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.
Combat 'Desires' Compilation (No Analysis/Conversion Due to Bias Risk)
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Since there were no changes to overall builds this week, and Ranger was once again next in line, I've decided to go a different way altogether and gather up data on what people want from combat. Since the forum team has undoubtedly worked through all the threads from the main burst during Preview weekend, I considered how to make it at least slightly useful to dev side as well as the usual 'visibility for forum members' side (but didn't really find a way). With the possibility of upcoming changes, this may be the last time we have this specific lens, so...
Opinions were taken from any threads that seemed to have strong opinions about the combat system within the last month (on average) except those threads or opinions which are focused almost entirely on the disagreements regarding what the specific benefits of Action Combat should be (if an opinion was more than that, I aimed to take the part not related to that matter). I definitely didn't get them all.
For this reason it is extended into being a compilation of which Archetypes have which opinions on Combat, to some extent, with the 'Archetype Choice' data taken from the usual two threads, one official and one unofficial(?). Since many players aren't absolutely dedicated to their Archetype choices, please note that people may need to correct this.
For each Archetype, two 'classes' are used, Martial, and Magical, with Bard classed as 'Magical'. So, within the sorted section, there will be 19 'points' instead of the usual 9, with the general groupings of things like Martial Cleric, Magical Tank, Martial Mage. The Archetype mentioned will always be the Primary Archetype.
A secondary sort reverses the concept and just looks at which aspects of combat got which support.
Disclaimer: My opinions on combat come from a variety of sources, but I don't like most MMO combat, or at least, what I find the majority of other people mean when they say MMO combat. Those who are familiar with, or participated in, the Combat Discussion thread for a while can easily explain how biased I am generally, in their opinion, as needed.
With all that out of the way, here's a pile of sorted opinions:
Which only contains data on those who had an opinion on both subjects whereas the next section roughly compiles both sides, including a large number of opinions. In the end, the dislike for the automatic forward movement was so unanimous amongst those who had anything to say about it, that there's probably no need to include it in this sort.
When I began this data run, I had suspicions about which types of players mostly had which wishes and perspectives, and the more I checked the data, the more my suspicions were 'confirmed'.
However, I noticed that this came with a reduction in objectivity. Not because I have a strong opinion on AC vs TT, but referring specifically to 'a thought I had about which players wanted each, based on their intended class', along with an obviously biased opinion on why.
Due to this bias I no longer feel comfortable making any actual analysis, but since I did the data thing, I provide it anyway for others to draw their own conclusions.
Again, bear in mind that I must have missed some. Sentiment scoring is imprecise, and I only went back 20 pages of posts in General Discussion. The Combat Discussion thread was also excluded.
Opinions were taken from any threads that seemed to have strong opinions about the combat system within the last month (on average) except those threads or opinions which are focused almost entirely on the disagreements regarding what the specific benefits of Action Combat should be (if an opinion was more than that, I aimed to take the part not related to that matter). I definitely didn't get them all.
For this reason it is extended into being a compilation of which Archetypes have which opinions on Combat, to some extent, with the 'Archetype Choice' data taken from the usual two threads, one official and one unofficial(?). Since many players aren't absolutely dedicated to their Archetype choices, please note that people may need to correct this.
For each Archetype, two 'classes' are used, Martial, and Magical, with Bard classed as 'Magical'. So, within the sorted section, there will be 19 'points' instead of the usual 9, with the general groupings of things like Martial Cleric, Magical Tank, Martial Mage. The Archetype mentioned will always be the Primary Archetype.
A secondary sort reverses the concept and just looks at which aspects of combat got which support.
Disclaimer: My opinions on combat come from a variety of sources, but I don't like most MMO combat, or at least, what I find the majority of other people mean when they say MMO combat. Those who are familiar with, or participated in, the Combat Discussion thread for a while can easily explain how biased I am generally, in their opinion, as needed.
