Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
How would you create a deep and engaging combat system
Marzzo
Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would personally love to have an ability kit for each archtype that allows me to be creative. I would also want it to be deep enough so I feel that I have not mastered my class after a short time. I want to feel that for each 10 hours I put into my class, im always improving and perfecting my ability to manage my toolkit. For me, It should be very hard to maximize your archtypes abilities. Mastery over your class should be something you work towards and become proud of, not something that should be achived after reading an optimal rotation guide and practicing for 2 hours.
Obviously, all content should not require you to be a master or very proficient in your class. But the option to actually dig deeper into your rotation and toolkit, practice your class and use this knowledge and experience to tackle an exceptionally hard challenge is very important to me.
One way to do this would be for AoC to design a deep ability system that works for casual players but shines when you put some dedication into it.
Your characters different abilities, when combined with other abilities you choose could creates new and interesting effects. For example, your "Cone of air that usually slows people" now knocks people down when used on an icy surface you created. Or that rainfall ability that usually only heals people become a cloud of steam when calling down a firestorm on it, protecting you and your party from projectiles.
By designing our toolkits in a deep way, by letting our normal abilities form something unique and interesting when tied togheter, we get a combat system that is much more than simple cookie-cutter rotations. A toolkit consiting of 10 abilities could be used in hundreds of ways instead of 1 single optimal way.
I am very interested how you would make the combat in AoC deep, interesting, unique and engaging? Maybe someone will be able to help enchance IS:s current plans for AoC combat!
Obviously, all content should not require you to be a master or very proficient in your class. But the option to actually dig deeper into your rotation and toolkit, practice your class and use this knowledge and experience to tackle an exceptionally hard challenge is very important to me.
One way to do this would be for AoC to design a deep ability system that works for casual players but shines when you put some dedication into it.
Your characters different abilities, when combined with other abilities you choose could creates new and interesting effects. For example, your "Cone of air that usually slows people" now knocks people down when used on an icy surface you created. Or that rainfall ability that usually only heals people become a cloud of steam when calling down a firestorm on it, protecting you and your party from projectiles.
By designing our toolkits in a deep way, by letting our normal abilities form something unique and interesting when tied togheter, we get a combat system that is much more than simple cookie-cutter rotations. A toolkit consiting of 10 abilities could be used in hundreds of ways instead of 1 single optimal way.
I am very interested how you would make the combat in AoC deep, interesting, unique and engaging? Maybe someone will be able to help enchance IS:s current plans for AoC combat!
2
Comments
A clear thread that devs might enjoy reading peoples ideas without having to skip pages upon pages of people socialmediaraging.
So let's see...
Combat is not everything in mmorpgs. For me open world encounters, systems, guild gameplay and rivalries, longevity of the journey to lv cap are more important than combat. However the year is 2020 and some minimum standards must be met. Classes, depending on their type, should have active:
Shield Block
Weapon Parry
Dodge Roll
This is action/reaction and judgment. Cooldowns, depending on the impact and effect of an ability, play an important role in avoiding stale, BiS cookie cutter playstyles.
Another thing I would wish AoC manages is to avoid the mess ESO did with animation cancelling. AC in eso takes 30mins of practice (supposedly that is skilled gameplay...), but a lifelong time of ugly looking, glitchy combat with characters performing seizure like actions.
In addition, I want to see many abilities accessible on the skillbar, not 6+6 like eso did (in order to cash in on consoles).
Depending on whether I face robe, leather or plate I want to utilize the skills that fit the pace of the combat. Not a boring rotation, one-size-fits-all, like in bdo and eso.
Everyone be ready to prove that their ideas are the best and Intrepid had better change the whole game to implement them!
These play as you want models end up forcing the players to slot BiS. If your class does not have a weapon restriction and can freely choose any weapon and abilities, then that class will slot BiS, meaning that all classes will look the same.
Two handed may have 5-6 abilities in it's toolkit. Guess what. People will only slot the 2 BiS. And if Sword Shield is better than Two handed, people will only slot Sword Shield abilities and forget about: two handed, polearm(spear), dual wield.
My favourite system is locked specilization. A warrior may start off by using:
two handed
sword shield
dual wield
polearm
but by lv 30 or so a warrior must choose if they want to spec towards:
dmg-> twohanded/dualwield
tankiness->sword shield
aoe gameplay->polearm etc etc. A warrior most definatly shouldn't use daggers and bows, just like a rogue shouldn't use sword and shield. If you want to use sword and shield, make a warrior or a tank. Not a rogue.
If you want to use a bow make a rogue, not a tank. Play as you want.
