the only wish I have for player/mount animations is that they look somewhat natural. WoW's (complete lack of) riding animations make my eyes bleed & is absolutely unacceptable for a modern game.
Personally I am a big fan of weighty mount animations and to a degree - control of mounts like its with Gw2 raptors, makes traveling feel nice and organic like you at the very least are driving a vehicle (riding an animal?) and not just have a boost to movement speed like in WoW.
Regarding overall animations I am split since having weightier animations would indeed slow down the combat but also make every action count and potentially open up to counters.
I still want to see the quote for Ashes being a slow game with regard to travel.
Ashes will have very limited "fast travel".
That's not the same thing as travel in Ashes being "realistic". It's also not the same thing as saying travel in Ashes will be slower than WoW due to weight mechanics.
I guess the assumption is that our mounts will move at a snails pace... I mean mine will, but that is not the point... LOL
A dodge roll does not magically turn tab-target into a hybrid between action combat and tab-target. If that was the case you might as well say FFXIV is hybrid. Everyone has a move calls "Sprint" that makes you run faster for a few seconds. While you don't get baby I-frames with Sprint, people do use it to dodge attacks all the time.
I mean, you can straw-man this argument all you want by focusing on the dodge roll and other stuff.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As for the actual topic of the thread, I completely agree. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that more immersive animations and mechanics are always better.
The only arguments against weighty animations and game feel is, "It's high fantasy so it's not necessary" or "I never pay attention so why does it matter", or even "X is a successful game and it doesn't have weighty animations".
None of these arguments are applicable, they are just lazy excuses for a less developed aesthetic.
It's the difference between Fallout 3 gun feel vs. Titanfall2/Apex gun feel.
Imagine arguing for Fallout 3 gun feel because
"It's scifi so it's not necessary, the guns could have stabilizers and stuff to make it not have normal gun reactions and sounds"
"I never really care about the guns in fights, just winning, so why does it matter"
"Fallout 3 was successful, and it didn't have immersive gun feel, so why does it matter?"
I honestly get the feel some people are just contrarians and aren't really thinking about what they are actually arguing against/for.
You don't want to be bogged down by slow movement and stuff? Well you can have fast movement and mechanics but still have realistic/weighty animations. It's such a strange argument to make to me. Same as the other thread about casting a fireball.
I mean, you can straw-man this argument all you want by focusing on the dodge roll and other stuff.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As for the actual topic of the thread, I completely agree. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that more immersive animations and mechanics are always better.
Pointing out how a game works is not a straw-man. You have tab-target moves and a dodge roll in GW2.
That is functionally it. This is not a straw-man, it is the combat system of the game.
The "Skill shots" added by the "Action camera" in GW2 are the same tab-target moves. The "action camera" just allows you to point instead of pressing tab. The hitbox's for pointing is 2-4x the size of the target. You can shoot next to the target or over its head and the attack will still seek and hit the target. All you have to do is be in the general area of the screen space with the target and moves will hit.
Again these are still the tab-target moves. The difference is that with the "action camera" enabled the game will allow you to target a location in the environment if there is absolutely nothing near your crosshair. If you want to say this fits your definition of Action Combat than so be it, but it is completely against the spirit of what makes a move a skill shot. No real action combat game would ever allow targeting to be so assisted and easy.
It is the "LaCroix" of action combat. There is no risk vs reward for using the action camera moves in GW2. The only way to miss is to be completely not be facing anything. People hack in other action combat games to get targeting as easy as the targeting in GW2.
FFXIV also has the option to only select the closest targets you are facing in a cone. This is kind of hidden in the settings, but it is there. This is extremely close to the way GW2 works functionally. I know because I have played both games. Compare these systems to Wild Star or Tera and you will see that they are functionally not the same. GW2 is too forgiving for me to in good faith see it as action combat.
The GW2 DEVs definition of action combat is just not satisfactory for me. Because there is no universally agreed definition of action combat. FFXI could say its combat system is action combat. Most people would laugh at that claim. If that claim sounds like it would be silly to you then good. Now you know how I feel when people say GW2 is action combat.
I take no issue with your opinions on weighty animations. I just disagree with any priority for weighted animations over fluid animations. My opinion is fluid is more important than weight.