With all that out of the way, here's a pile of sorted opinions:
1. A Magical Cleric wanted fun Action and high mobility (GW2), two others (Necromancer) wanted engaging Action Combat, another two (High Priests) wanted healing skillshots (so they could miss), another definitely wanted Hybrid specifically
2. A Magical Mage wanted things like GW2, two others wanted Action Combat because Tab Target is old, another wanted more impactful Action Combat, another felt Action Combat was more satisfying, yet another liked the way things are in Alpha One,
3. A Magical Bard (Magician) wanted Action Combat so they could have a cursor, another (Minstrel) wished that Intrepid had committed to Tab Targeting and disliked GW2
4. A Magical Summoner wanted Tab Target with 'Action Combat AoE'
5. A Magical Fighter wanted Action Combat and wanted to hit a button for every attack, another wanted dodging via iFrames, another wanted Action Combat 'because Tab Target is so 20 years ago'
6. A Magical Tank
7. A Magical Undecided (leaning Summoner for low mobility and 'crazy damage') wanted combat similar to BDO moreso than GW2 but wanted Tab Target in the end, another wanted True Action Combat and opposed GW2
8. A Magical Rogue wanted lateral attacks, another wanted combat similar to GW2
9. A Magical Ranger wanted Action Combat similar to GW2, another wanted Action Combat for rewarding damage, another wanted Action Combat in melee and Tab Target at range, another wanted Action Combat for aiming, and another disliked Action Combat somewhat, as a whole
10. A Martial Cleric (AoE healing plan) wanted combat similar to GW2, another (Druid-wisher) wanted to solve the TT vs AC problem using 'auto lock to target', another wanted Tab Target because BDO style games don't feel good to them
11. A Martial Mage (sorta?) wanted it to stay hybrid, but had suggestions about balance,
12. A Martial Bard (Siren) wanted Tab Target due to their expectations of Action Combat faltering, another wanted Action Combat with a clear setup for how to land other effects, another just wanted to not deal with the current auto-forward movement
13. A Martial Summoner wanted less flashy weapon effects, another (Beastmaster) wanted Tab Target because they don't like the feel of Action Combat, and other (WildBlade) felt it would be more fun if it was not Tab, but considers it to be
14. A Martial Fighter wanted Action Combat mostly for PvP, another because they 'played Tab Target for 2 decades', a third was mostly fine with the way things are in Alpha One, and another wanted Tab Target with 'Action Combat AoE'.
15. A Martial Tank wanted Tab Targeting, another wanted maximum CC options, another (Dreadnought) wanted Action Combat in melee and Tab Target at range,
16. Two Martial Undecided love the feeling of control offered by Action Combat, one noting that it allows for quick switches
17. A Martial Rogue wanted Tab Target and didn't like BDO (they did play it), another wanted Split Body animations, another wanted Action Combat to make it possible to miss (technically to make ranged miss), another (Predator) wanted Action Combat because it is more... action packed
18. A Martial Ranger wanted Action Combat (no specific reason given), another specifically did not (might have been a Martial Rogue who misunderstood the class combinations) because they viewed Action Combat as gimmicky
19. A Completely Undecided wanted Tab Target because they wanted more tactics uncluttered by other overwhelming things
2. A Magical Mage wanted things like GW2, two others wanted Action Combat because Tab Target is old, another wanted more impactful Action Combat, another felt Action Combat was more satisfying, yet another liked the way things are in Alpha One,
3. A Magical Bard (Magician) wanted Action Combat so they could have a cursor, another (Minstrel) wished that Intrepid had committed to Tab Targeting and disliked GW2
4. A Magical Summoner wanted Tab Target with 'Action Combat AoE'
5. A Magical Fighter wanted Action Combat and wanted to hit a button for every attack, another wanted dodging via iFrames, another wanted Action Combat 'because Tab Target is so 20 years ago'
6. A Magical Tank
7. A Magical Undecided (leaning Summoner for low mobility and 'crazy damage') wanted combat similar to BDO moreso than GW2 but wanted Tab Target in the end, another wanted True Action Combat and opposed GW2
8. A Magical Rogue wanted lateral attacks, another wanted combat similar to GW2
9. A Magical Ranger wanted Action Combat similar to GW2, another wanted Action Combat for rewarding damage, another wanted Action Combat in melee and Tab Target at range, another wanted Action Combat for aiming, and another disliked Action Combat somewhat, as a whole
10. A Martial Cleric (AoE healing plan) wanted combat similar to GW2, another (Druid-wisher) wanted to solve the TT vs AC problem using 'auto lock to target', another wanted Tab Target because BDO style games don't feel good to them
11. A Martial Mage (sorta?) wanted it to stay hybrid, but had suggestions about balance,
12. A Martial Bard (Siren) wanted Tab Target due to their expectations of Action Combat faltering, another wanted Action Combat with a clear setup for how to land other effects, another just wanted to not deal with the current auto-forward movement
13. A Martial Summoner wanted less flashy weapon effects, another (Beastmaster) wanted Tab Target because they don't like the feel of Action Combat, and other (WildBlade) felt it would be more fun if it was not Tab, but considers it to be
14. A Martial Fighter wanted Action Combat mostly for PvP, another because they 'played Tab Target for 2 decades', a third was mostly fine with the way things are in Alpha One, and another wanted Tab Target with 'Action Combat AoE'.
