Dreoh wrote: » @Noaani Sorry about that, I'm so used to people using gotcha arguments on me. I'm not arguing that equipment and stuff shouldn't exist or that someone can't have higher stats than another person, as that is a part of RPG's yes. That's a different argument than the one I was making though, and I don't think some people are properly separating the arguments. You can have mostly fair/balanced pvp with stats. It's when some of those stats are RNG stats that it becomes unfair/uncompetitive PvP. GW2 is a good example of an RPG game with (mostly) RNG-less PvP. It has a Structured PvP mode and a WvW, gear-based PvP mode. Structured pvp mode, where everyone just chooses their stat build, but all their stats are normalized to be equivalent to each other. This mode is closer to a fighting game than an RPG, and in fact the Structured PvP part of the game is actually separate entirely from the rest of the game. This mode is essentially just a gear-based/loadout-based combat scenario WvW mode, where your gear actually does matter, and whoever has better gear has better stats. GW2 does NOT have miss chance, dodge chance, or resist chance. It has crit chance, but crit chance is less decisive than spells and effects completely whiffing. This is an example of a game that "removed that RNG" in favor of more fair pvp and it works well because of it. Nobody complains that they lost because "their heavy strike randomly missed". They might complain they got critted too many times, but that's not nearly as detrimental as a knockback/silence/root not taking effect. This mode is an RPG and progression based combat scenario Structured PvP aside, WvW mode is exactly what you're describing. Your gear matters, but even if you're weaker, you can tell that you're weaker based on the damage being done. You don't get RNG-fucked by their higher dodge chance or your lower accuracy chance where otherwise you played beautifully. When @CROW3 was saying "Different genre, context changed and matters", he was being disingenuous because he was missing the point of the argument. The argument is "What makes a fair/balanced PvP" and RNG as I have described many times goes directly against that argument. You can have stats and stat-based combat. You don't need to mix in RNG beyond a very minor amount. Have someone with better gear just be stronger, no need to make them more lucky. That's where the "context change" comes in to play.
truely wrote: » TBH I think a lot of inspiration can be taken from MOBAs for combat as they have a lot of similiarities in terms of how it plays with similiar combat skills, positioning etc. I know it's not the same but there are many overlapping similarities and in those game you wouldn't get RnG on stuns because it's just not balanced and isn't good/ feel good gameplay.
truely wrote: » I agree, GW2 minimising the amount of RnG makes for great PvP
truely wrote: » I don't understand why people think skillful build have to be about having RnG. One of the main part of this game will be about augmenting your skills so your active skills change and are used is different and interesting ways. Just boosting a bunch of passive % in a certain way is somewhat one dimensional, this is combination with the active skills is where it's at, and having a bunch of RnG isn't necessary for this. Once again GW2 is a great example.
Vhaeyne wrote: » JustVine wrote: » I feel it will absolutely get used. 'Lose a turn' would have to be rediculosly low odds for people to not use it, the skill shot will probably just make it unpopular at lower skill levels, while still dominating the meta at higher skill levels. Even with a long cooldown (which I fully support them having if they are going to have stun.) In any meaningful form of pvp it is free buckets of damage due to Ashes high time to kill. I doubt adding a skillshot to the hard cc will address the problems of hard cc in the same way rng doesn't. Skillshots generally have about the same accuracy if not better in champion fighters for example as the generally designed rng odds for stun (50 worse 70ish best). And even if it is, the frequency is probably closer to what the rng odds would be, it's just with the 'chance' of it being 100% Here is why: Think about who gets hard cc traditionally. Fighters, Tanks, Ranger, Mage (and summoner by nature of their job usually gets a summon with it but let's exclude them given how little we know of their intended design) Two front liners who can negate movement abilities in some way, by either closing distance or pulling back. Two backliners who have big burst damage and no reason to not just open with stun into big burst damage. Now by nature when you make a high cooldown skill, as a game designer you need the player to still have meaningful odds in an encounter, because it isnt fun to be maimed waiting for a key ability right? So they still need a strong kit without stun. You can't really lock a ranger's or mage's burst damage behind one skill either. Usually they have multiple. So the stun is probably not going to come at the cost of their ability to delete. The skill shot for these classes is almost assuredly easy for them with a bit of practice. Fighters and Tanks otoh have slightly less high burst damage right? But because they have strong stickiness, and the ability to pull you back/pounce your movement ability if you mash out after the timer, you now not only have half your health missing, but just 'wasted' your movement ability and are rapidly dying. If you stay there, your still at a strong health disadvantage and in a team scenario, probably deleteable. I would argue the skill shot might be slightly harder in this scenario due to the sharper angles in melee, but.... 