Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
But a Mage with a Dex of 11 should not automatically hit a Rogue with a Dex of 19 just because the Mage player has faster twitch skills than the Rogue player even if technically there was a hit. We should expect some mitigation due to RNG and the Rogue character's high Dex that emulates their exceedingly high Dodge vs the mediocre Dex of the Mage character.
We can give a bunch of points that reward the Mage player's twitch skills, sure, but those twitch skills should not ignore the Rogue's character stats.
This is especially true for melee combat with a Fighter Dex 11 v Rogue Dex 19.
RNG is always going to play a role in Ashes of Creation whether that be in PvP or PvE, but one way to mitigate that is through the action system. The action system is going to be far less sort of dependent on those you know dice rolls and there'll be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that but it's a way for us to sort of reward skilled play versus sort of tactical strategies type play.
– Jeffrey Bard
Yes, I can understand and imagine situations you described, I already knew it won't able to solve those situations you encounter before you reply, even if technically devs able to let healing spell heals the one who needs it will just be too simplified and it won't take long to get boring.
I never seen or played any game solve these kind of issues in a good and fun enough way even WOW or FF14. That's why I suggest combat system and action camera in GW2 at the beginning, and somehow I feel AoC devs kind choking themselves by some degree in my opinion, because the 75:25 ratio of hybrid combat skill is just not gonna work when having a traditional healer skills like chain healing or one target healing, I think GW2 have good support skill sets and with their action camera support role feels engaging in fights, but problem is in GW2 they have too much cleanse/defense/recovery/hard CC/break stun skills(I don't like this kind of skill trading gameplay, it start because some class have some skill so another class also crying for some love by game devs, then end up with every class become not special anymore and have same amount and same kind of skill set just covered by different name/icon/effect) and bunker builds, I think Support Guardian(Cleric+Tank in AoC I guess) and Support Druid(Cleric+Ranger in AoC I guess) might be good examples to solve those situations you encounter if just looking the healing and soft CC skills or how they heals or help make a kill and ignore numbers.
Yeah, I just want to say that not matter what devs choose to going with, this is a MMORPG have 250v250 siege and they pushing to 500v500 and PvX open world dungeons so that won't be any pure PvE/PvP players, so just don't go too hardcore(I'm not talking about you, Azherae), this game should be made like SSBU easy and fun to play but still can be hardcore enough because devs and those 20% hardcore players will need the rest 80% causal/average players to feed the game.
Well, I agree completely, even as someone who plays very 'hardcore' otherwise. I'd have 'given up' trying to bridge the 'divide' by now, but I've had multiple productive conversations with at least some of the Action Combat supporters and we might have a less 'hardcore' compromise for now.
So I'll keep talking. Hopefully every person who has anything to add 'nearer to the middle ground' will say something, but so far, this thread hasn't taught me much other than the fact that people are still argumentative. Oh well.
We obsess too much on successes in MMORPGs.
Should be fun to try to find the mix of hybrid abilities that seems to work best for your character(s).
I'd say option two allows for tab targeting to maintain utility in PvP situations, forcing you to way risk and reward. You want your big cooldown to hit so you use tab targeting, or you take a big risk. I like two.
5. I don't think action combat should get any stat bonus. To me, using less mana or experiencing a lower cooldown because I'm in action mode seems incredibly contrived. I don't care what the reasoning or explanation is, it's gonna feel weird if my firebolts are giving me more dps for no reason other than being in action mode.
The benefit to action combat should be an increased amount of control in your abilities. We can see this in A1 already. When I plan to kill a group of mobs with my weapon, I switch to action mode. When I plan to pull multiple mobs together with ranged abilities, I use tab mode. I don't want to feel compelled to use an ability in action mode because of increased DPS when I would really like to use it in tab mode because it feels better there.
The ability design in AoC needs to compliment the two combat modes. If there is no reason to use action combat, then Intrepid has failed in their mission to create abilities that compliment the action combat mode. At that point, they need to either remake their abilities to fulfill the hybrid combat system, or they need to remove the action combat mode. They should never resort to straight stat buffs to make action combat worthwhile.
(note: I'm not saying they should remove action combat. I'm saying that if nobody wants to use it, then it needs to be reworked or removed.)
This is an interesting conversation, but I don't think that it's worth having until combat is more complete. We don't know their full plans for hybrid combat, and it's going to be assumptions and misunderstandings until we do.
Ive played pretty much all mmorpgs since the first ones arrived.
All the ones more AC based ones, if you count BDO and ESO into those, turned quickly into mashing pretty much the same 2 skills over and over and while running around all over the field trying to LoS enemy.
Not to mention shitshows like B&S combat where you have to push 100 keys a second to "win"
Im to old for that shit, and dont want 360 noscopes in mmorpgs.