I mean, you can straw-man this argument all you want by focusing on the dodge roll and other stuff.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As for the actual topic of the thread, I completely agree. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that more immersive animations and mechanics are always better.
Pointing out how a game works is not a straw-man. You have tab-target moves and a dodge roll in GW2.
That is functionally it. This is not a straw-man, it is the combat system of the game.
The "Skill shots" added by the "Action camera" in GW2 are the same tab-target moves. The "action camera" just allows you to point instead of pressing tab. The hitbox's for pointing is 2-4x the size of the target. You can shoot next to the target or over its head and the attack will still seek and hit the target. All you have to do is be in the general area of the screen space with the target and moves will hit.
I'm going to stop right there.
The "skill shots" weren't "added', the "action camera" is what was added.
The skills have always functionally been skill-shots that just auto-aim at the target.
Even without "action cam" on you can free-aim any ability. Even on launch day.
And yes, you CAN shoot over someone's head at the person behind them, line of sight allowing of course.
The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance on the matter.
Edit: In addition to all of the above, skills will collide with terrain or other players if they are "locked on to you" and you duck behind cover, unlike WoW and other games where the skill will fly through the terrain to hit you.
Edit2: Weighted and fluid are not mutually exclusive. An animation can be have weight but also be fluid. The ideal is for both.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As a fan of tab target games, I have to agree with this.
I wouldn't want the general perception of tab target games and the combat they can allow for being lowered due to people considering GW2 as a tab target game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"More immersive animations and movements" aren't always fun.
It's up to the devs to decide what the sweet-spot is. Some of the final decisions may come from player feedback, sure.
The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance on the matter.
I have played GW2. I know exactly how it works. Nothing in that game qualifies as a skill shot in my opinion. It is just too simple and has too much aim assist to meet my requirements for skill shots.
"More immersive animations and movements" aren't always fun.
It's up to the devs to decide what the sweet-spot is. Some of the final decisions may come from player feedback, sure.
Big true. This is the heart and soul of my arguments on this thread really. I like immersion, but when it gets in the way of gameplay I am out.
The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance on the matter.
I have played GW2. I know exactly how it works. Nothing in that game qualifies as a skill shot in my opinion. It is just too simple and has too much aim assist to meet my requirements for skill shots.
Everything IS a skill shot that's not a matter of opinion. The fact that tab target functions as aim assist is the fact.
"More immersive animations and movements" aren't always fun.
It's up to the devs to decide what the sweet-spot is. Some of the final decisions may come from player feedback, sure.
Big true. This is the heart and soul of my arguments on this thread really. I like immersion, but when it gets in the way of gameplay I am out.
Yea but people on here are arguing against any immersion for no reason other than they don't care about it.
Everything IS a skill shot that's not a matter of opinion. The fact that tab target functions as aim assist is the fact.
Is a veggie burger a burger?
Like the term "action combat" the term "skill shot" skill shot has no official definition. You can't state things are facts using terms with with no real definition. Especially when dealing with topics that people are passionate about. This is why religions get endlessly divided into sub groups over time.
Steven had to put forth his own definition for action combat as it applies to Ashes:
I would consider any placeable template as more action than tab. So a tab targeted ability is something that you must have a target for so in order to utilize the skill. You must have a target for the skill. That's I believe what a tab target definition is. An action, where that skill is anything that can be utilized through placement of the player, whether that be placement on a reticle placement on a ground template, a directional placement - those I consider skill-based action skills.[1] – Steven Sharif
This is fine if we are only talking about Ashes within the context of Ashes only. We been talking about MMORPGs as a whole and GW2. Always happy to accept Stevens definition when we are only talking about Ashes.
I find Stevens definition to be good, but a little too simplistic to use it of MMORPGs as a whole. The fact that GW2 calls itself hybrid tells me that the GW2 DEVs have simplistic ideas about what action combat moves are as well.
To me the definitions of the terms action combat and skill shots must include criteria that aiming is not assisted, and projectiles do not chase their targets. This means that if the console version of Tera uses the standard controller aim assist that most FPS console games use. To me the console version of Tera is not action combat. I don't know if that is the case or not for console Tera, but that is how I feel about it.
Anything less than this does not fit with the spirit of action combat as I have come to enjoy it. Which is why GW2 was always a let down for me.
I hope this clarity's things.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
1
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It’ll be a real travesty if the final version of “action combat” for this game is “you can place a template on the ground with your reticle instead of a cursor”. That’s not action combat.
