Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

[Feedback] Split Body vs. Root Motion Combat

2»

Comments

  • MrPocketsMrPockets Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    For those that think the only argument for root motion is immersion, you would probably be better off diving deeper into WHY you prefer what you do.

    I can make the same argument of "gameplay > immersion" in favor of root motion. As other have eluded to, root motion can add depth/complexity to combat in a variety of ways that has nothing to do with immersion.

    There are pros and cons for each combat style...and honestly there is probably a middle ground that most players can agree is "good combat".
  • Arthus DawnbreakerArthus Dawnbreaker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I definitely feel like they need to include some kind of batching in the background so you can flow abilities together better. Right now it doesn’t feel like there is any batching so if you’re even a couple milliseconds too early pressing an ability it doesn’t go off. I could be wrong but it sure feels that way, and I feel like I’m spamming keys more than I should need to make abilities flow nicely.
    Yes exactly! I feel the same way!
    also great points.

    O4cj48a.png
    member of Gray Sentinels
  • Old Blind GuyOld Blind Guy Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Just sending some feedback on split body combat. I think the split body is better as you will be able to move more freely while playing allowing for different positioning options.

    There are still some issues and suggestions I have with it though.

    Combat still feels really jank. Attacks that i feel like I'm in range for, I'm not. I keep trying to use my abilities in between attacks and they just don't go off. I have to wait like a full second before I can use a spell like lacerate. Lacerate and abilities similar to it should just flow smoothly, weavable in between auto attacks without too much delay if any.

    I think we need to be able to jump while attacking (or attack while jumping). Split body is all about being able to move while attacking and jumping is just more movement and it just feels right. The same applies to instant spells.

    Lastly, i believe we are stuck in combat too long after killing an enemy. I find myself constantly wanting to sprint after killing something and it just frustrates me when i cant. This just makes the feeling of going into combat and moving to the next target feel clunky.
  • KreedKreed Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2021
    Just have the option to do either at this point. That way those who want it can use it and the others can do the other. I can easily use both and each has an advantage depending situations. When grinding mobs, I like the movement and use it well against the mobs swinging the sword as I step around the pack constantly shifting positions.

    In General other than the step forward for melee characters.
    Personally there should not be any rooting for most powers everything should be able to be done on the run with the exception of a couple of big powers that have some sort of conjuring.

    Characters still need a boost in movement speed...
  • MrPocketsMrPockets Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Kreed wrote: »
    Just have the option to do either at this point. That way those who want it can use it and the others can do the other. I can easily use both and each has an advantage depending situations. When grinding mobs, I like the movement and use it well against the mobs swinging the sword as I step around the pack constantly shifting positions.

    Not committing to a design direction and just leaving a switch like this in the game would probably be a huge mistake. Not saying that everything in the game needs to be one or the other, but there should NOT be a switch like there is now... The balancing issues of that would be terrible, and just overall more programming bloat for the game.

    This is also the whole point of the alpha testers feedback...to provide perspective on what game design elements should make it into the game. I truly believe there is a sweet spot/comprimise for combat, we just have to find it.
  • CicaedaCicaeda Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2021
    What this playtest actually is:
    Poorly implemented root motion vs Correctly implemented split-body.


    Split body just wins because the implementation of root motion feels so bad. The attack animations are too slow to be suitable for a root motion controller. They also have so many dead frames at the end of animations, leaving them feeling locked in by blocking input. And the root motion scale is too high for a game without knockback. Then there's the big issue of no WASD rotation that root motion controllers typically have (because it feels good).

    If Intrepid wants to go this route of letting the players test out what they like, they need to add a toggle for WASD character rotation that works on both Root Motion and Split Body mode. And that's in addition to cleaning up character animations (which should be done by feel by game designers using engine animation utilities, not by animators).

    WASD movement doesn't even work well in Tab Target mode, which is alarming. Rotating your character and pressing A/D to move strafes your character in accordance with the direction they're facing, not from the camera view.

    There are just so many things wrong with every combat implementation here, except split body. It's not a fair comparison at all.

    I wish Intrepid would look at other games with notably good combat and actually implement them well, not just poor imitations of them. The combat programmers have done a great job of making a flexible controller, which I applaud, but there seems to be no real experience or leadership when it comes to tuning a controller to actually feel good.
  • Uncommon SenseUncommon Sense Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Split body on the primary basic 'auto' attack is vastly better. Do not go back...the epoc testing clearly shows that the player base were not MMORPG players but mostly Battle royal players, No surprise really.

    Root animation abilities are fine for heavy hitting cool down actions.

    Tab target for mostly hand to hand combat emphasis. and party buff/heals

    Free action combat mostly focused for ranged/caster dps.