'shield bash' for example, by nature is usually quick to animate. Same with hamstring etc. Your 'small hit box' idea is a reasonable hope, but I am unsure Ashes is going in the 'small hit box' direction. If they add hard cc it's definitely worth yelling at them about it if the hit boxes are 'normal' I think. I hope I am reading this right. You are concerned that if the good "Hard CCs" are limited to skill shots. Only highly skilled players will benefit from them? It also seems like you are worried that skill shots will increase the skill gap between skilled and unskilled players more. This would limit unskilled players to only being able to use "Soft CCs". You also gave some plausible examples of how skill shots may influence the balance of the game relating to class and roles. To me, that is all very speculative at this point and not very helpful when it comes to the design goals around CCs in PvP. It could be a case of every class has access to a form of any CC and no class is better at resisting CC. I just don't know how relevant those examples would be as the game develops. I like talking about these things, but I want to stay on the main topic of CC as it relates to RNG in this tread if I can. Without knowing how the hit boxes or meta will be. I think the idea that skill shots being higher risk moves with higher rewards as a design philosophy is something I like. Yes, I understand that it alienates unskilled players. Part of the beauty and curse of open world PvP is that there is no ELO matching. This means that if someone recognizes that, they are not going to be the guy that lands his big aimed stun often. Maybe he is the guy who throws out a tab-targeted slow (Soft CC) to help his more skilled ally. There is nothing wrong with players recognizing where their skill level is and playing to it. No one started pro. The hope would be that over time, a player grows and learns to incorporate more attempts at hard aimed CC in their play style. I don't know specifically what Intrepid means by "Hard CC" and "Soft CC". My guess is long duration less forgiving CCs (Stun, Sleep) vs short duration CCs where you can still do some things(slow, silence). If this is the case, both are valuable. I also hope I did not miss the point of your post with all of this.
JustVine wrote: » I feel it will absolutely get used. 'Lose a turn' would have to be rediculosly low odds for people to not use it, the skill shot will probably just make it unpopular at lower skill levels, while still dominating the meta at higher skill levels. Even with a long cooldown (which I fully support them having if they are going to have stun.) In any meaningful form of pvp it is free buckets of damage due to Ashes high time to kill. I doubt adding a skillshot to the hard cc will address the problems of hard cc in the same way rng doesn't. Skillshots generally have about the same accuracy if not better in champion fighters for example as the generally designed rng odds for stun (50 worse 70ish best). And even if it is, the frequency is probably closer to what the rng odds would be, it's just with the 'chance' of it being 100% Here is why: Think about who gets hard cc traditionally. Fighters, Tanks, Ranger, Mage (and summoner by nature of their job usually gets a summon with it but let's exclude them given how little we know of their intended design) Two front liners who can negate movement abilities in some way, by either closing distance or pulling back. Two backliners who have big burst damage and no reason to not just open with stun into big burst damage. Now by nature when you make a high cooldown skill, as a game designer you need the player to still have meaningful odds in an encounter, because it isnt fun to be maimed waiting for a key ability right? So they still need a strong kit without stun. You can't really lock a ranger's or mage's burst damage behind one skill either. Usually they have multiple. So the stun is probably not going to come at the cost of their ability to delete. The skill shot for these classes is almost assuredly easy for them with a bit of practice. Fighters and Tanks otoh have slightly less high burst damage right? But because they have strong stickiness, and the ability to pull you back/pounce your movement ability if you mash out after the timer, you now not only have half your health missing, but just 'wasted' your movement ability and are rapidly dying. If you stay there, your still at a strong health disadvantage and in a team scenario, probably deleteable. I would argue the skill shot might be slightly harder in this scenario due to the sharper angles in melee, but.... 'shield bash' for example, by nature is usually quick to animate. Same with hamstring etc. Your 'small hit box' idea is a reasonable hope, but I am unsure Ashes is going in the 'small hit box' direction. If they add hard cc it's definitely worth yelling at them about it if the hit boxes are 'normal' I think.