On the original topic, I prefer all aspects of the game to feel like they have weight and physics behind them.
It’ll be a real travesty if the final version of “action combat” for this game is “you can place a template on the ground with your reticle instead of a cursor”. That’s not action combat.
It won't be.
That will be a component of it, but not all of it.
Everything IS a skill shot that's not a matter of opinion. The fact that tab target functions as aim assist is the fact.
Is a veggie burger a burger?
Like the term "action combat" the term "skill shot" skill shot has no official definition. You can't state things are facts using terms with with no real definition. Especially when dealing with topics that people are passionate about. This is why religions get endlessly divided into sub groups over time.
What?!
For one, your veggie burger isn't an apt analogy at all.
I think everyone understands what a skill shot is. It's literally any projectile you can free-fire. It's a pretty clear cut definition.
The binary opposite to that is a tracking projectile, which I shouldn't have to explain what that is.
In GW2 all abilities are skill-shot abilities (aka linear projectiles) with few exceptions. (beams, ground target and melee and such)
To me the definitions of the terms action combat and skill shots must include criteria that aiming is not assisted, and projectiles do not chase their targets[/u[. This means that if the console version of Tera uses the standard controller aim assist that most FPS console games use. To me the console version of Tera is not action combat. I don't know if that is the case or not for console Tera, but that is how I feel about it.
GW2 abilities fit your criteria that I've underlined. All you have to do is turn off the auto-target and voila, you have exactly what you described, as you free-fire every ability directly where you aim, and they go over the heads of the front line and hit the back line if you so desire.
In fact, as for your Tera example, there was a mod once before Action Camera was implemented into GW2 that let you play with a controller. (Anet shut that mod down though because they don't allow third party addons).
Do I need to record myself free-firing abilities for you to understand this?
If you shoot next your target the projectile will seek to the target. This is aim assist.
As long as that functionality is available on a skill, that skill does not qualify to me.
I don't care if you can use settings to handicap yourself.
It is like taking the tab key off my keyboard and only clicking the targets manually with my mouse.
Then saying: "Look I had to aim my cursor, this is true action combat.".
If that was the case action combat players would be happy with any MMO with mouse support. Yet nearly universally action combat players denounce GW2 for the let down it is. We all bought it, and we all hate it.
I try to keep a open mind about things, but you are not going to change my opinion on GW2s combat system.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
https://youtu.be/vI8DDBX7hD0?t=2260
Mark 37:45
If we're talking about weight... to me, the characters in this vid don't have a lot of weight.
Especially, the Dwarf appears to me to be skimming the ground and running faster than its footsteps would truly allow. There's a moment when the characters turn to get a better view of the surroundings - there's no natural movement; it looks like someone turning a doll from he top of the head.
I would love for it to look a bit better. We can hope that it does look better and feel abit more weighty and realistic going from Beta into Launch, but... I would rather have the Dwarf look like it's skimming the ground than for the Dwarf to be so realistic that its tiny legs prevent the character from keeping up with the rest of the group.
I think everyone in this thread wants mounts, creatures and player characters to look, move, sound and feel like they have weight. The devs want that, too.
Some people may never agree that the devs found the proper sweet spot.
If you shoot next your target the projectile will seek to the target. This is aim assist.
As long as that functionality is available on a skill, that skill does not qualify to me.
I don't care if you can use settings to handicap yourself.
It is like taking the tab key off my keyboard and only clicking the targets manually with my mouse.
Then saying: "Look I had to aim my cursor, this is true action combat.".
If that was the case action combat players would be happy with any MMO with mouse support. Yet nearly universally action combat players denounce GW2 for the let down it is. We all bought it, and we all hate it.
I try to keep a open mind about things, but you are not going to change my opinion on GW2s combat system.
Oh my god, you just do not understand but continue to insist that you do.
In that video he still has auto-target on as he even explains, so yes, the abilities auto-aim to a nearby target.
Here you go, I did a quick recording session where I turned off auto-aquire-target and auto-targetting.
Unfortunately the arrows are a bit hard to see sometimes since they are small and the camera is always behind my character unless I turn it to the side when I'm not aiming, but you can see 90% of the shots I make.
This isn't even in action camera as you can see my mouse moving around and using standard tab-target camera controls.