15. A Martial Tank wanted Tab Targeting, another wanted maximum CC options, another (Dreadnought) wanted Action Combat in melee and Tab Target at range,
16. Two Martial Undecided love the feeling of control offered by Action Combat, one noting that it allows for quick switches
17. A Martial Rogue wanted Tab Target and didn't like BDO (they did play it), another wanted Split Body animations, another wanted Action Combat to make it possible to miss (technically to make ranged miss), another (Predator) wanted Action Combat because it is more... action packed
18. A Martial Ranger wanted Action Combat (no specific reason given), another specifically did not (might have been a Martial Rogue who misunderstood the class combinations) because they viewed Action Combat as gimmicky
19. A Completely Undecided wanted Tab Target because they wanted more tactics uncluttered by other overwhelming things
Which only contains data on those who had an opinion on both subjects whereas the next section roughly compiles both sides, including a large number of opinions. In the end, the dislike for the automatic forward movement was so unanimous amongst those who had anything to say about it, that there's probably no need to include it in this sort.
1. GW2 fans - Magical Cleric, Magical Ranger, Magical Mage, Magical Rogue, Martial Cleric, there were 9 others
2. TT is outdated - Magical Mage x2, Martial Fighter, there were 4 others
3. Lateral Attacks - Magical Rogue, there were two others
4. Action Combat is engaging/controls well - Magical Cleric, Martial Undecided x2, Martial Rogue, Martial Summoner, there were 15 others
5. Action Combat should reward my skill more than Tab Target - Magical Ranger, Magical Mage x2, there were 3 others
6. Action Combat is more impactful/diverse - Magical Mage, Martial Bard, there were 7 others
7. Action Combat is good because I like being able to miss - Magical Cleric x2, Magical Bard, Martial Rogue (see above section), Magical Ranger, there were 2 others
8. Action Combat is good up close but Tab should handle range - Martial Fighter, Magical Ranger, there were 2 others
9. GW2 Opponents - Magical Undecided x2, Magical Bard
10. Tab Target is better because Action Combat doesn't feel good - Martial Summoner, there were 5 others
11. Tab Target is better because Action Combat will fail - Martial Bard, Martial Ranger(?), there were 12 others
12. Tab Target is better because Action Combat is too complicated/tiring - Complete Undecided, Magical Ranger, there were 5 others
13. Tab Target with Action Combat AoE is ok/good - Magical Summoner, Martial Fighter, there were 8 others
14. Must play Action Combat because CC is there so there's no choice - Martial Tank, there were 3 others (sorta, maybe just 2)
15. Other - Magical Fighter, Martial Cleric
16. Things are fine - Magical Mage, Martial Fighter
17. Specifically supporting Hybrid - Magical Cleric, Martial Mage (sorta), there were 3 others
18. BDO fans - There were 3 BDO fans
19. BDO opponents - Martial Rogue, Martial Cleric
2. TT is outdated - Magical Mage x2, Martial Fighter, there were 4 others
3. Lateral Attacks - Magical Rogue, there were two others
4. Action Combat is engaging/controls well - Magical Cleric, Martial Undecided x2, Martial Rogue, Martial Summoner, there were 15 others
5. Action Combat should reward my skill more than Tab Target - Magical Ranger, Magical Mage x2, there were 3 others
6. Action Combat is more impactful/diverse - Magical Mage, Martial Bard, there were 7 others
7. Action Combat is good because I like being able to miss - Magical Cleric x2, Magical Bard, Martial Rogue (see above section), Magical Ranger, there were 2 others
8. Action Combat is good up close but Tab should handle range - Martial Fighter, Magical Ranger, there were 2 others
