Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
I can visualize it.
It would be shit.
You're essentially saying any game without any RNG is shit and there's no way to make a non-RNG game good.
Edit: I'm going to assume you were just being hyperbolic, there's no way anyone could believe that lol
Without come form of chance, every time two players meet each other, they will know for certain who is going to win.
In such a scenario, the person that knows they are not going to win will simply do what they can to avoid the fight completely.
All MMO's need a roughly equal amount of character progression and player skill to be good, but they also need an amount of RNG in there as well.
I honestly can't imagine that anyone could believe otherwise.
It's the skill that should decide which one should win... Not rng
And if they fight a second time they should be able to use what they learned about the opponent to make the second fight completely different.
You'll note that I did say that skill and progression should be the main factors.
However, RNG does need to be in the mix still.
Problem is, few games do it well
You ever find a good action combat game, it can be pretty fun, but it mostly comes down to preference in the end.
I did not say any game without RNG is shit.
I'm specifically referring to RPGs.
You seem to have the philosophy that all games are RPGs. Which is patently absurd.
You can't even differentiate between a survival game, an RPG and an FPS - which is pathetic.
Except what you're really asking for here is a literal carbon copy of "Rock, Paper Scissors"
We *know* PvP will not be balanced for 1v1 play, it will be balanced for group play.
This means certain classes will have edges on others.
This means, in a world with no crits, no damage variance, no innate chances to dodge, no talents and skills that are proc based, you know the outcome.
Because player A's abilities are stronger than player B's abilities in this match up.
The outcome I see is one of two:
A) Classes are homogenized to the point that they're basically the same with different animation and RGB colouring.
No competitive game where positioning matters exists without RNG, and they don't rise beyond Rock-Paper-Scissors, they only 'control when and how often the Rock-Paper-Scissors interaction happens'.
MMOs traditionally just take it away from the players so that they aren't even playing the RPS themselves, but the rest is the same.
It is both true that MMOs always have meaningfully effective RNG in order to make the gameplay non-procedural, and that certain statistically derived Auto-RNG are unnecessary.
Those aiming attacks don't want their physical skill to just hit 'Evaded' on the opponent because of a number. Those who want to dodge don't want their physical skill to just 'not matter. because of Tab Target lock-on. Those of us who disagree with those things are probably having an entirely different argument'. Tab Target resolves this by removing the skill from both ends relative to certain things. Full Action combat resolves it by forcing the skill on both ends.
Those who aren't as skilled or whose classes don't suit 'forced skill on both ends' are more likely to want Tab Target, those who feel they are very skilled and whose classes match up with good aiming or dodging, tend to want Action Combat, but we're all probably trying to get to the same place.
Don't fall into the trap of arguing over something that you could probably come to enough of an agreement on, to guide the design, please. I'm legitimately begging ye all.
No, combat is about skill, not RNG, you can trust your skill and even if the other guy is more powerful than you, it has nothing to do with RNG. You can have % crits and what not, but combat without RNG is possible and good. You won't run cause you don't know if the other player is stronger and you can trust your skill in combat vs a more powerful player.
I guess it depends on how you define better but If we have two equal characters, the player who knows how to use their abilities would perform better. A person who knows how to use their character would succeed in combats where someone who doesn't would fail. My point is, the characters are the same and if they controlled themselves, they would perform the same but they won't when controlled by different players.
I don't see why it dodge needs to be rng based in that moment. Sure it can but i don't think the game is no longer an rpg because dodge isn't used as a form of passive progression in that instance. Wow wouldn't suddenly lose it's stats as an rpg if they removed the dodge stat from the game.
Yes, if skills are broken out like that and your character is focused on animal husbandry and not black smithing then your character wouldn't be a master blacksmith. I'm saying a character with deferent intellect/wisdom would make different choices then the person controlling them. In your example, i'm saying that your character might not choose to be a master of animal husbandry because they know they could make more being a blacksmith.
yes, the lines are arbitrary when it comes to stats and what stats are required. Hell, I don't even think rpgs need stats and can still be considered Role playing games.
An RPG can use a non RNG system for resolution. Rock-Paper-Scissors being one of the most basic. It’s also less dependent on skill and can become boring.
More advanced skill-based systems could theoretically be applied. Chess and Go are two examples of simple mechanics games yet very highly involved in skill.
The challenge for an MMO RPG is the speed of the game, the necessary interface and the required decision making. That’s why they tend to lean toward more RNG and less toward pure skill to kind of abstractly emulate combat. But it can be done.
Ashes is going for a hybrid system, and the details are still in work. So unless they revert to a pure tab-targeting style, how much RNG is in play is kind of an open question.
