose of the QTE.
The whole purpose of the QTE is to prevent people from relying on muscle memory to quickly tap out the combos. Which is why the sweet spot is random rather than fixed.
I have also said that spell animations and glowing weapons or hands aren't feasible solutions.
lmfao
I asked you to provide a definition for a QTE that includes the words "must be random or unpredictable".
You did not provide a definition for a QTE. What you provided was a description of how a specific QTE works in a specific game.
Also, what is described is the random initiation of the QTE.
By that "definition", the Ashes system isn't a QTE in any case since the initiation of the QTE is not random.
What makes that QTE a QTE is not that they are triggered to start by random interruptions in gameplay, what makes it a QTE is that it requires split-second controller responses to successfully complete the challenge - which is button-mashing. If the required split-second responses for this QTE are fixed and can be successfully completed with muscle memory - that would be the epitome of button-mashing. Which is what the Ashes devs are trying to avoid.
The quote you provided doesn't weigh in on whether the split-second controller responses are fixed or random.
QTEs test your reaction time. Ya know, that's the quick time of the event. Whether focus is tested depends upon whether the solutions can be memorized (especially in muscle memory) because they are fixed or whether you have to focus because the solutions within the QTE are random. A fixed sweet spot would still test reaction - what your quote calls split-second controller responses. A fixed sweet spot would no longer test focus once the rhythm of the fixed solution was memorized.
That's funny.
You are free to be as cynical as you want. I'm not really trying to convince you.
Most important to me is that you accurate reflect back what I've actually stated rather than arguing about stuff you mistakenly think I've stated.
But, you know... My grandma didn't need a formal survey to figure whether I like what she prepared for dinner - she paid attention to see what I left on my plate and the thinks I went back for second helpings.
People would not have been standing in line multiple times to replay the combat if the combat sucked.
I hate PvP. I was expecting to hate PvP in the Ashes demo. But, it was actually pretty fun.
The controls are clunky. It's first iteration - everyone agrees that the combat system needs refinement.
Most people were fine with the mechanics of the QTE.
But, you weren't there, so you don't know.
All you can really do is argue from ignorance.
I think we are winding down - not much more can be said.
Have a great weekend!
Y'all just make crap up and then pretend like it's reality!!!
I'm done.
Have a great weekend Death's!
smdh
However, if you successfully hit the sweet spot, it basically instantly triggers another QTE.
So, once you memorize the rhythm of a fixed sweet spot, you wouldn't have to worry much about missing the sweet spot - you just quickly tap out the correct rhythm as the combos quickly cycle through.
If you tried to just spam as fast as your fingers will fly, as soon as the QTE appeared, you would rarely hit even the fixed sweet spot.
mycroft is saying that spamming the weapon key as soon as the QTE appears would be a highly ineffective tactic. I agree.
But, once the rhythm of the fixed sweet spot combo is memorized, the button-mashing won't necessarily start with the appearance of the QTE, rather the button-mashing combo would start the moment the marker meets meets the sweet spot of the basic weapon ability.
You wouldn't have to watch the display of the QTE element to know when that happens.
Rather, you would rely on the fixed rhythm starting from when the QTE appears ... if the sweet spot is in the middle, the fixed rhythm would start with rest notes.
mycroft is saying that button-mashing won't work if as soon as the QTE appears you tap out the rhythm of quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick-quick.
I'm saying that once you have memorized the correct fixed rhythm, you might be using rest notes depending on where the fixed sweet spot is located on the QTE bar.
If it's at the beginning of the bar, the rhythm might be something like:
quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick
If it's in the middle of the bar, the rhythm might be something like:
rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick
If it's at the end of the bar, the rhythm might be something like:
rest-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-quick-rest-rest-quick
What would prevent button-mashing for a fixed sweet spot would be long intervals of rest, but that would be a slow time event rather than a quick time event.
The devs want us to be focused on the QTE to pull off combos, rather than merely relying on muscle-memory to tap out the correct timing/rhythm.
Which is why the QTE has a random sweet-spot rather than a fixed sweet spot.
I am not in love with the combo system.
Kids have to go to school whether they want to or not.
Nobody was forced to stand in lines multiple times over the course of 4 days.
The people who did so didn't do so because they though the combat was terrible.
I am expecting that the game will be vaporware and, even if it releases, that it will be too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing it.
I hate PvP for the most part. Ashes PvP at PAX turned out to be fun.
No one who played the demos loved the combo system.
The combat needs quite a bit of work. it was a first iteration pass of the cobo system.
The vast majority of people who played enjoyed the combat and the QTE mechanic was not so terrible that they hated it. The primary complaint was about the placement and shape of the UI; not the mechanics of the UI.
And that's it.
I am reporting what Steven said on the floor at PAX and what I experienced on the floor at PAX.
I had pretty much the same assessment of the combat as the guys on From the Ashes.
The delusions are coming from mycroft and Death's Proxy - neither of whom have actually played the game.
If the combat had been a turd -as it may appear from just watching the vids- I would be reporting that the combat is a turd.
Instead, it looks like a turd but is actually chocolate.
That seems a more realistic statement. And yeah that cements my point, people are more excited about "what could be" opposed to whats actually there, and my input and judgement focuses solely currently on "whats there" and not "what could be".