9. GW2 Opponents - Magical Undecided x2, Magical Bard
10. Tab Target is better because Action Combat doesn't feel good - Martial Summoner, there were 5 others
11. Tab Target is better because Action Combat will fail - Martial Bard, Martial Ranger(?), there were 12 others
12. Tab Target is better because Action Combat is too complicated/tiring - Complete Undecided, Magical Ranger, there were 5 others
13. Tab Target with Action Combat AoE is ok/good - Magical Summoner, Martial Fighter, there were 8 others
14. Must play Action Combat because CC is there so there's no choice - Martial Tank, there were 3 others (sorta, maybe just 2)
15. Other - Magical Fighter, Martial Cleric
16. Things are fine - Magical Mage, Martial Fighter
17. Specifically supporting Hybrid - Magical Cleric, Martial Mage (sorta), there were 3 others
18. BDO fans - There were 3 BDO fans
19. BDO opponents - Martial Rogue, Martial Cleric
When I began this data run, I had suspicions about which types of players mostly had which wishes and perspectives, and the more I checked the data, the more my suspicions were 'confirmed'.
However, I noticed that this came with a reduction in objectivity. Not because I have a strong opinion on AC vs TT, but referring specifically to 'a thought I had about which players wanted each, based on their intended class', along with an obviously biased opinion on why.
Due to this bias I no longer feel comfortable making any actual analysis, but since I did the data thing, I provide it anyway for others to draw their own conclusions.
Again, bear in mind that I must have missed some. Sentiment scoring is imprecise, and I only went back 20 pages of posts in General Discussion. The Combat Discussion thread was also excluded.
♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
1
Comments
Any class can use any weapon, but still seems odd to have a Ranger use Snare or Hail of Arrows without a Bow equipped. I guess partially because Steven originally said some weapons will be better for some archetypes.
That being said, if my Cleric can Summon magical hammers, whips and spears regardless of the weapons I have equipped, I suppose a Ranger can Summon a magic bow with their Active Skills.
I use Reticle with Q-lock, so already feels hybrid rather than tab v action.
Traps, pins, slows, bleeds, dazes, baits, feints, bashes, and mobility. Some form of a steadied shot, e.g. long cast, high damage opener.
Oh, & a 3 sec stun. I know I’ll encounter @Dreoh somewhere in Verra. 🤗
Still haven't integrated the opinions of specific posters, from that thread, into the first post's data.
1. Sideways and forward animations for the Q/LMB to add variety and evasion ability, along with chase options, while either neutral Q/LMB or S+Q/LMB prevents any forward movement while attacking.
2. A Brace option that reduces damage and blocks CC unless the enemy has 'Overwhelm' on their ability. Some stamina cost here.
3. Possibly a small stamina cost for some versions of those directional Q abilities so we can have movement but not eternally.
4. Gated strings with different attack animations (we already have a combo attack like this, but some posters have asked for more variety)
5. Limitations on the usability of certain skills when the enemy is out of its attack cone, regardless of your Tab Target.
6. 'Sticky reticle' behaviour to enhance targeting, possibly assisting with the Tab Targeting itself, but not requiring it, to make the transitions between Tab and Action easier
7. Ability to dodge twice before Dodge Cooldown fully triggers (Dodge retains a stamina cost). E.g. Dodge once and it 'recharges your first dodge' but you have another you can always use. Dodge twice and now you can't dodge again until recharged.