If your definition of RPG is Roll Playing Game instead of Role Playing Game, the sure there’s always an RNG element. There are, however, Role Playing Games that eliminate resolution mechanics and instead opt for a Judge or GM. Now obviously for an MMO RPG that’s something I don’t think they could implement unless there it player judged, like for example a game of tag. Theoretically possible, perhaps, but not likely.
If a simulation, then it is possible to have no RNG elements, but then you are going to need a robust model and engine to implement without a huge performance hit. Just the player inputs to determine the mechanics necessary to perform an action could prove to be a nightmarish endeavor.
Trouble is, however, are we dealing with player skill or character skill? Most MMO RPGs are centered on the character rather than the player. It’s probably why a lot of the attempts to implement action combat in these sorts of games doesn’t fare well.
So far in AoC the action combat just translates to having a reticle to target (which I think they should remove, if we really want a skill-based game) and tab-targeting is pretty much as expected (the fire and forget button spam monkey experience). And they claim the player will be able to select which mode to play in.
You can spend a lot of money developing action combat and not get very far with it, or end up with a hot mess. I don’t think Intrepid has the time and money to implement action combat, and implement it well. Oh, they will implement something they will call action combat, or more likely “hybrid” which is what they’ve been doing all along. It’s doubtful the end product will meet some people’s expectations with regard to action combat.
We can at least get up to 'Chess' level, but if we end up having half-baked philosophical discussions on 'the nature of RNG' then Intrepid's optimal courses of action are basically 'ignore us because we spend all our time on things that don't matter' or 'try to appease based on the complaints' which I can't see going well.
I really hope the next iteration isn't 'Split Body animations added, but RNG increased slightly to match'... the forums would become... ugh...
When it comes to player knowledge v player knowledge - In an RPG, the player who knows how to build their character should be better than those who don't.
But, it's still ultimately going to be character v character.
Sure, if both the attacker and the defender have the same Dex, we should expect that the characters' Accuracy and Dodge cancel each other out and then we're left with player twitch skill v player twitch skill for the hit.
We then still have to factor in attacker weapon v defender armor. We also have to factor in points the Attacker has in Crit and the Defender has in Damage Mitigation.
"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
An "RPG" without RNG and stats is really some other genre of game.
Even LARP includes stats for combat rules.
Without RNG and stats, you are creating something more like an FPS (if we're talking video games, specifically).
I agree that these underlying 'roll' systems are elemental for RPGs. If I want a game with 100% skill I'll play Insurgency.
Mobile devices don't have tab buttons.
Well, that does explain why it 'requires 0 skill.'
I think the main argument I'm seeing against tab targeting is that it's too easy or not dynamic enough, resulting in an unfun combat system. I've also seen, in other threads, discussions around CC types and how some can be unfun because of loss of agency with little counter-play.
What if we explored utilizing the hybrid system to address this issue while allowing implementation of both system types? Why can't abilities like party support/heals be tab targeted? What about damage over time abilities? Could we even have some (not all) basic damage abilities be tab targeted?
What if, on the other side of that coin, we had the more impactful abilities with high damage levels, valuable crowd control, area of affect, etc be abilities that require they be aimed and landed? This promotes counter play through movement/kiting and adds a depth of skill that many of the action style advocates are looking for. I can see this promoting some really fun and engaging team play as you work together to set yourself or your teammates up for these abilities and peel for your teammates under fire.
The focus here is to have basic, bread and butter abilities of the class, be tab targeted and cast quickly and easily (think weaving these in between the usage of aimed "action combat" style abilities) to free the player to focus on the enemy in front of them and counter playing what is coming their way.
I think if balanced and done in a masterful way, you could achieve a harmonious system between both styles that would feel modern, engaging, and leave the player craving the chance to login and get into the world.
It doesn't lack skill. It lacks an emphasis on skill that YOU care about. Tab target requires skill just like anything else. I was the number 1 pvper on my server in DAOC, number 1 in my class on my server in Warhammer, both tab target games. Was I just God's chosen one? I ran around the pvp areas and God was sitting on my shoulder, having chosen me to be the one, helping me just delete everything I see?
Or was I just better, and more skilled? Having played many tab target games and often being in the top tier skill wise, I can tell you there is a LARGE difference in skill between the top and the bottom tiers of players. There's even a large skill gap between the super top tier 1 percenters and the next tier down of extremely good players.
Never played much WoW, but WoW arena ratings, is that all just random? Everyone's just there tabbing and pressing buttons and the guys at the top of the ratings got there randomly? Or did God choose them too?
I think action, or at the very least hybrid combat is the "future." And we will see it more and more. But tab isn't dead. Ask the millions of wow players. But I'm just responding to some of the ridiculous comments in this thread about tab targeting. And I was the number 1 pvper on my campaign in ESO, Bloodthorn, too, for months, before I gave up emperorship to pass it to a friend.