I fire in many directions, even upwards.
I shoot near enemies and alter my trajectory until it hits their (admittedly large) hitbox. While the game supports this kind of play, hitbox-based gameplay is not the focus, so it's not a big deal.
At no point other than when I manually target the final enemy or the bounced arrows (the ability bounces to nearby enemies) do the arrows ever follow the target. Other than the one I fire at the final enemy after I target it, they all fire directly in the direction I shoot.
I even shoot upwards after hitting the final target as you can see.
How is that not a skill shot and also exactly what you were talking about?
Just because the game is balanced around these skill shots having auto-aiming doesn't mean they are not skill shots.
Edit: If I turned on action camera with these non-auto-target settings, it'd be EXACTLY what you described.
Regardless, this is off topic for the thread, and I hope this video proof puts a rest to your ridiculous notion.
When I read @Teyloune 's original post I agreed with what was written and really liked how it was framed as "we are in alpha, I don't know when the best time is to have this discussion, but I would like to see xxx in the released game".
I watched the raptor video and noted that a significant part of the "weighty feel" comes from the sound of heavy footsteps, which doesn't always scale the volume with the magnitude of landing from a jump or on different surfaces (so it isn't a perfect example), but still sounds and looks pretty good. I also note that the sound only comes from the player's mount, not from hearing other entities moving around in the same area as the player.
If it is possible, getting the client to also associate other nearby entities movement with _synchronized_ movement sounds would be a good thing. I wouldn't want to see a large entity appear and have the associated movement sound arrive a second or two later... or have the sound arrive early, I die, then the dragon visually appears! In heavily populated areas the priority for displaying entities should factor into determining the sounds heard. That said, in a busy combat area I would readily accept being quickly saturated by a handful of the nearest/loudest sounds, including the sound of my own heartbeat if I've been "active".
If the "weighty feel" can be achieved client side by movement animations and appropriate use of footstep, beating wings, combat, etc. sounds then I'm all for it. I wouldn't want to cause additional server loading for a Quality of Life improvement.
IMO the current level of floaty-ness will need to improve before release. I would review this just before Beta, although I'm sure that the devs will address it before then.
With the dragon boss encounter we saw recently, I had the same thought. The dragon moved as if it was lighter than a feather. I want my dragons to feel weighty with inertia and momentum, especially with a game trying to be more realistic than say WoW or FFXIV. This is one complaint I have about WoW is that everything feels floaty. I want my enemies to have to get past inertia in order to switch targets. Instead of moving in a split second in a 180 degree arc, I would like them to take some time to do so. In the fully polished game I would hope there is an animation for this, but right now it could literally just be a walking animation with the same turn time as if it was animated. Having floaty characters takes the immersion away for me.
Future Tulnar Archwizard
For me, the only good day is one filled with study and explosions.
I agree, everything feels very floaty, dont let crazy fans tell you the game is "perfect".
This needs a lot of work and it's nothing bad about it, but we HAVE to say the truth, characters and mounts feel super floaty, not matched to the floor, weird, etc.
In that video he still has auto-target on as he even explains, so yes, the abilities auto-aim to a nearby target.
The option of aim assist is present for the same skill and thus it does not qualify as action combat to me.
End of story.
Nice blatant strawman
Define strawman. Then explain to me how it applies to me determining if something meets the criteria for my subjective definition to a term with no universally accepted definition.
I do appreciate how important my opinion of GW2 is to you though.
I mean, you can straw-man this argument all you want by focusing on the dodge roll and other stuff.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As for the actual topic of the thread, I completely agree. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that more immersive animations and mechanics are always better.
Pointing out how a game works is not a straw-man. You have tab-target moves and a dodge roll in GW2.
That is functionally it. This is not a straw-man, it is the combat system of the game.
The "Skill shots" added by the "Action camera" in GW2 are the same tab-target moves. The "action camera" just allows you to point instead of pressing tab. The hitbox's for pointing is 2-4x the size of the target. You can shoot next to the target or over its head and the attack will still seek and hit the target. All you have to do is be in the general area of the screen space with the target and moves will hit.
...