8. Some telegraphs of the attack vector or cone of abilities (especially those that can be varied through augments)
9. A stamina cost tied to jumping (perhaps only when weapons drawn). Note, not universal, this has a dissenter in this thread, and others that don't want it without some equivalent of #1.
Noting that Intrepid hinted that they are going in a different direction relative to #1, but #1 was never a prerequisite for any other point, just a simplification to avoid issues if the game couldn't be brought to a good point in latency management/netcode. Other than that it mostly tilts the system away from 'fluid action' to 'strategic' by offering mobility in a known way, likely to lead to a reduction in other mobility skills.
It's frankly amazing how easy it is to tie someone's intended Archetype to the precise things they say regarding the combat system. I know people obviously see things through their own lens but man, I did not expect it to be this consistent.
Summoners and mages who want the game to play like BDO, a game where they basically have been considered OP for two years and actually CAN win using 'brainless rotations'? Check.
A bunch of people who are literally so devoted to the (reasonable) strategy of 'make sure my opponent can't do things' that they consider it to be non-negotiable to play Action mode so they can CC as much as possible? Check.
A bunch of Bards and other Summoners who can't see the benefits to Action Combat given how their archetypes normally worked? I'm shocked. SHOCKED.
Fighters, who are used to games with (and sometimes explicitly mention) the big cleaving hitboxes, cheering for AC, others who are used to games where Hitboxes are narrower and they can be kited, are joined by the Rangers who want AC up close and TT from far, the literal opposite of most people's definition of 'more skilled'? Never would have guessed there would be anyone like this!
I wanted to be surprised at the Necromancers wanting AC, but then I realized this made perfect sense. Because a 'normal' Summoner thinks of their Summons as beings and extensions of themselves that they have to care about, so they probably want to have control and proper flow. But there's such a good chance that a Necromancer thinks of their summons as literally meat (or meatless) shields, at which point 'good Action Combat' isn't even about them targeting anything! It's just 'hey can you make it easier for me to dodge other people while hiding behind my Death Knights? Thanks'.
I did get one surprise though. And as a Cleric myself these people utterly baffle me. At least two people (sorta three) wanted Action Combat so that they could be at risk of missing their heals.
What?
No, seriously, what? This is an MMO. I'm all for challenge, I'm not even against the idea of making me 'Action Combat heal', I've played Seris in Paladins, it's fine with sticky reticle at least. But... you want ... to be able to miss your healing?
I really want to meet the people who hear the Cleric say that and go 'oh you're the best fit for our party, let's go!' I'm so incapable of understanding this that my mind really really wants to assume they have some ulterior motive such as 'this way I can be better at healing than other healers!'. I'll fight it, though. People are different.
It's just really sad, in a way, the sheer amount of quick-takes on the combat system potential based on what's clearly emotional bias in at least half the cases. Fortunately there were still enough 'Tab Target with Action Combat AoE is good' that Intrepid can 'bet on' a proper hybrid system and not have to worry about alienating too many people.
Hopefully I'm really wrong and it won't just be a torrent of people complaining after a month that the combat 'just doesn't feel good' after their Day 1 illusions of it matching their personal wishes, wears off.
Let's discuss the Compilation again, people, cause I need something to stop me from 'simulating all the ways people could be thinking about how to make combat suit them personally'.
So, on that front, what does 'Action Combat Summoner' even mean, to you? How would it not just be 'Tab Target with Action Combat AoE'? Would that even make sense? We're already gonna see a ton of Summoners because of all the 'I want to be unique and interesting/play a new and unique class' people jumping into the 'hey I'm actually a pet class player' pile.
If you're not going to be a Summoner, what's your plan for dealing with the potentially body-blocking open world 4v1 you might find yourself in?
Personally, I'm the farthest thing from a Summoner. Even when they look cool on paper in games, my brain just isn't built to keep track of my summons. If combat ever gets the slightest bit serious, I'm in trouble if I try to be Summoner.