    I would prefer the sensation of (weight and impact) be done with slower more kinetic/potential design elements and far less swishy, wishy, washy rapid inertia swings like feather-dusting

    Fast is not always good as it typically eludes to spammy like gameplay.

    Not interested in NWorld or BDO type combat.

    Would prefer GW2 type combat but with less invulnerability frames/100% damage mitigation.

    My 2c

  • RockHoundRockHound Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2021
    I definitely like Splitbody. I feel like I have control of my character, where as, root I was constantly trying to reposition myself back so that my enemy was in front of me. Now I would really like to re-map dodge to a double tap W,A,S,D. One other thing that I would love to see added to action mode is right mouse being active block or parry based on weapon type... With block as just a passive modifier it feels kinda... meh. I like anticipating that incoming strike and act accordingly.
  • MrPocketsMrPockets Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I would prefer the sensation of (weight and impact) be done with slower more kinetic/potential design elements and far less swishy, wishy, washy rapid inertia swings like feather-dusting

    Fast is not always good as it typically eludes to spammy like gameplay.

    I very much agree with this, I think the auto attack cycles need to be toned down a bit. There are places for faster and more chaotic weapons types (ie: daggers), but I think something like a 1h sword should be the middle ground and IMO it is too fast.

    This makes me think of Monster Hunter...that game has fast/chaotic weapons, slow/methodical weapons, aiming weapons, and all with root motions. I REALLY think the dev team could learn a lot from studying that combat design.
  • BelegBeleg Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    KaptainM wrote: »
    Regardless of the inevitable decision, I just want to strongly suggest that melee classes have some sort of animation locking even if it is only with certain abilities and not the basic attacks. Tactically, it adds depth to the gameplay. It also adds weight to your abilities in a way that animations alone can't.

    I agree whole-heartedly with this.

    For me, I would prefer it if the auto-attack was made "lighter" (so that it does not require leg drive or a twisting of the hips) and be split-body, but certain - not all - melee attacks should require you to stand still or they take you in a specific direction: a leap ability, or spinning along with your blade etc.

  • TechDeck22TechDeck22 Member, Alpha One, Adventurer, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I personally prefer Split-Body combat over Root-Body combat.
    I do think the animations need some work in comparison, though I assume these were placeholder animations so they get it out to us for testing.
    Overall, I think removing movement from a game is a big deal and needs to be done properly. I think the spell Prismatic Beam shows this idea off pretty well. It does high damage, has good area, and looks fantastic. Everything the spell gives make it feel good, even though you're losing out on mobility. If auto attacks did enough damage to have that trade-off work, you most likely wouldn't even need your skills... which would be quite the bad feeling.
    I do think the Split-Body also needs some work for the "feeling" of it. Though it does feel much better then Root, the "impact" of your swings seems a bit low. Maybe adding an option to add some very slight camera shake or slightly different particle effects for a better feeling to them.
    Generally speaking, gameplay>immersion any day, but just because I think immersion is second to gameplay, doesn't I don't think it's important, so it should be addressed. But yes, split-body over root-body motion any day of the week.
  • KaptainMKaptainM Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Cicaeda wrote: »
    WASD movement doesn't even work well in Tab Target mode, which is alarming. Rotating your character and pressing A/D to move strafes your character in accordance with the direction they're facing, not from the camera view..
    I just want to point out that this is likely intended. LMB is for rotating your camera, and RMB is for rotating your character. There are very common scenarios where you'd want to be able to look around with the camera but still move your character in reference to the direction you're facing. If you want to strafe your character in accordance with the direction you're moving your camera, you should be moving your character around with RMB, not moving your camera with LMB. This is standard in pretty much every MMO I've played.

    On another note, I'll just be that broken record in regards to my biggest issue with split-body animations since I haven't really seen a direct response to it and I'm interested in hearing it from someone who is all-in on split-body:
    If there is no movement/animation restrictions with basic attacks, what is the purpose in having it be a skill at all?
    In it's current state (for split-body), it is just a button to hold down while you're in combat. There's no reason to ever let go of that button between other ability uses. Especially in tab targeting mode, this just seems like a pure annoyance and would be something I'd want to just set to a macro so that I could turn it into a toggleable skill, which I doubt is how Intrepid wants people to feel about an intentional design choice around auto-attacks being a specific skill rather than just automated like it is in other MMOs.
  • MrPocketsMrPockets Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    KaptainM wrote: »
    On another note, I'll just be that broken record in regards to my biggest issue with split-body animations since I haven't really seen a direct response to it and I'm interested in hearing it from someone who is all-in on split-body:
    If there is no movement/animation restrictions with basic attacks, what is the purpose in having it be a skill at all?
    In it's current state (for split-body), it is just a button to hold down while you're in combat. There's no reason to ever let go of that button between other ability uses. Especially in tab targeting mode, this just seems like a pure annoyance and would be something I'd want to just set to a macro so that I could turn it into a toggleable skill, which I doubt is how Intrepid wants people to feel about an intentional design choice around auto-attacks being a specific skill rather than just automated like it is in other MMOs.