This all stemmed from your original straw man where you turned the argument into a "what is hybrid" in response to ViBunja
You are so going to hate AoC then since GW2 has a hybrid of tab target and action system, which Ashes is aiming for, they do are going to use also dodging just like GW2. Ashes is meant to be a slow game due the limitations of fast travel, only available with a certain nodes, at a certain level with a certain building, most of the travel will happen through mounts, but let met tell you, I was talking about mounted combat, not the actual combat since mounts in AoC will have combat systems.
GW2 is not hybrid. It is Tab-target with a dodge roll.
...
Which wasn't an argument relative at all to the discussion. Which was a strawman. An argument you put up yourself that no one was arguing. You latched on to him calling GW2 hybrid instead of the spirit of his argument.
And since you got condescending about it in your response to him calling you out on your incorrect statement, I joined in to show that you were making false statements.
Regardless, I've gone off topic too much in this thread and I've gone in circles like this on this forum too many times already, the thread with it's previous comments exists and the proof is in the writing, so I'm not going to respond anymore about GW2 hybrid mechanics in this thread anymore. I've proved it's hybrid in that video alone.
Which wasn't an argument relative at all to the discussion. Which was a strawman. An argument you put up yourself that no one was arguing. You latched on to him calling GW2 hybrid instead of the spirit of his argument.
This was a bit of a strawman on my part I will admit. That does not change the fact that it is also my honest opinion of what exactly what GW2 has .
I did not latch on to anything. I pointed out how I felt about GW2 when someone else brought it up. Believe me when I say I would like nothing more than to live in a world where GW2 is never brought up. It is just not a interesting of MMO to talk about to me.
My post is the second post in this thread. I said nothing about GW2 until someone came at me with GW2 talk.
And since you got condescending about it in your response to him calling you out on your incorrect statement, I joined in to show that you were making false statements.
Was never condescending. If you read my text in a condescending tone in your head. That is a you problem, not a me problem. I actually am one of the more fair people you will argue with on here. Which I why I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and engage with you in situations where others would just ignore or block you.
Regardless, I've gone off topic too much in this thread and I've gone in circles like this on this forum too many times already, the thread with it's previous comments exists and the proof is in the writing, so I'm not going to respond anymore about GW2 hybrid mechanics in this thread anymore. I've proved it's hybrid in that video alone.
Good then lets stay on topic for once.
I like realistic animations so long as they don't inhibit fluid and fun gameplay. We cool on this?
Having played GW2, I will say the mount system is very nice. However, there are times when the mount movement would frustrate me. The Rabbit mount was the most frustrating. The movement would attempt to over compensate a turn/rotation and I would always have to retry the move and figure out just when to release to get the mount to stop appropriately. Now to be fair, GW2 is all about fine movements because of the jumping puzzles/terrain. I am hoping AoC does not have anywhere near the amount of fine movement requirement that GW2 has. If it does, then I would be much more concerned with how my mounts move, over weight and feeling of the movement.
Also, yes a Veggie burger is a burger. Now technically it is not because the word burger is based around a location and not the substance of the food. No burger created outside Hamburg Germany is a burger, but we took the word and ran with it. Because of this, you can use any substance(Veggie,Shit,Meat...etc) to define burger.
Also, yes a Veggie burger is a burger. Now technically it is not because the word burger is based around a location and not the substance of the food. No burger created outside Hamburg Germany is a burger, but we took the word and ran with it. Because of this, you can use any substance(Veggie,Shit,Meat...etc) to define burger.
Could you say we ham burgled the word and ran with it?
No burger created outside Hamburg Germany is a burger
This is factually incorrect, as the term "hamburger" doesn't have PDO protections associated with it. This is largely because it wasn't invented in Hamburg.
The Germans (and Scandinavians, and Polish) had a dish that was essentially ground meat, shaped in to a patty and pan fried - and this dish goes back to at least the 17th century.
This became known to many in the west as a Hamburg Steak, as that is easier to pronounce than "Frikadelle" to a late 19th century American.
It wasn't until that late 19th century that there is any record (dubious or not) of people putting one of these Frikadelle on bread, making the first hamburger.
Since it is incorrect to call anything other than a finished hamburger a hamburger (the raw meat is either ground or minced beef, and the prepared meat is either a hamburger patty or hamburg steak), and since all early records of actual hamburgers come from America, there is literally no place at all for the claim that hamburgers as we know them now (ground meat, shaped in to a patty, served in a bun) came from Hamburg.