For that you can go back playing CoD, CS or whatever.
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
Action combat is defined by how the abilities are aimed, not how fast the pacing of the combat is. Even if you can only use an ability every 5 seconds, if you have to manually aim that ability, that is action combat.
In Elite Dangerous, my ship has one laser that has 'gimballed' system, I can fire it by holding down a button and if my opponent is anywhere in a cone in front of it, they are hit. It also has a Plasma Accelerator where I must not only take the shot at a specific moment, I must read their movement, and lead this shot, and calculate the velocities of both ships in space.
In a small ship dogfight, I spend a large amount of time making rapid, possibly large adjustments to vector, and lining up a reticle, managing energy in the ship by pressing other buttons to make sure that the Plasma Accelerator even has enough energy to fire, etc.
I press more buttons in 30 seconds than I do in some fighting game matches, but I only fire the actual Plasma Accelerator once or twice every 10 seconds in a dogfight with another small ship. The rest is 'aiming, dodging, and holding down the button for the laser'. (I could fire it more but it has a 2s cooldown and ships can maneuver out of position or do a lot of damage in 4 seconds so you don't want to miss)
Manual aiming and dodging is the thing Selo is talking about. You barely even need to aim half the abilities in BDO in terms of reticle perfection, and at higher levels you land one CC, mash a combo, and it's over.
You know what has high energy PvP Action Combat? Minecraft. Can we all agree on that at least?
Can we also agree that the 30 seconds of this starting from where the link opens is not necessarily what we're talking about? Should I have clarified in the OP that this is not what I'm talking about when I say 'Action Combat'?
If people are really going to be okay with 'Action Combat' meaning 'moving at the rate that Ashes moves now', swinging your weapon while slightly moving from side to side and lining up a reticle shot on someone wandering away from you at 3 steps per second then it is genuinely my bad for wasting time with this thread, because Tab Target will be so incredibly superior even if the skill shots are more powerful, that it will just be Action Combat players preferring the control scheme, which is what we already have and Intrepid is already doing great. Love the feel of it personally.
But they've said there will be bonuses to these skillshots, so here we are.
You're the sole reason these games are dying, you're more interested in sitting in a corner slapping a rock to become more powerful than actually getting good. Of course character skills should affect combat but it should never be a crutch.
When Steven was talking about having an AC and TT version of each skill and being able to choose between the two while still having to have some from the other side. I was sold on Ashes take on Hybrid combat. You can have rewarding skill shots and classical MMO style skills in the same system. It empowers the players to choose what they prefer.
Dygz can have mostly TT with a few AOE templates to place, and I can have my Aimed bow shots with a few dots to cast. We both win. When I miss, it is because I made a player mistake and when he misses it is just normal RPG RNG. We both get what we want out of combat.
It is such a solid compromise, I don't see why anyone would be against it. It moves the RPG genre forward while respecting the past.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
All you are talking about is honing player twitch skills - which is what counts in an FPS, but should not be what counts in an RPG.
Action RPGs give more weight to player twitch skills, but should never -and will never- ignore RNG and character stats.
I could have mostly TT skills, but I prefer Action Combat.
Your Aimed bow shot is still going to have to counter my character's Dex. And that is going to have some RNG.
If it's Ranger Dex 19 v Rogue Dex 19, then the character skills should negate each other and your player twitch skills might outmatch my player twitch skills - giving you a solid hit. That should basically ignore characters stats because our character stats are basically even.
But, if it's Fighter Dex of 11 targeting my Rogue that has a Dex of 19, expect that there will be some damage mitigation and Evasion from RNG due to my Rogue's superior Dex even if I don't successfully Dodge the hit with my twitch skills.
That's the way it will work.
I don't know why you are trying to denigrate me as if that's not the way Jeffrey has already stated what's in the game design.
This is a blatantly incorrect statement, as it would mean that two players with the same build and equipment would produce the same results.
This is not the case, as in all RPG games, player ability is more than just creating a spec.
Since you have literally never played an MMO to the point where this is something that would matter, I don;t expect you to understand.
Is that I have aim like FPS games even if I am using a target oriented skill such like tank's Javelin in ACM?
Or is that I don't need to take a ground target area or choose a direction for action oriented skills in TTM?
If you were in Action Mode, you have to line up the reticle to hit the target with the Javelin. If you miss, it's presumably just wasted entirely. The devs have therefore already implied that there may be either bonuses to skills when they are tuned to be used in ACM, or certain skills are ACM only.
The point of this particular discussion is spawned from something very specific.
If the Javelin user points their reticle at a Rogue, what is the thing that represents the Rogue's high evasion ability in this situation? Do Rogues move faster making it harder for people to line up the reticle?