4v1 sounds like a bad time, so I'd probably run. Either to some narrow corridor, or to some place where I can get mobs to distract my attackers while I take them out. I'm somewhere in the middle between a beefy Monk type and some sort of agile melee fighter (like the Dancer in FFXI). So I'm looking for things like ways to counter melee attacks OR temporary damage reduction stances, dodges, gap closers. And of course, the damij. I'm not an actual Tank, though, so I'd have to find a way to take them out one by one and I probably can't rely on their Mana running out first.
Unfortunately, I'm at neither extreme. As I said, I don't rely on pure beef or pure evasion to keep me alive to do my damage, so I'd have to make the mix work. So I can't tell yet if I'm supposed to pick Fighter or Rogue, I guess I'll have to see.
I do know I fell in love with the Halberd (all of the spinning!). I hope Intrepid gives it cool skills. I could see myself activating some sort of damage reduction or evasion buff then go full Beyblade on my attackers. *_*
Most video on youtube are about cleric or mage.
Missing heals implies having to aim, and having to aim implies more immersion and more skill required.
It's also not anything new. Overwatch (while an fps) has many aimed missable heals. GW2's (though not a holy trinity game) non-self healing is skill-based. Wildstar had skill-based healing in addition to tab target unmissable healing. Half of New World's heals are skill-based. This is just a few commonly recognized examples.
I enjoy playing Ana in Overwatch because it's rewarding to know I did good healing of my own skill. It's freeing to know that I can miss if I wanted to and I could even outplay an enemy ana by making it harder for them to heal in various ways. I do also main mercy, but her skill is all in evasion, and the skill required in her healing is entirely just situational awareness. They both have their merits, but being good at mercy isn't about good aim or targeting, it's about good situational awareness and evasion, whereas Ana needs good situational awareness and aim.
I understand your perspective of "Why would anyone want a healer on their team who can't aim" because we're all so used to having consistency from our healers in nearly every game.
But it's a bit of a double standard when people don't care that dps can miss in the same game, even if DPS isn't as valued of a role.
As a frequent healer main I also think typical Tab-target MMO healing is too easy mode, but that is entirely my opinion.
I'm usually healer. In Overwatch I'd probably heal (I don't like Overwatch specifically but Paladins is similar enough that it gets accused of being a ripoff).
I find that the engagement type of a Fantasy MMO, where a large part of the time, someone is actively taking damage, is enough, just thinking about the sequences, deviations, timings, etc. Enough so that mostly, when things get complicated, I just want people to hold still long enough because I can't afford the 0.2 seconds it takes to make absolutely sure I am hitting the right person with the big heal.
I can do it. I know this because I've played current Ashes, in Siege, with no F1-6 Targeting working, healing non party members, etc.
I feel like in order for this to not be just an additional level of strain on top of something that is often quite hard already, Intrepid would need to make PvE less interesting, and PvP more limited, to make it appealing enough to even bother.
This is probably a matter of opinion. I would rather the fight mechanics lend themselves to positional and reaction difficulty at a level where adding aim would be limiting to even the above average player. But thank you, this gave me the answer I was looking for. The 'lens through which to see it as something valid'.
I'll be 'fine' either way, I'm concerned for all the up and coming healers, I know how rough it is to not heal 'the way your team thinks you should be healing', far less 'missing' your heals, when learning to play a new game, but that isn't in itself a valid counter-argument for 'heals should require aiming skill', by itself.
I will also say Ana specifically wouldn't work very well in an MMO like Ashes, since projectile-based healing is super hard with such small, rapidly moving targets.
Skill-based MMO healing is usually frontal cones and such as seen in Wildstar or GW2. New World combat is slower so it can handle projectile-based a little better lol.
When I imagine skill-based MMO healing, I think of Wildstar healing, as seen in this Esper healing video for anyone who isn't aware of how healing worked in Wildstar. Esper was mostly long, thin frontal cones that were forgiving enough to be balanced.
Oh, now you've reminded me of the other reason I would not have thought of this type.
There is some level of 'forcing the healer to backline' here that I dislike. Not saying it's good or bad as a whole, but I would definitely say, in Ashes, that I would be turned off from playing if I had to do this. Setting it so that I can target the line behind me wouldn't work either.