Comments
Regarding overall animations I am split since having weightier animations would indeed slow down the combat but also make every action count and potentially open up to counters.
I mean, you can straw-man this argument all you want by focusing on the dodge roll and other stuff.
The mere fact that you can turn off targeting altogether in GW2 and still use all your abilities, essentially turning them all into skill shots, shows that it's not "tab target with dodge roll".
As for the actual topic of the thread, I completely agree. It should be painfully obvious to anyone that more immersive animations and mechanics are always better.
The only arguments against weighty animations and game feel is, "It's high fantasy so it's not necessary" or "I never pay attention so why does it matter", or even "X is a successful game and it doesn't have weighty animations".
None of these arguments are applicable, they are just lazy excuses for a less developed aesthetic.
It's the difference between Fallout 3 gun feel vs. Titanfall2/Apex gun feel.
Imagine arguing for Fallout 3 gun feel because
I honestly get the feel some people are just contrarians and aren't really thinking about what they are actually arguing against/for.
You don't want to be bogged down by slow movement and stuff? Well you can have fast movement and mechanics but still have realistic/weighty animations. It's such a strange argument to make to me. Same as the other thread about casting a fireball.
Pointing out how a game works is not a straw-man. You have tab-target moves and a dodge roll in GW2.
That is functionally it. This is not a straw-man, it is the combat system of the game.
The "Skill shots" added by the "Action camera" in GW2 are the same tab-target moves. The "action camera" just allows you to point instead of pressing tab. The hitbox's for pointing is 2-4x the size of the target. You can shoot next to the target or over its head and the attack will still seek and hit the target. All you have to do is be in the general area of the screen space with the target and moves will hit.
Again these are still the tab-target moves. The difference is that with the "action camera" enabled the game will allow you to target a location in the environment if there is absolutely nothing near your crosshair. If you want to say this fits your definition of Action Combat than so be it, but it is completely against the spirit of what makes a move a skill shot. No real action combat game would ever allow targeting to be so assisted and easy.
It is the "LaCroix" of action combat. There is no risk vs reward for using the action camera moves in GW2. The only way to miss is to be completely not be facing anything. People hack in other action combat games to get targeting as easy as the targeting in GW2.
FFXIV also has the option to only select the closest targets you are facing in a cone. This is kind of hidden in the settings, but it is there. This is extremely close to the way GW2 works functionally. I know because I have played both games. Compare these systems to Wild Star or Tera and you will see that they are functionally not the same. GW2 is too forgiving for me to in good faith see it as action combat.
The GW2 DEVs definition of action combat is just not satisfactory for me. Because there is no universally agreed definition of action combat. FFXI could say its combat system is action combat. Most people would laugh at that claim. If that claim sounds like it would be silly to you then good. Now you know how I feel when people say GW2 is action combat.
I take no issue with your opinions on weighty animations. I just disagree with any priority for weighted animations over fluid animations. My opinion is fluid is more important than weight.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I'm going to stop right there.
The "skill shots" weren't "added', the "action camera" is what was added.
The skills have always functionally been skill-shots that just auto-aim at the target.
Even without "action cam" on you can free-aim any ability. Even on launch day.
And yes, you CAN shoot over someone's head at the person behind them, line of sight allowing of course.
The fact that you don't know this shows your ignorance on the matter.
Edit: In addition to all of the above, skills will collide with terrain or other players if they are "locked on to you" and you duck behind cover, unlike WoW and other games where the skill will fly through the terrain to hit you.
Edit2: Weighted and fluid are not mutually exclusive. An animation can be have weight but also be fluid. The ideal is for both.
I wouldn't want the general perception of tab target games and the combat they can allow for being lowered due to people considering GW2 as a tab target game.
It's up to the devs to decide what the sweet-spot is. Some of the final decisions may come from player feedback, sure.
I have played GW2. I know exactly how it works. Nothing in that game qualifies as a skill shot in my opinion. It is just too simple and has too much aim assist to meet my requirements for skill shots.
No issues here. I stated a preference for fluid over with weight. This is obliviously only in cases where the two would be at odds.
Big true. This is the heart and soul of my arguments on this thread really. I like immersion, but when it gets in the way of gameplay I am out.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Everything IS a skill shot that's not a matter of opinion. The fact that tab target functions as aim assist is the fact.