Is the Reticle more likely to 'stick to' a player like in Neverwinter and give you some leniency? Is that lessened when the target has high Evasion statistically, making you need to be more perfect with your reticle?
Things like that.
Overall we're looking for 'the reward that a player gets for a skill shot' vs 'the reward that a player gets for their Evasion stat'.
Edit: I said presumably because I don't play Tank, and my group's tanks don't currently use Action Mode for Javelin because... it's pointless to do so.
We actually don't yet know that this is true yet. Everything is up in the air with the combat system right now.
They might just say: "Screw it! Hybrid is too hard. Lets just go full TT...".
I have been trying to explain to you that it is bad game design for a game to expect me to use my human dexterity skill in addition to my character's dexterity skill against just your character's dexterity skill. Especially when you get to use your human dexterity skill to dodge my AC attacks, but my human dexterity skill is useless against your TT attacks.
It is flat out unfair that this rouge gets to dodge AC skills while having both stats and human skill being treated equally. It would be like rolling every dodge check against an AC move with "advantage" in 5E. You essentially are dodging twice. While TT moves only have one check.
I was not trying to attack your character by including you in my example. I used you as an example because you have made your preference for TT very clear. That and for the most part, we have been pretty friendly despite our vastly different prospective. Which is why I like talking to you.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
One thing we know for sure is that Steven will lean more towards tab target than action combat if hybrid combat does not work to his satisfaction.
My preference is not for tab target.
My preference is for RNG and some reliance on stats, even in action combat, rather than ignoring stats. Because Ashes is an RPG.
Steven has talked about this a few times in the recent months. How they are really playing with and exploring many options internally when it comes to the combat system. When Steven says things like they want combat to be fun. If they can't make hybrid fun, then just doing tab-target is the fail-safe option.
When it is possible for the entire combat system can change from hybrid to tab-target overnight. We as a community cannot be sure what combat system to expect. While Intrepid has a transparent development, they would not openly tell the public falling back to full tab-target is an option unless it was an actual possibility.
The combat system is very much up in the air right now.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
If they can't make hybrid fun and they have to make a choice of tab target v action combat it's going to be tab target. Because Ashes is an RPG.
How much is "very much" is subjective. What is not up in the air is having RNG and stats playing a factor even in action combat because Ashes is an RPG.
Falling back on to full tab-target is not "everything being up in the air". But you say "everything is up in the air with combat" to make it seem as though RNG and stats being a part of all combat - including action combat - is one of the things that is up in the air and I'm just letting people know that it's not.
Because Ashes is an RPG.
You can believe that RPG is just semantics if you want to, but it's not. Especially not to Steven.
RNG is always going to play a role in Ashes of Creation whether that be in PvP or PvE, but one way to mitigate that is through the action system. The action system is going to be far less sort of dependent on those you know dice rolls and there'll be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that but it's a way for us to sort of reward skilled play versus sort of tactical strategies type play.
– Jeffrey Bard
At the end of the day, if something is more balanced and fun. Anything you consider to be important about a genre can be thrown out the window if it makes a better game. This is progress. This is how we get better games.
I said it before. Diablo was originally designed to be turn-based. The team was ready to split over that concept. When the lead David Brevik was strong-armed by his team into trying a real-time combat system, he ended up admitting that he was wrong and went on to create a new genre and one of the best PC game franchise of all time.
That is not an uncommon story in game design. You just liked the story of UO's wildlife system in another thread. A story about how the DEVs were forced to take a step back and remove what makes sense for the game they want, favoring what is balanced and fun.
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
That's not the way game development works. It's also not the way genres work.
Real-time combat does not get rid of RNG. And especially does not get rid of characters stats.
Player twitch skills ignoring character stats might be a better game, but that is some other genre than an RPG.
And Steven is intent on making an RPG.
Again, you can believe whatever you want, but, in Ashes, RNG and characters stats are going to be an integral part of combat. Even action combat.
And, while action combat will mitigate that to a considerable degree - it's not going to ignore RNG and character stats.
Because Ashes is an RPG.
Early on, it looked like one of the ways they might be balancing this is with the skill upgrade system. We had tab skills would become free aim skills as you upgraded them. I thought this was a clever way of doing things as it would allow tab and action to be balanced along two lines instead of just one. Tab focused users have more skills that are easier to use but they are weaker and free aim focused users have fewer skills that require aiming but are stronger.
Yeah I'm realizing from reading the posters that this thread probably wasn't necessary. I was basically concerned because I imagined that more people had supported the game based on a specific list of promised features. So if Intrepid told you 'we've decided not to include Summoner any more based on feedback' you might feel 'hey you can't do that at this stage'.
That's why I consider the wiki's content important. People who are backing the project are making that decision based on what they've been told, and those who backed early I figure would, by the nature of doing so, have more feedback on anything ambiguous.