A battlemage should use physical weapons infused with magic abilities, but not use a staff/wand.
Again, some people find this oppressive because they want to "play as they want" but the reality is that if devs leave everything too loose then BiS and meta will be the real tyrant and you can say goodbye to play as you want and all combat will look the same, just like it happens in ESO. Every fighting is using the same main and secondary weapons-> two handed main, sword shield secondary.
Before anyone wastes their time arguing about what a class means in AoC I will type this:
You have 64 potential themes. Your guilds will force you to play 15 of them only, if not less and that is because only 15 of them will perform at a viable level.
You might like playing a Sorcerer(Mage+Bard) but it will be way worse than Archmage(Mage+Mage).
You might like playing a Spellsword (Fighter+Mage) but it will be far worse than a Battlemage (Mage+Fighter).
I fear that the devs have wasted their time making augmented effects/animations for those 64 class abilities, when they could have make 7 more classes in addition to: Fighter, tank, rogue, ranger, mage, summoner, cleric, bard.
These 7 could be Necromancer + 6 more. This means that Necromancer +6 more get real skills, with distinct animations and effects and people have real chance to play as they want, with their favourite class.
Again, I'll play the typical warrior, I'll pick the best for brawling, so I am fine with any of the 8 names under the fighter class. Will you be??
It's interesting to see you talking about shield blocking as it came up in the last dev livestream and we were just talking about it on the ashes Pathfinders podcast. The conclusion we came to is that it's incredibly hard to implement an active blocking system that feels responsive to use and isn't completely overpowered.
We also talked a bit about ESO in particular and one of the big complaints people have about the combat is the amount of stun-locking that occurs in PvP. Being stun-locked and killed 100-0 with no chance of fighting back is no fun at all.
And of course, as you noted, the illusion of choice is very prevalent in ESO too. Put too many gameplay options in the game and it becomes impossible to balance, meaning only a tiny handful of the options are actually viable to use.
Looking at the broader picture, one thing I think developers need to keep in mind is that combat is the exchange between 2 parties, so you need to consider both sides of the conflict. Ask any UFC fighter if they prefer fighting against a punch-bag or a real person. They will likely choose the real person every time. It's the same in video games. It's no fun fighting against either a mob or a player who can't fight back. This is the problem with games like BDO and TERA, which put a heavy emphasis on the combat systems the player uses, but doesn't give the player anything worthwhile to use them on.
There are several things I would do to achieve this.
The first is to make spells/abilities able to be upgraded via the same paths items are upgraded. You start out with an absolute base level knowledge in a skill, and through player crafting or mob drops, you are able to acquire higher tiers of your abilities. These shouldn't be to easy to acquire that players can assume that they will get all of their abilities at the highest tier - or even at the second highest tier. There should also be an amount of randomness to which abilities a player is able to come across - so that players can't just upgrade their abilities in a specific order.
The second thing I would do is make it so that every class in the game has a buff that alters aspects of the spells and abilities of everyone in their group. It may be that your recast time is reduced on all AoE spells when a specific class is in your group, or that all fire damage abilities deal more damage, or that all DoT's gain an additional two ticks of damage. The key is that these things need to be strong enough to slightly alter the value of different abilities your class may have, yet not so strong that any one class becomes absolutely essential due to this buff alone. The other thing is that these buffs need to be varied, yet need to provide a benefit to every class.
I'm under no illusion that this is a tough thing to implement - but it is possible.
The third thing to have is a very comprehensive build tree for each class. This tree should offer the player a multitude of choices as to how to build their character.
Lastly, players in the game need to be able to take no less than 18 abilities for each build, but the class needs to have at least twice that number to select from.
When these things are all combined, you are left with one of two things.
The first thing you may be left with is a complete mess of a combat system that should be put to rest immediately. This is absolutely possible.
The second thing that you could end up with - if you have a development team that are worth their salt and actually care about the game - is a combat system where a change to the composition of your group will - in some small way - alter how you play your class, even with the same build. It is a system where there literally is no best build for any class - if someone were to ask that question, a knowledgeable player would have to respond by saying that it depends on what upgrades you have to which abilities, and it depends on what classes you find yourself with often. In a game like this, the best build for a specific player in one guild may be completely different to a player of the same class in a different guild - potentially to the point where they may not share even a single spell/ability.
I wouldn't even consider playing a game like this if I didn't think the development team were up to the task of implementing and maintaining it. But if a development team did pull this off, I think it would make for the best MMO combat any MMO has seen.
Also, none of the above has to be restricted to either tab target or action combat - the only thing I would say is that if the game is limiting itself to action, 12 abilities would be enough at a time, and if they wanted to be a hybrid, rather than offering up twice the number of spells/abilities as a player is able to select at any one time, it would be better to offer up 2.5 to 3 times as many.