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community. The previous question wasnt the "gotcha" question, I actually thought I would need one more to get to it. My assumption was you would name a few games, and then I would ask what their community thought of those systems- to which you would have to answer with the above. But hey, we're there now. So cool. People in those games dont like it. They want static characters with known abilities and known combat. That is because fighting games cater to a specific game desire. MMO's cater to a different game desire. You ask the MMO population in general if they want to get rid of gear and builds, and you'll just be laughed at. If you want a game without RNG, where everything is known, you have both fighting games and FPS games. If you want a game where build matters, where there is more to combat than you would ever be able to factor in before hand, then MMO's are your jam. Except.... Absolver exists. They have gear. The gear fine tunes their play style. Absolver isn't the same if you take away the gear because you no longer gave the same fine tuning. There isn't rng in Absolver. Absolver is an ARPG. Also, it does have RNG. Not as much as an MMORPG, but it has some. Saying it has rng because it has loot drops is incredibly disingenuous when the question was regarding battle mechanics. It has no rng battle mechanics. Also 'ARPG'? How is this any different from an mmo? Pvp, pve, dungeons, gear, abilities... There are other RNG elements to the game than just loot - or at least, there was in 2017 when I played it for about two days (the game is actual shit). However, lets ignore that for a second, and discuss the validity of even bringing this game in to the discussion. First, the way Absolver keeps people in the game is by making specific loot so rare, that you literally play the game for months without a single upgrade, even when you know there are a dozen or more items that you would want. Rather than allowing players any hand in creating items, they put it on a 100% RNG system. While you may well think that this doesn't mean anything in this discussion, you would be wrong in that. You do not look at a game system in isolation, you look at it in the context of the game. If Absolver had a loot system where you could make your own items, the average length of time a player would be in the game until they were "finished" with it would be measures in days, rather than months (or, in the case of some unfortunate people, a few years). Having a game with low RNG in combat and low RNG in gear means the game has no personality (to be fair, the game has no personality with it's low in combat RNG - removing it from loot would just strip away the last remains). All we need to do is look at the steam reviews. While I am not a fan of actually listening to peoples opinions on games, it is worth looking at the number of people that have left reviews - as that tells us more than what the reviews themselves ever could. Absolver was released in 2017, the same year as Divinity 2, Resident Evil 7, Horizon Zero Dawn, Middle Earth; Shadow of Mordor and For Honor (there were also some fairly big releases that year, but lets not get too involved). Absolver has 9.6k reviews. Over four years, that is less than an average of 7 people per day. Even if the reviews are all fantastic, that is a fairly low number. Divinity 2 has 110k, Horizon Zero Dawn has 42k, Resident Evil 7 has 33k, Middle Earth; Shadow of Mordor has 43k - even For Honor, a game largely panned at the time as being fairly shit, has almost 60k reviews. The reason I am bringing these numbers up is because if you are going to point to a game and say "Ashes could do things like this", then that game should at least be somewhat popular. It's easy to find examples of what ever you want to show - if you don't limit it to games that are actually enjoyed by people. An ARPG is all about the combat system - this is because there is literally nothing else. If the games combat is good, the game will be popular - look no further than Path of Exile for this. It is complex, and it has elements of RNG in the combat, and it has 160k reviews on steam (though it has been out a little while longer than Absolver - though the number still works out to about 55 reviews a day for 8 solid years). What this means is that if you are going to point to a game that is not popular, and then say that a game should take that games key mechanic and implement it in another game, then you really should re-evaluate your position in the online debate at hand. I mean, the fact that you can only really cite a single game that is four years old and not overly popular as something to look at and say "do combat without RNG" should really tell you something - let alone tell the rest of us something.