I don't say any of that to brag. I'm older now and my skills are definitely slipping. I say that to show I see both sides of the issue, I'm good at both tab and hybrid, even very good at fps games. There are merits to both action and tab, pros and cons to both. But anyone saying tab "lacks skill" or "requires no skill" are just wrong, straight up. Tab just puts an emphasis on skills you don't care about as much maybe.
Sorry for the book.
And now you are putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things I never said. Perhaps English isn't your first language (it isn't mine) and you're misunderstanding my point?
Of course I can imagine an MMO without chance-based combat. An MMOFPS for example, like Planetside. Nice game and a different genre from Ashes (FPS vs. RPG).
You are leaving out the RPG part. That's really friggin' important. Ashes is specifically an MMORPG, not an MMOFPS or just "an MMO". Is it possible to have an RPG without any dice rolls or chance? Absolutely, it can be purely story based. Is it the norm? Not even close. Chance or dice rolls are at the very core of most RPGs. Ashes is most certainly not purely story-based. That was my point. It fits the genre completely. I also understand you want to change the MMORPG combat standard to be something else, because that is the gameplay you enjoy.
Personally I prefer a bit more randomness than just pure twitch skills. The unreliability adds a little extra chaos and challenge to the fights. The bad or good dice rolls we get in most RPGs add to the overall fun IMO.
@Nerror please show me where I put words in your mouth specifically.
The only reason chance-based mechanics are in any game is because it's a game that is trying to emulate actual combat without having to create actual combat.
If you can create actual combat you have no need for RNG and it's all the better for it.
The Soulsborne series is all games that are stat-based games that don't rely on RNG for combat.
New World is an MMORPG that takes inspiration from the Soulsborne combat system and it works as intended (latency allowing), whether you like it or not.
You know why Oblivion and Skyrim did away with the Morrowind "hit chance" mechanic?
Because it was outdated and frustrating to players.
Who wants to have their attack negated at random for no reason at all? Especially when you put in the mechanical skill to aim correctly and the animation obviously looks like it should have hit.
I've seen people argue they like it because of nostalgia towards rng-based systems, but nostalgia by itself is another weak argument to make for something.
You know what game revolves around chance? Mario Party, because who wins or loses is entirely up to dice rolls and random systems. You could have ended the game in the lead, but then the game randomly decides what "bonus stars" to give, and suddenly you're in last place.
Sure, games with heavy randomization and chance are fun, but taking them seriously is a joke.
Before you get pedantic, Mario Party is obviously an extreme, and minor chance-based mechanics can be implemented in a game without completely making them skill-less, but less chance directly equates to more skill based gameplay.
To relate this back to the thread, Tab-Target and normal rng-based combat systems were created to emulate actual combat because actually creating decent skill-based combat was too complex for computing and servers when RPG games were first being created.
But as computing grew, people are sticklers for nostalgia and relying on what worked before, so they developed new games with those old systems, many times innovating it to be more competent and fair.
Also people in general have a fascination with gambling, so "will this hit/crit or not? ... oooh! yes it did!" is that dopamine rush so many people seek out, with big crit numbers or an "evaded" popping up to even further satisfy your next dopamine fix.
We've reached a point in computing and game development where we can confidently begin shedding the "training wheels" and begin creating actual skill-based mechanical games. New World is our newest foray into that "new world" of gaming.
Is RNG inherently bad? No.
Can games be good with RNG? Yes. Many of my favourite games are even RNG-based games.
Is RNG necessary for good combat? Absolutely not. If you need me to come up with more examples, I absolutely can.
The topic is about RPGs.
American football is a good game, but it is not soccer.
You can have a good game without RNG, but it would be some other type of game than an RPG.
Backgammon is not backgammon without RNG. You could use the board and pieces to create some other game, but it would not be backgammon.
You can have great games like chess and checkers that don't rely on RNG, but they are not backgammon.
Context matters
Edit: Just like EQ/WoW and others rely in moderate amounts on RNG, New World is an MMORPG (and yes, it is an RPG) that does not rely on RNG nearly at all.
Just like backgammon is a board game that relies on chance, and chess is a board game that relies on skill.
You can make some other type of game that doesn't have RNG, sure.
Ok, explain New World.
It's an RPG, whether you like it or not. It has stats, it has stat-based combat. It has stat progression. It has roles to play.
Or is your definition of RPG literally "chance-based game"?
Edit: You're creating an arbitrary rule for "RPG" to quantify never innovating upon the genre and bring it into the modern world.
Also, kickball is not soccer and kickball is not baseball.
New World is a hardcore PvP-centric MMO survival game that the devs are trying to tone down so it has greater appeal to MMORPG fans.
It's like taking Pineapple Fanta and adding cola to try to attract more Coke fans. But, that doesn't mean it's going to become Coke.
It matters. 🤨
RNG and rolls are fundamental to RPGs. If it were twitch skill you’d need some serious martial training. ⚔️