Low end/casual guilds really won't care. If you are happy playing a class, play it.
Top end guilds also don't care. They will care about your output, and if you are able to meet their output expectations with a class that isn't optimal, they won't care.
Then you have guilds in the middle - these are the ones that will sometimes (not always) require players to be specific classes or builds.
My time in Rift is possibly the best example I have to back this up. It is a game that has a fairly flexible class system - though not to the point Ashes will be. It also had freely available combat trackers, and that is actually important.
What my guild did in that game when we were looking at recruiting a new player was we would ask them what role they wanted to fill in the raid, tank, healer, caster DPS, melee DPS etc. We would also ask them if they wanted a secondary role (one that we would have them switch to on occasion, if the encounter called for it), but that is besides the point for now.
When they told us what role they wanted to fulfill, we would then hand them a set of gear to use for the first weeks raiding - they had to use this gear for that week, even if they had better.
In that week, we would look at what ever metrics we needed to in order to assess their performance - and we would compare it to the numbers produced by an existing guild member wearing the same gear. If the recruit was performing up to 80% as well as the existing member did in that same gear, then they were welcomed in to the guild (80% as effective is still better than most players are able to manage, but is also low enough that a good player in that game would be able to use almost any class to meet - it weeded out poor players, but specifically didn't impede class choice - other games may require this number be higher or lower to achieve the same effect).
At no point did we ask them what their actual build was, nor even what classes they were using. That is because we were recruiting experienced, adult players, and we expected them to know how to play their class before they got to the guild.
I've never been a part of a guild that tells players what class they need to play, nor what build. With the exception of games like WoW (where the developers tell you what you can and can not do with the classes - similar to how Apple tells you what you can and can not do with their products), the only time I have even seen it is in guilds either run by children, or specifically recruiting them. These guilds tend to be mid range - they want to be better than they are, but clearly don't have the experience in terms of gameplay or leadership to ever get better, and so they tend to remain in that awkward spot where they are not run like "casual" guilds, but they are not participating in content or PvP like top end guilds.
I heard on the devs update that active shield block is hard to implement.
I dont understand why they said something like that.
Many mmorpgs have it, either as a basic movement function or a class ability.
Stun locking is indeed an issue however it doesnt bother me as much as brainless, non targeting, crown following AoE combat, seen predominatly in ESO.
Both issues, CC and aoe spam, can be addressed with proper cooldowns and mp costs.
Again, I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if this was why they are having issues.
They will ignore what they dont like and use what they like. It is good for the game if the devs see different ideas.
In games that have auto-attacks, I've always liked the idea that players of classes that actually use auto-attack to generate significant amounts of damage should time their abilities to fall between auto-attack hits. Playing a class like this, the performance of the player is tied more to them not missing an ability between auto-attacks or not slowing down an auto attack due to an ability being mistimed.
Then the games itemization should allow players to pick slightly faster or slower weapons (0.7 seconds up to about 1.5 second, when things like haste are factored in), with slower weapons dealing more damage both with auto-attacks, but also with abilities. This is to compensate for them not hitting quite as often.
This allows players of classes based on this notion to essentially set their own pace in combat.
To me, rogue type classes should all be essentially based around this notion, making the class as much a rhythm based class as anything. This need to always have an ability firing every second or so also means that such classes are a little less reliant on using exactly the right ability, and more focusing on using "an" ability at exactly the right time.
Classes that either don't use auto-attacks (mages) or that have weapons that have 4 - 6 second long delays (tanks, fighters) are then either more reliant on using the right ability but still with some timing components (fighters), completely reliant on using the right ability, with timing essentially a non-issue (mages) or are reliant on timing, using the right ability as well as reaction play (tanks).
Basically, I appreciate a game that is able to set the pace of combat to be different between different classes, but also allows players playing classes where timing is key the ability to set the timing they need to play to.
This also generates a fairly massive difference in how different classes actually play - to the point some players will be really good at one, and not so good at the other.
With regards to blocking in fighting games, it's not so much the ping that's the issue but the gameplay itself. Remember that fighting games like Street Fighter V are 1v1 matches in a 2D area. The way the combat is designed makes it very easy to balance blocking around, and the blocking adds a huge amount of depth to the system.
Oh no, my bad if i was unclear. I was referring to Pacha and You talking about the ping of active blocking in an mmo environment, not ping in the fighting games. I find the blocking in fighting games much more (and i honestly can't think of a better phrasing for this) clicky, as in the blocking is embeded into the rest of their moves often repeatedly pressing the block button during an encounter. As opposed to the more prolonged hold blocking in a lot of rpgs, and the few MMO's it's made it to.