    I will double down on this and be another broken record. I have the same questions. =]
  • truelyyytruelyyy Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    MrPockets wrote: »
    KaptainM wrote: »
    On another note, I'll just be that broken record in regards to my biggest issue with split-body animations since I haven't really seen a direct response to it and I'm interested in hearing it from someone who is all-in on split-body:
    If there is no movement/animation restrictions with basic attacks, what is the purpose in having it be a skill at all?
    In it's current state (for split-body), it is just a button to hold down while you're in combat. There's no reason to ever let go of that button between other ability uses. Especially in tab targeting mode, this just seems like a pure annoyance and would be something I'd want to just set to a macro so that I could turn it into a toggleable skill, which I doubt is how Intrepid wants people to feel about an intentional design choice around auto-attacks being a specific skill rather than just automated like it is in other MMOs.

    I will double down on this and be another broken record. I have the same questions. =]

    have to see how it develops into alpha 2 and reassess i think :)
  • PenguinPaladinPenguinPaladin Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    In my opinion, split body with no slow down makes combat "twitchy" i dont like spinning in circles because a swordsman approached me. I think a decent way to solve this is that base attacking adds a slowdown to the attacker. And you can even use some risk reward aspects.

    For melee weapons make the first base attack not slow, so the attacker can be chasing and chipping their target, where if they start a combo they are slowed.

    For ranged make their moving while firing speed effect their accuracy. They can backpedal and shoot while running from a melee, but they shouldnt hit as often. This could even make the toggle walk speed button useful for rangers as they dont want to move so quickly they stop landing hits
  • hARdwinhARdwin Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2021
    I think I posted in the wrong thread. Split body vs root motion means your character's animation? How your char's upper body moves in relation to the lower body?

    If that is the case, then I pick whichever is better for performance (latency, fps, ping, etc). I'm a practical person. :smile:
  • ilisfetilisfet Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    At present time, I think a mixture of split-body and root animations would be best.

    Split-body for basic attacks and fast skills, root for powerful skills.

    Split-body feels better to use as it gives more control to the player, dictating your spacing. The problem with split-body is it can't effectively convey powerful strikes. Without proper animation layering, the legs aren't going to support the torso in delivering strikes, making every blow feel either weak or unnatural. Hence, split-body should be used for weak and fast strikes -- ones that can be believably executed without the legs supporting the torso.

    Root gives more oomph to blows, but being limiting, doesn't feel great to use unless it similarly restricts the target (via knockback/flinch/etc.). Since Intrepid hasn't implemented any kind of meaningful flinch in all the tests I've participated in, root animations should be restricted to powerful attacks. The full body animation helps sell the power behind the blow and mechanically balances the high power with restricted mobility!

    I want to expand a bit upon "restricted mobility" as it does not mean "no mobility" or "low mobility." As seen in other games with root animations (Monster Hunter, Dark Souls, Warframe), an attack animation can be leaping, stepping, running, or just standing on the spot; an animation can also have a turn cap, allowing the player to turn during the attack animation to a limited degree (definable on a per attack basis). So, a root animation ability could be great for mobility, but won't allow for sharp changes in trajectory.

    That's my current stance on the matter of split-body vs. root animations: split-body for weak/fast attacks which believably don't require the legs, and root animations for powerful attacks.

    But above all, what will make action combat feel better is proper hit feedback! Attacks should have a tangible impact on the enemy, even if it doesn't disable them in some way. Flinching, blood splatters, anything besides UI numbers!
  • KaptainMKaptainM Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    hARdwin wrote: »
    I think I posted in the wrong thread. Split body vs root motion means your character's animation? How your char's upper body moves in relation to the lower body?
    In essence, split-body vs. root motion is about how your character's combat inputs (specifically basic attacks) affect your movement inputs. In split-body combat, your combat inputs and movement inputs are performed simultaneously and do not interact with each other, so you can move however you want without affecting your attacking in any way. With root motion, your movement inputs are ignored during attack inputs, so your character's motion is based off of movement that comes from your attacks.

    This basically boils down to whether or not you want your basic attack inputs to have any meaningful affect on your movement. If you prefer the freedom of being able to move exactly how you want whenever you want it, split-body combat is likely what you're after. If you want your attacks to have an effect on your movement, meaning you'd like the conscious decision of thinking about how your attacks will affect your movement and acting accordingly, you'd probably enjoy some form of root-motion combat.

    From a feel perspective, I believe that with polish both systems could achieve a good enough "feel" to satisfy players on both sides of the spectrum, even if they'd still prefer one system over another.