Again, not really a counter to the idea as a whole, but I definitely dislike it heavily, myself. Being able to single target heal people behind me because I 'know where they are' or can 'feel their presence' as party members is explicitly 'part of the fantasy' for me in this type of game.
I definitely wouldn't complain if this were added for people who prefer to heal this way, and I wouldn't complain even if it were more effective overall healing, other than to support any Clerics with a similar 'I don't want to have to backline to be effective' complaint.
But I won't go to war over that. I have long since solved my personal 'healers should backline!' problem by finding a group that doesn't ask that of me.
It's definitely true that skill-based healing mostly requires you to be "outside the fight" so to speak lol
Though Esper is the "long range" healer of the game, Medic was a more "melee" healer with wider but shorter cones.
Ana is definitely someone who is always far away from the point sniping her team while Mercy is dodging every single attack while inside the point haha
I guess that's where hybrid can try to find a good middleground if Intrepid wants to attempt it.
Disorienting, mostly. The engagement at range of an opponent was pretty intuitive and worked fairly well, though you had to be very careful with your footing to not just get javelin+onslaught'd instantly as opposed to you doing that to your opponent. The problem then came after the pull, because it's so easy to go PAST your opponent with the melee forward movement, that both you and your opponent end up having a hard time actually using your abilities against each other without a lot of clunkiness going on. So, I could engage, have a clear shot at someone, and then end up unable to knock them out because I did Onslaught at slightly the wrong angle and now my melee attack sends me flying away from them, which means no abilities (because those are a cone in front of the play character), and of course no melee damage either.
Siege has so much going on that "making sure you did Onslaught at the exact right angle against a moving target" becomes pretty much just RNG as to whether your engagement will actually let you melee the opponent or not.
Physics
Cooldowns
Combos and chains
Animations
Class identity
Limited animation cancelling
Good action combat without button mashing or tekken like gameplay.
No zerging like ESO due to collision and emphasis on dealing with the enemy in your face, rather than spamming AoEs mindlessly.
Victory is gained by doing smart actions every moment, rather than copying the stats spreadsheet and rotation some1 posted on utube.
Should you deal dmg, or dodge the f outta an incoming hit?
Should you finish the ability chain for maximum output gain, or change your tactic RIGHT NOW?
Totally different that esos predetermined offensive/defensive rotation cycles.
Best combat ever.
As someone that always mains a mage, any game in which rotations are viable (even if not optimal) is a no go for me.
Easy rotations are the second biggest scourge Blizzard foistered on the MMO genre after LFG tools.
Hard pass.
Just realized that I was unclear here, again.
I expect lots of people to play Summoner. And more importantly, 'Summoner + 3 Pets'. I don't expect these pets to be easily oneshot, and even if you could do it with abilities, then the ability is on cooldown.
Ignoring my own Summoner compilation/schema entirely, we know that 3 pets is a thing planned as of now. If the summoner has a good method of control of these, I can see 1v1 becoming 4v1 pretty fast, but most importantly, I can't see how Summoners will be particularly susceptible to 'true Action Combat'. (if it is Tab Target + Action Combat reticles on the ground for stronger abilities, I have much less concern).
Extra bodies to block projectiles, extra melee attacks to help get past certain defenses, more ways to avoid the detrimental effects of being CCed if their summons are properly autonomous...
I can't imagine too many potential combat systems in which the default for 'not having to deal with a certain difficulty type' isn't going to be 'just play Summoner', balance or not (unless Intrepid makes Summoner pretty 'low tier' in most ways).
So let's just assume the 4v1 I'm talking about here is a Necromancer, for example. 1 Zombie, one Skeleton, one full armored Death Knight, and the player, using wand or spellbook.
I know what I need to not make this encounter feel stupid, but what do you/your class need?
Seems like most game with such class, There is different summons (tank, DPS, support) but not all at the same time.
Some summoners may summon multiple things.[12]
Other summoners may only summon one powerful thing.[12]
Now, this could totally mean 'you can summon multiple things, but still only one at a time', so if we want to assume 'multi-summoning is just impossible', then there's no point to the question. But I'm not assuming that, yet.
you could summon multiple mini things (so no more projectile block) while the "1 entity" summons could be bigger than players...