Yea but people on here are arguing against any immersion for no reason other than they don't care about it.
Is a veggie burger a burger?
Like the term "action combat" the term "skill shot" skill shot has no official definition. You can't state things are facts using terms with with no real definition. Especially when dealing with topics that people are passionate about. This is why religions get endlessly divided into sub groups over time.
Steven had to put forth his own definition for action combat as it applies to Ashes:
This is fine if we are only talking about Ashes within the context of Ashes only. We been talking about MMORPGs as a whole and GW2. Always happy to accept Stevens definition when we are only talking about Ashes.
I find Stevens definition to be good, but a little too simplistic to use it of MMORPGs as a whole. The fact that GW2 calls itself hybrid tells me that the GW2 DEVs have simplistic ideas about what action combat moves are as well.
To me the definitions of the terms action combat and skill shots must include criteria that aiming is not assisted, and projectiles do not chase their targets. This means that if the console version of Tera uses the standard controller aim assist that most FPS console games use. To me the console version of Tera is not action combat. I don't know if that is the case or not for console Tera, but that is how I feel about it.
Anything less than this does not fit with the spirit of action combat as I have come to enjoy it. Which is why GW2 was always a let down for me.
I hope this clarity's things.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
On the original topic, I prefer all aspects of the game to feel like they have weight and physics behind them.
Unless you mis-spelled abomination, in which case, yes.
That will be a component of it, but not all of it.
What?!
For one, your veggie burger isn't an apt analogy at all.
I think everyone understands what a skill shot is. It's literally any projectile you can free-fire. It's a pretty clear cut definition.
The binary opposite to that is a tracking projectile, which I shouldn't have to explain what that is.
In GW2 all abilities are skill-shot abilities (aka linear projectiles) with few exceptions. (beams, ground target and melee and such)
GW2 abilities fit your criteria that I've underlined. All you have to do is turn off the auto-target and voila, you have exactly what you described, as you free-fire every ability directly where you aim, and they go over the heads of the front line and hit the back line if you so desire.
In fact, as for your Tera example, there was a mod once before Action Camera was implemented into GW2 that let you play with a controller. (Anet shut that mod down though because they don't allow third party addons).
Do I need to record myself free-firing abilities for you to understand this?
No need, I have played the game.
Here is a quick video explaining your game:
If you shoot next your target the projectile will seek to the target. This is aim assist.
As long as that functionality is available on a skill, that skill does not qualify to me.
I don't care if you can use settings to handicap yourself.
It is like taking the tab key off my keyboard and only clicking the targets manually with my mouse.
Then saying: "Look I had to aim my cursor, this is true action combat.".
If that was the case action combat players would be happy with any MMO with mouse support. Yet nearly universally action combat players denounce GW2 for the let down it is. We all bought it, and we all hate it.
I try to keep a open mind about things, but you are not going to change my opinion on GW2s combat system.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Mark 37:45
If we're talking about weight... to me, the characters in this vid don't have a lot of weight.
Especially, the Dwarf appears to me to be skimming the ground and running faster than its footsteps would truly allow. There's a moment when the characters turn to get a better view of the surroundings - there's no natural movement; it looks like someone turning a doll from he top of the head.
I would love for it to look a bit better. We can hope that it does look better and feel abit more weighty and realistic going from Beta into Launch, but... I would rather have the Dwarf look like it's skimming the ground than for the Dwarf to be so realistic that its tiny legs prevent the character from keeping up with the rest of the group.
I think everyone in this thread wants mounts, creatures and player characters to look, move, sound and feel like they have weight. The devs want that, too.
Some people may never agree that the devs found the proper sweet spot.
I know right!
Oh my god, you just do not understand but continue to insist that you do.
In that video he still has auto-target on as he even explains, so yes, the abilities auto-aim to a nearby target.
Here you go, I did a quick recording session where I turned off auto-aquire-target and auto-targetting.
Unfortunately the arrows are a bit hard to see sometimes since they are small and the camera is always behind my character unless I turn it to the side when I'm not aiming, but you can see 90% of the shots I make.
How is that not a skill shot and also exactly what you were talking about?
Just because the game is balanced around these skill shots having auto-aiming doesn't mean they are not skill shots.
Edit: If I turned on action camera with these non-auto-target settings, it'd be EXACTLY what you described.