The "clickiness" you find in fighting games is due to how the game is designed and balanced. In Street Fighter V you have 2 basic kinds of blocks - Standard blocks and low blocks. Standard blocks can block mid-height and arial attacks. Low blocks can only block projectiles and low attacks. While you can hold down the block button to continuously block, this is a terrible idea against anyone with more than 2 brain cells to work with, because all they have to do is hit you with attacks that your block doesn't work against, or just walk up to you and throw you since blocks don't stop throwing attacks.
This is why when you watch high level Street Fighter V gameplay, the players will constantly be going in the out of the blocking stance, trying to predict their opponent, but not staying in the blocking stance too long that it leaves them open to the other attacks. And as I said before, the gameplay is so fast (or rather, the animations for the attacks are so fast) that you physically cannot react to them before they hit. Instead, highly skilled fighters have to predict what their opponent will do and its as much a mental battle as it is a skill battle.
mmorpgs aren't designed like that though. For one thing, it is very rare to fight 1v1 and generally speaking you don't have different height attacks and different types of blocks to counter them. Usually the only difference you have in an mmorpg is magic vs physical damage, but it's usually pretty obvious what kind of damage each class is going to do so there's really no choice in which kind of block to use. On top of that, mmorpgs typically have slower attack animations than anything you'll find in a fighting game, so its very easy to react to what your opponent is doing, hence why active blocking in mmorpgs is usually very overpowered.
See that's where I'd disagree. MMO's have slower animations, which allows them to actually have engaging block systems. Actually seeing the cast bar, animation, tell, what have you, and responding to it makes people feel drawn into the combat. And whether a blocking system is under or overpowered is never in my experience due to the ability to have a reaction, it's due to the systems tied to it. Does this block negate damage, what's the resource exchange in blocking versus being blocked, are their secondary penalties to being blocked, things like that. Look no further than APOC. Blocking was a pointless endeavor except in 2 or 3 circumstances, and even then, with the ability to evade being so much more beneficial, there was seldom any tactical bonus to blocking.
Alot of vocal people want this and that, "active blocking" "headshot arrows", full loot etc.
It sounds very nice on paper, and ive seen the same arguments in mmorpg after mmorpg.
But its not really that fun in game, and people tend to want to go back to the basics.
The system that has been most succesful in pretty much every mmorpg that has survived for more than one year is the basic tab target and block/dodge/evade etc linked to skills rather than pressing a specific button.
Its the system that works the best for the masses and if AoC wants to be succesful its the way they should go.
On a sidenote i was thinking the other day after watching the latest gameplay videos, about the active attack that you can mash.
Many players want to maximize damage, and it would be really crap if you want to maximise dmg, even as a mage, you have to stand in melee, weaving in those attacks.
In my opinion, they can remove those attacks alltogether and focus more on skill attacks.
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
The problem is, people might not want to have the wheel reinvented, but a large group has noticed the system that has been used for pretty much everything has become stale and route. People have gone back to these games because when something comes around to try and shake things up, they usually fail at the surrounding systems. People will only forgive so much for a novel, even superior, single system.
I think the biggest problem with this argument is the sample size and the fact the, in general, new MMOs don't last. You would have a better argument if we had a steady flow of MMOs and could point out that the tab ones were more successful but that isn't the case.
Everyone is returning to the same old MMOs. New ones "fail" regardless of if they are tab or action which means that the system alone isn't the issue.
I also think there is some evidence that challenges this argument if we look at other rpgs and games outside of MMOs. If you look at those games, there are plenty of them that are successful using a more free/action system.
The way I see it, Tab is a system that was created when developers were trying to adapt turn-based combat systems to be more active. It's the same targeting system as the old turn-based games but now your abilities would become available in real-time as you move around in a 3d environment.
"Action" combat is the next step in creating an active combat system. It's the natural progression of the tab system that removes the targeting requirements and allows players to freely aim their abilities, giving the player more control over their character.
There are two reasons action combat works better in single player games than in MMO's.
The first is that in a single player game, developers can account for the fact that only about 10%of the population are actually physically able to have the type of reactions a game like this needs in under 0.1 seconds. They can easily make it so a person with reactions of this type that take 0.25 or even 0.4 seconds are still able to beat the game.
In an MMO though, slow reactions get you killed. This basically immediately blocks people with more than 0.2 second reactions from playing at the top end in a purely action combat game.
This isn't trained reactions I am talking about either - it is the fastest some people are actually able to see a thing, process it and then react.
