Weapon Change on Ability Activation :[

Surely I cannot be the only one bothered by this. What's the point of wielding a magical staff and not be able to cast abilities with it? If this is the route they're taking, I reckon a lot of people will be disappointed. Do you not find it immersion breaking?

To clarify, I'm talking about each weapon having their own animations for each of their abilities.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

daveywavey

Why would you not be able to use the staff?

Professor Posh

It's ridiculous right? I know that we already have basic attack animations involving the wielded weapon, but, I don't think that is good enough. Each weapon's abilities needs their own animation IMO otherwise what is the point of wielding the WEAPON?

daveywavey

It's still pretty early on. I wouldn't get too worked up about it just yet.

Professor Posh

daveywavey wrote: »

It's still pretty early on. I wouldn't get too worked up about it just yet.

But I am pretty sure I've heard Steven say that this is the route they're taking because it would take too long to have all abilities animated with their respective weapons.

George_Black

I believe that it would be best for Intrepid to prepare a plan B for classes/weapons.
Right now we have 8x8=64 playstyles that can use ANY weapon. Sadly, many abilities are shared and the majority of animations may cause the weapons to disappear. Many of these 64 'classes' won't be viable for any content, and ALL OF THEM will be able to make the most out of 1-3 weapon styles ONLY.

I think it's a good idea to examine early the concept of 15-20 unique classes with defined abilities/animations that suit their lore. Each of these classes should be able to make use 2-3 ONLY. Realistically an archer doesn't need a wand or a shield or a polearm. And so, with less 'options' you truly get more quality.

Real choices, real classes, good abilities/animations. Personally I will play a fighter. I doubt that I won't find a viable 'class' using Dual Wield with good animations, because you know, melee combat.
But I am afraid that most of the people will be disappointed with their options.
Many mindlessly scream "I wanna play as I want", without actually putting any though in their posts. Typical reactions at the first impression of inconvenience.

George_Black

At any rate, AoC will be the one of the top mmos out there for 3 things:
Real open world mmo experience
No p2p
Ground breaking, unique designs such as the nodes and the true caravan goods transportation. Who knows what else is in store for us.

Knight Guardian nightshield warden spellshield keeper paladin argent
Weaponmaster dreadnoiugh shadowblade hunter spellsword bladecaller highsword blade dancer
duelist shadowguardian assassin predator nightspell shadowlord cultist charlatan

3 mostly melee spects, 1 tank 1 fighter 1 rogue, 24 playstyles. Can you honestly say that all 24 playstyles will be viable? They will all share many abilities/animations between them. They will all use all the weapons available in the game, same abilities/animations.
Do we actually need 24 playstyles for 3 roles? Do we actually need the Hunter to use a Sword/Shield? Do we need the Dreadnough to use the bow? Why shouldn't the Hunter get unique animations for using the bow, as opposed to the dreadnough? Why should the dreadnough share the same animations of Sword/Shield with the hunter? Those animations that may cause the weapons to dissapear. Just so that the Hunter can equip Sword/Shield?

I only criticize because I want the best for this game. I understand that currently there can't be animations for all play styles; yes it's too expensive and time consuming. But is it worth to have 64 playstyles that can use all weapons?

Professor Posh

George Black wrote: »

At any rate, AoC will be the one of the top mmos out there for 3 things:
Real open world mmo experience
No p2p
Ground breaking, unique designs such as the nodes and the true caravan goods transportation. Who knows what else is in store for us.

Knight Guardian nightshield warden spellshield keeper paladin argent
Weaponmaster dreadnoiugh shadowblade hunter spellsword bladecaller highsword blade dancer
duelist shadowguardian assassin predator nightspell shadowlord cultist charlatan

3 mostly melee spects, 1 tank 1 fighter 1 rogue, 24 playstyles. Can you honestly say that all 24 playstyles will be viable? They will all share many abilities/animations between them. They will all use all the weapons available in the game, same abilities/animations.
Do we actually need 24 playstyles for 3 roles? Do we actually need the Hunter to use a Sword/Shield? Do we need the Dreadnough to use the bow? Why shouldn't the Hunter get unique animations for using the bow, as opposed to the dreadnough? Why should the dreadnough share the same animations of Sword/Shield with the hunter? Those animations that may cause the weapons to dissapear. Just so that the Hunter can equip Sword/Shield?

I only criticize because I want the best for this game. I understand that currently there can't be animations for all play styles; yes it's too expensive and time consuming. But is it worth to have 64 playstyles that can use all weapons?

I can't agree more with what you've said. Thinking about it, if we can't have animations for all play styles because it's too expensive and what not, then why do we have so many classes available to us? Surely that in itself is too expensive and time consuming to get done right. I'd personally be happy with just 8 different playstyles to choose from. This secondary archetype bullsh*t just seems pointless to me but, maybe I'm not understanding its purpose?

Gizban

Wouldn't an animation set for the weapon, rather than the class, also work well?

George_Black

pyreal wrote: »

Wouldn't an animation set for the weapon, rather than the class, also work well?

I think this is the case. Weapons hsve their own animations for their 4-5 abilities, which are universal for all classes.

However, you have 3 melee classes, tank rogue fighter.
If these classes cause the equiped weapons to dissapear, when casting class abilities, it will look very bad since these classes are supposed to be using blades, hammers spears to attack an opponent.
The ability animations of these classes HAVE TO work with all melee weapons.

Then you have bards and clerics which is a mixed bag.

Then you have the arcane classes. Some want to use staffs and wands. Others want to use "magical weapons". How will all the ability animations of these classes work with all weapons?

George_Black

It has been said before that is impossible due to expenses and time waste. And it is, unless we rework the class system, limit how many weapons the new, let's say 15 classes can use.

We dont need
Knight Guardian nightshield warden spellshield keeper paladin argent
Weaponmaster dreadnoiugh shadowblade hunter spellsword bladecaller highsword blade dancer
duelist shadowguardian assassin predator nightspell shadowlord cultist charlatan
and we dont need them all to handle daggers or shields or spears.

krakazilla

George Black wrote: »

We dont need
Knight Guardian nightshield warden spellshield keeper paladin argent
Weaponmaster dreadnoiugh shadowblade hunter spellsword bladecaller highsword blade dancer
duelist shadowguardian assassin predator nightspell shadowlord cultist charlatan
and we dont need them all to handle daggers or shields or spears.

I don't think so, personally i like a bit of variation over the time. Playing a few months with staff and sword then Longbow and Greatsword etc, (GW2 Guardian) also changing the specialization (depending a bit on the content). You don't have to change the Skills of the Weapons for the subclasses, but i think for the main class it would be quite appropriate. In the new world alpha I thought the weapon skills were a bit boring, everyone was using the same.

But i also think the Fireball might be a bit over the Top, If it is a relativly basic attack. If it is more like DnD ist is totally fine.

Child Item