    From a tactical gameplay perspective - which is my personal priority, a way I've been thinking about it lately is trying to picture what each system offers at the highest possible levels assuming optimal implementation. From an absolutely min-maxed perspective, I'd boil down the differences I've though of to:
    • Split-body - the multitasker's dream. With no movement restrictions with regards to combat, you can scale the difficulty of mechanics to the point where you are essentially spinning plates on a table, one being your combat rotation and the other being your movement. Both plates need to keep spinning, but the plates don't interact with each other so you only have to worry about keeping both plates spinning individually.
    • Root motion - the chess player's dream. With movement and combat tied to each other, you can't scale the difficulty of mechanics as high because you need to account for the additional work and thought it takes because now the plates you're spinning are on a sea saw. Anything you do to one of the plates will affect the other, so you have to both think about how interacting with one plate will affect the other, and think ahead to make sure that you can keep both plates up and spinning together.

    I like things to interact together, as well as the challenge it adds when thinking a few steps ahead to make sure that I can move the way I need when the time comes, so I'd prefer a root motion combat system.

  • GlowiesGlowies Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Root motion with directional attacks having there own animation per weapon type. I don't like GW2 Combat.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    KaptainM wrote: »
    hARdwin wrote: »
    I think I posted in the wrong thread. Split body vs root motion means your character's animation? How your char's upper body moves in relation to the lower body?
    In essence, split-body vs. root motion is about how your character's combat inputs (specifically basic attacks) affect your movement inputs. In split-body combat, your combat inputs and movement inputs are performed simultaneously and do not interact with each other, so you can move however you want without affecting your attacking in any way. With root motion, your movement inputs are ignored during attack inputs, so your character's motion is based off of movement that comes from your attacks.

    This basically boils down to whether or not you want your basic attack inputs to have any meaningful affect on your movement. If you prefer the freedom of being able to move exactly how you want whenever you want it, split-body combat is likely what you're after. If you want your attacks to have an effect on your movement, meaning you'd like the conscious decision of thinking about how your attacks will affect your movement and acting accordingly, you'd probably enjoy some form of root-motion combat.

    From a feel perspective, I believe that with polish both systems could achieve a good enough "feel" to satisfy players on both sides of the spectrum, even if they'd still prefer one system over another.

    From a tactical gameplay perspective - which is my personal priority, a way I've been thinking about it lately is trying to picture what each system offers at the highest possible levels assuming optimal implementation. From an absolutely min-maxed perspective, I'd boil down the differences I've though of to:
    • Split-body - the multitasker's dream. With no movement restrictions with regards to combat, you can scale the difficulty of mechanics to the point where you are essentially spinning plates on a table, one being your combat rotation and the other being your movement. Both plates need to keep spinning, but the plates don't interact with each other so you only have to worry about keeping both plates spinning individually.
    • Root motion - the chess player's dream. With movement and combat tied to each other, you can't scale the difficulty of mechanics as high because you need to account for the additional work and thought it takes because now the plates you're spinning are on a sea saw. Anything you do to one of the plates will affect the other, so you have to both think about how interacting with one plate will affect the other, and think ahead to make sure that you can keep both plates up and spinning together.

    I like things to interact together, as well as the challenge it adds when thinking a few steps ahead to make sure that I can move the way I need when the time comes, so I'd prefer a root motion combat system.

    I haven't really given Intrepid my feedback on the A B test. Since you did a decent job of explaining the different of root vs split from an actual tactical thinking perspective (what matters most to me as well), I will finally give my own feedback on the matter.

    My biggest problem with the A B testing and Intrepid's messaging around the a b testing is their over emphasis of the 'feeling' of the two different options, but not the mechanical and technical benefits. The A B test did an extremely poor job of showing the technical merits of root motion because the WRONG VERSION of root motion was implemented where as something somewhat more correct relative to the split body concept was implemented.

    For me it has nothing to do with the weight or feeling of my attacks. It has to do with the fact that I want my opponent and I's basic attacks to have a trade off between 'me attacking' and 'me moving'. This causes spacing to become a focus between two players, whereas in split body as it is implemented just means the two combatants are always strafing at around the same range. I want basic attack to matter. I want me and my opponent to have to actually think about where we are relative to each other and something much more like a combative struggle to occur. I want there to be technical spacing and decision making. That's not something that will happen with split body combat.

    Split body combat isn't invalid, but it's inferior for delivering what I want out of hybrid model combat. I feel like split body will inevitably shift the combat to tab target only and I think that'd be harmful to Intrepid's proposed vision, when there is no reason to go down the tab target only path just yet (even if it was their proposed fall back.) I think this will lead to us going to the fall back before we even have a chance to get hybrid right.
    Node coffers: Single Payer Capitalism in action
Sign In or Register to comment.