The second reason is that action combat doesn't perform very well when you have multiple people fighting the same target.
When you are fighting someone in an action game, and every move knocks the target back a bit and you move up to meet them, it feels responsive, impactful... good.
When you do that with others around, all you are doing g is pushing the target past your rogue as they was about to backstab it, or push the target out of range of your images, and move yourself out of range of your healers. Sure, one person may be having fun, but everyone else is just getting pissed off.
On the other hand, if your a tank playing an action combat game and you and your target are both stationary, you are probably not having a good time.
This is why action combat games tend to focus more on PvP, the bigger the focus on action combat, the bigger the focus on PvP.
The idea of a pure action combat MMO with a PvE focus is almost laughable.
I'm on record as being pro-tab target combat, but there is no way I would play a single player game with that combat. I am pro-tab because I am pro-PvE, specifically top end PvE, and pure action combat simply isn't going to ever work there. A toned down action combat system (like ESO) could work in top end PvE, but even a BDO style action combat system won't work for 20+ player top end PvE.
This is the main reason tab target MMO'are always going to be more popular - it isn't the combat system, it is the fact that this is where the good PvE is at.
I could go on at length about how limits on people's reaction timesplays a part. Or how the fact that tab target is easy to get in but has a long tail to master it, while action is harder to get in to and then has almost no further depth to it also plays a part. But while both of these are factors, they pale in comparison to the fact that action combat is better for PvP, and tab is better for PvE - and most people will make a decision based on PvP/PvE before they even consider action/tab.
I think it's more complex than "action combat doesn't work in PvE content". After all, Monster Hunter World is almost entirely action combat PvE.
Action block= code weapon on weapon
Reactive block= animation lock in place, not very MM friendly for the two locked in place.
My perfect combat sistem is:
-Fluid and good biomechanical animations.
-Action target.
-Skirmish oriented with friendly fire anti zerg.
PvP with 3v3 and 5v5 as the core allows individuality while still having the big picture present.
3-5 are the platoons of gaming.
There might be more than 10 people fighting, but you can still get your small groups of friends for some teamfights.
-60% cdr management.
40% mechanics (varies with classes)
Presicion
Shield Block
Weapon Parry
Dodge Roll
-Skirmish open world/battleground centric.
-Skills and talent with clear pros and cons. Meaningful decisions.
-Few "jack of all trades" "generalist" skills and clases. Most clases have to be specialized and with risks.
There was a quote on one GDC talk "If players can, they will make efficient their fun" and make risk free characters.
Talking about animation locking reminds me of a video about the parry animations in Dark Souls games.
It's well worth looking into if that kind of this interests you. What is important is that when you parry an attack in Dark Souls and then hit the riposte command, both the mob and the player's character will snap into the proper positions for the synced riposte animation. You can do this just fine in a single player environment but it doesn't work nearly so well in a a multiplayer setting.
One thing i noticed about your game world is how big it is, but as a character, i just dont feel close enough to my character to feel the mass.
When Steve played, in the Pre-Alpha 4K showcase, the camera was locked in the perfect position, i actually wanted it to feel closer.
I recently played a game called Control, and its combat was so simple. In that game, you didnt have the ability to dodge attacks, you had to collect an item that gave you the ability to hold a block button. That would allow you to re-position your attack.
The enemy AI, in Control felt like real players, because they surrounded you, and they never stopped their advancement in trying to take your character down, you had to constantly think and move fast, because their strategy was to corner your character.
I wish more game companies would invest into researching controller play.
The flashiness of all the attacks, are to bright and magnificent for my eyes, my lights are on, but its really hard to make out whats really going on.
Thank you so much for adding more enemy spawns to fights.
🖐🏾
Oh, it absolutely is more complex than that - but you can say that about any discussion not at a PhD level.
I've not played Monster Hunter, so I don't know much about it's combat system. My understanding is that it is best described as "action combat lite", but I may well be wrong there.
That is also why ESO has some ok PvE content (being generous). It is action combat, but a very light version of it. All the things that conflict with PvE in action combat have basically been stripped out of it, and if it weren't for the free aiming in that game, it perhaps wouldn't be called action combat by anyone.
This is where I do think Ashes stands to do something other games haven't. Having a hybrid system means that people can build up a character for PvP, with all the action combat they want, and the movement, and impactfulness that they want. But then players can (and will) switch to a tab target based build for PvE content, in order to be in a position to be able to better work with 39 other players.
There obviously will be some cross over with this - because it is more complex than that - but generally speaking the fact that Ashes has hybrid combat to me means it could well be the only game that has actual good PvE as well as actual good PvP.