Regardless, this is off topic for the thread, and I hope this video proof puts a rest to your ridiculous notion.
I watched the raptor video and noted that a significant part of the "weighty feel" comes from the sound of heavy footsteps, which doesn't always scale the volume with the magnitude of landing from a jump or on different surfaces (so it isn't a perfect example), but still sounds and looks pretty good. I also note that the sound only comes from the player's mount, not from hearing other entities moving around in the same area as the player.
If it is possible, getting the client to also associate other nearby entities movement with _synchronized_ movement sounds would be a good thing. I wouldn't want to see a large entity appear and have the associated movement sound arrive a second or two later... or have the sound arrive early, I die, then the dragon visually appears! In heavily populated areas the priority for displaying entities should factor into determining the sounds heard. That said, in a busy combat area I would readily accept being quickly saturated by a handful of the nearest/loudest sounds, including the sound of my own heartbeat if I've been "active".
If the "weighty feel" can be achieved client side by movement animations and appropriate use of footstep, beating wings, combat, etc. sounds then I'm all for it. I wouldn't want to cause additional server loading for a Quality of Life improvement.
IMO the current level of floaty-ness will need to improve before release. I would review this just before Beta, although I'm sure that the devs will address it before then.
The option of aim assist is present for the same skill and thus it does not qualify as action combat to me.
End of story.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Nice blatant strawman
For me, the only good day is one filled with study and explosions.
-Archwizard Slizard
This needs a lot of work and it's nothing bad about it, but we HAVE to say the truth, characters and mounts feel super floaty, not matched to the floor, weird, etc.
Define strawman. Then explain to me how it applies to me determining if something meets the criteria for my subjective definition to a term with no universally accepted definition.
I do appreciate how important my opinion of GW2 is to you though.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
This all stemmed from your original straw man where you turned the argument into a "what is hybrid" in response to ViBunja
Which wasn't an argument relative at all to the discussion. Which was a strawman. An argument you put up yourself that no one was arguing. You latched on to him calling GW2 hybrid instead of the spirit of his argument.
And since you got condescending about it in your response to him calling you out on your incorrect statement, I joined in to show that you were making false statements.
Regardless, I've gone off topic too much in this thread and I've gone in circles like this on this forum too many times already, the thread with it's previous comments exists and the proof is in the writing, so I'm not going to respond anymore about GW2 hybrid mechanics in this thread anymore. I've proved it's hybrid in that video alone.
Not so blatant now that you are digging into the start of the thread for a conversation I had with someone else....
This was a bit of a strawman on my part I will admit. That does not change the fact that it is also my honest opinion of what exactly what GW2 has .
I did not latch on to anything. I pointed out how I felt about GW2 when someone else brought it up. Believe me when I say I would like nothing more than to live in a world where GW2 is never brought up. It is just not a interesting of MMO to talk about to me.
My post is the second post in this thread. I said nothing about GW2 until someone came at me with GW2 talk.
Was never condescending. If you read my text in a condescending tone in your head. That is a you problem, not a me problem. I actually am one of the more fair people you will argue with on here. Which I why I continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and engage with you in situations where others would just ignore or block you.
Good then lets stay on topic for once.
I like realistic animations so long as they don't inhibit fluid and fun gameplay. We cool on this?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Also, yes a Veggie burger is a burger. Now technically it is not because the word burger is based around a location and not the substance of the food. No burger created outside Hamburg Germany is a burger, but we took the word and ran with it. Because of this, you can use any substance(Veggie,Shit,Meat...etc) to define burger.
Could you say we ham burgled the word and ran with it?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
The Germans (and Scandinavians, and Polish) had a dish that was essentially ground meat, shaped in to a patty and pan fried - and this dish goes back to at least the 17th century.
This became known to many in the west as a Hamburg Steak, as that is easier to pronounce than "Frikadelle" to a late 19th century American.
It wasn't until that late 19th century that there is any record (dubious or not) of people putting one of these Frikadelle on bread, making the first hamburger.
Since it is incorrect to call anything other than a finished hamburger a hamburger (the raw meat is either ground or minced beef, and the prepared meat is either a hamburger patty or hamburg steak), and since all early records of actual hamburgers come from America, there is literally no place at all for the claim that hamburgers as we know them now (ground meat, shaped in to a patty, served in a bun) came from Hamburg.