Feel like it will be a thing to discuss in alpha2, when we will have the summoners in hand, and see what they can do. . .
Okay, so the points are "melee weapon basic attacks feel lack control of character(or not really feel having enough control of character)" and "Onslaught not work ideal with a moving target like Charge in WoW classic", am I I right? What you mean "both you and your opponent end up having a hard time actually using your abilities against each other without a lot of clunkiness going on"?
And body block doing anything in siege?
I always feel they should make Cleric able to fight aside Tank with more action oriented support skills after I knew that target oriented skills require really aiming in action mode, make more viable build for Cleric can fix so many problems In my opinion, like who really like to play a TPS healer can have a build base on target oriented support skills, and some can be a battle healer aside with Tank or a Fighter, but still we need know what Intrepid think about "target oriented skills and ranged weapon attack require really aiming in action mode" to help us to picture how Ashes should feel.(If they already answered this please tell me, thanks.)
And I also think that skills like Onslaught should able to develop to have some support effect to help allies can catch up, maybe with Bard secondary archetype will able to.
That isn't really required to ask the question though and this is the stage of development where combat is still taking shape. Alpha 2 is quite frankly probably too late to make any drastic changes to the CORE system. If we as players have a unified 'dislike' this early, Intrepid can avoid a bunch of dev time. Otherwise I expect the full release will either take even longer to get to OR be bad. We don't want that.
So as the local summoner here I will rephrase the question:
ASSUME that my summons are big enough for a dwarf to hide behind. In action combat I get to body block with my summons. Assume I have multiple. What do you need for this situation to not feel stupid?
Oh, I see. Well in that case, first I need a gap closer to reach the Necromancer with. So I'd expect it to go something like:
Leap/dash at the Necromancer, apply root/slow/whatever to stick to them better (maybe a leg sweep type Slow from the Halberd?), then start hacking like there's no tomorrow. As soon as their summons actually reach where I am, activate some form of Evasion buff/stance or parry/counter stance and rely on that to help me survive the 4v1 while I hack at the Necromancer. I would want to take advantage of the 'group hug' to go Beyblade with my trusty Halberd as I said.
Now, depending on what tools the Necromancer gets and I get, there's a few other things I'd need or like. If for example I get a dash for a gap closer and it CAN in fact get body blocked by summons to stop me from reaching the Necromancer themselves, then I would probably want a way to knock back their summons to make a gap between them to use said gap closer. Or some way to phase through. If neither of those were a thing for some reason, I would probably expect to have the survivability to be able to 1v4 long enough to kill the skeleton and thus force them to resummon it, giving me the time and the formation gap TO approach with my skills. This is less of a consideration if instead I get a big leap that ignores body blocking.
Depending on how fast the summons are at chasing me and how much HP I had, I would want knockback to push back the summons for a bit while I am sticking to the Necromancer, to give me more time to do damage. Every bit of time helps.
If the Necromancer gets good disengage tools, then in order to not turn this into something stupid like "disengage, gap close and repeat 50 times", I would probably want the ability to specifically focus the skeleton down first (zombies are a waste of time and I ain't touching the dread knight) before closing gap, such that they have 2 things they need to do at once: resummon and disengage.
If the Necromancer gets good CC to keep me in place, then I probably want either a way to shake/dodge CC or more likely, I want my AoE skills to be good enough to be a threat to their multiple summons. Because otherwise I don't see how I'd even have a chance. If that CC came from the summons themselves, though, then I would probably prioritize killing the one with Root over rushing the Necromancer right away.
Going into the territory of "things I CAN function without but I'd rather not", I would want 'drain HP on hit' (FFXI Drain Samba pls) for sustain and some form of... spear/javelin toss (or Ki Blast?). I'm by no means a ranged weapon user, but getting a long cooldown ranged attack would be nice sometimes. For example if the Necromancer is low HP and suddenly tries to run, I'd like to have a say in it via a strongly worded Spear Throw.