I'm moreso 'surprised' that people aren't bothered by these things, or are just 'willing to let it go'. I have a lot of faith in Intrepid, but Combat is the one part where they have basically gone 'we'll cross that bridge when we come to it', with some rough guidelines.
I don't personally care what the system is, within a certain range. But other stuff that has been said, ties directly into how the game FLOW is. If you told me 'we're discarding some of the basic stats an RPG uses' then what happens is that the gear progression feeling of the game changes. If you tell me 'we're making the combat a low mobility stat contest' then as a Hybrid Combat supporter I'd feel 'betrayed' because of how it would change PvP and Sieges, Node or otherwise. Similarly if you told me 'we're making it a flashy high mobility action game that only depends on your attack and defense and everything else is your execution skill' then I'd worry that PvE was going to be terrible in the long term.
I can't figure out if that's what people are feeling, or if they really just don't care. I care a little, in that I don't want a specific type of combat interaction, but I couldn't imagine them making the thing I'm worried about, when I first heard all their plans.
That's the problem here. If you tell me 'well we'll just make it based on feedback', and a bunch of people give feedback that changes the whole thing... what happens to the 'minority' that supported something else they thought it would be?
Similarly, what happens to people who can't afford to back things at this stage but in the other scenario, 'get ignored' because the backers are the ones whose feedback 'should matter'?
I guess 'caveat emptor', but I feel like that doesn't apply here.
But, Nodes are way more important than whether the combat is tab-target or action combat or a hybrid.
I'm pretty sure the devs can make combat feel OK. It already feels pretty good in the Alpha One Preview.
I backed Ashes to support devs work on the mechanics for Nodes.
I think once the NDA drops, we will be getting feedback from people who are not backers - and that feedback will be considered just as strongly as backers.
Oh, okay. I think if things are like what you described in A1 now, I will say it's okay to give some benefit to ACM depend on how hard the aiming will be and need to be tuned carefully.
I want to say I don't like hard CC or too much hard CCs depend on what and how much CCs devs put into what class, and I don't like what Javelin does and which class has it right now, I think it's too powerful.(You can just ignore this, just murmuring.)
I assume that "Rogue's high evasion ability" is a RNG that make Rogue just dodges a lot like Rogues in WoW.
And if devs can manage to make the aiming thing not to hard and not too easy, for example you're not really aiming other players like FPS games just roughly aiming to a square hit box like GW2 or something like that. Or if server can handle the calculations, maybe can make divide benefit into few stages as player aim to different hit box.(Sorry, I never played Neverwinter.)
(Don't mind the size of squares, it just a example. It can be any shape or any size while balancing TTM and ACM.)
For example if you use Javelin and hit red square you will have full benefit, benefit like even the Rogue RNG dodged your Javelin but your Javelin still do something to the Rogue but with a downgraded CC effect depend on how high AGI status the Rogue have, like reduced pull range, rooted, cripple or rooted at first then gain move speed back into normal in few seconds instead of full effects that Javelin should have.
Then if you hit yellow or green square you will get less benefit which you still make the hit but less effective than hit red square.
I think maybe it's enough benefit for ACM in RNG Dodged scenario(or any defense RNG like block/resist), further benefit like if Rogue didn't RNG dodge that Javelin, I think we will have to see how the benefit in dodged scenario impact combats and compare to TTM then we can see do we need or not further benefits.
PLUS:
I still prefer how combat and action camera work and does in GW2, it more like a choice instead of divide players but this idea sounds cool if it well balanced.(edited, few words missed, sorry)
Yea, i can understand the fear of not being able give feedback and worrying that people will change things that you might have liked.
Keep in mind, the reason they are dropping the NDA is so people not part of the test can see the game and give their feedback. Things can always be changed again.
My main reason for not saying much about the combat topic is that they are still working on the combat. The focus of the tests currently is client/server stability and optimization. Until the combat is closer to what they intend the final product to be, i don't see much of a point in talking about it.
Things were usually phrased in a way that made me think not 'We know what we are aiming for, so we're going to iterate'.
Moreso 'we don't quite know, we'll just try lots of different things and see what people think is fun'.
What people think is fun for combat tends to ripple through other systems.
Either way, same outcome. Those who don't think there's any reason to say anything until there's more to see, won't, and since I am just theorycrafting and don't care that much, all these threads are just 'gathering people's pre-emptive feedback', so if there isn't much of that, these threads should be ignored.
I just hate being right about these things going wrong... and unfortunately... I'm very often right...
I remember a decade or so where computer RPG's were turn based games that had a grid for characters to move around on. At the time, that was essential to what an RPG was on a computer.
Fortunately, not everyone agreed, and now we have movement that isnt tied to a grid, and we have real time actions in our RPG's.