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community. The previous question wasnt the "gotcha" question, I actually thought I would need one more to get to it. My assumption was you would name a few games, and then I would ask what their community thought of those systems- to which you would have to answer with the above. But hey, we're there now. So cool. People in those games dont like it. They want static characters with known abilities and known combat. That is because fighting games cater to a specific game desire. MMO's cater to a different game desire. You ask the MMO population in general if they want to get rid of gear and builds, and you'll just be laughed at. If you want a game without RNG, where everything is known, you have both fighting games and FPS games. If you want a game where build matters, where there is more to combat than you would ever be able to factor in before hand, then MMO's are your jam. Except.... Absolver exists. They have gear. The gear fine tunes their play style. Absolver isn't the same if you take away the gear because you no longer gave the same fine tuning. There isn't rng in Absolver. Absolver is an ARPG. Also, it does have RNG. Not as much as an MMORPG, but it has some. Saying it has rng because it has loot drops is incredibly disingenuous when the question was regarding battle mechanics. It has no rng battle mechanics. Also 'ARPG'? How is this any different from an mmo? Pvp, pve, dungeons, gear, abilities...
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community. The previous question wasnt the "gotcha" question, I actually thought I would need one more to get to it. My assumption was you would name a few games, and then I would ask what their community thought of those systems- to which you would have to answer with the above. But hey, we're there now. So cool. People in those games dont like it. They want static characters with known abilities and known combat. That is because fighting games cater to a specific game desire. MMO's cater to a different game desire. You ask the MMO population in general if they want to get rid of gear and builds, and you'll just be laughed at. If you want a game without RNG, where everything is known, you have both fighting games and FPS games. If you want a game where build matters, where there is more to combat than you would ever be able to factor in before hand, then MMO's are your jam. Except.... Absolver exists. They have gear. The gear fine tunes their play style. Absolver isn't the same if you take away the gear because you no longer gave the same fine tuning. There isn't rng in Absolver. Absolver is an ARPG. Also, it does have RNG. Not as much as an MMORPG, but it has some.
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community. The previous question wasnt the "gotcha" question, I actually thought I would need one more to get to it. My assumption was you would name a few games, and then I would ask what their community thought of those systems- to which you would have to answer with the above. But hey, we're there now. So cool. People in those games dont like it. They want static characters with known abilities and known combat. That is because fighting games cater to a specific game desire. MMO's cater to a different game desire. You ask the MMO population in general if they want to get rid of gear and builds, and you'll just be laughed at. If you want a game without RNG, where everything is known, you have both fighting games and FPS games. If you want a game where build matters, where there is more to combat than you would ever be able to factor in before hand, then MMO's are your jam. Except.... Absolver exists. They have gear. The gear fine tunes their play style. Absolver isn't the same if you take away the gear because you no longer gave the same fine tuning. There isn't rng in Absolver.
Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community. The previous question wasnt the "gotcha" question, I actually thought I would need one more to get to it. My assumption was you would name a few games, and then I would ask what their community thought of those systems- to which you would have to answer with the above. But hey, we're there now. So cool. People in those games dont like it. They want static characters with known abilities and known combat. That is because fighting games cater to a specific game desire. MMO's cater to a different game desire. You ask the MMO population in general if they want to get rid of gear and builds, and you'll just be laughed at. If you want a game without RNG, where everything is known, you have both fighting games and FPS games. If you want a game where build matters, where there is more to combat than you would ever be able to factor in before hand, then MMO's are your jam.
Dreoh wrote: » In every single one of those, they are NEVER used in serious competitive play or are disliked by the majority of the community.
Noaani wrote: » So, this post is a long read, but I've decided I am just going to skip to the end point of my point Dreoh wrote: » The argument is "What makes a fair/balanced PvP" That is the wrong question to ask. If Intrepid want fair, they need look no further than chess. Fair and balanced is understood well enough, and is not Intrepids goal with Ashes (they have told us as much, remember?). Rather, the question that should be asked is, "what is it players find engaging in MMORPG's" For almost all MMO players, the answer to that is threefold in terms of what pertains to our discussion. The first is worthwhile character progression without introducing power creep. The second is having multiple and varied viable build options, each with specific strengths and weaknesses. The third is to avoid a combat situation where mindless ability rotations are all that is needed. Now, you may look at this and think to yourself that there is no RNG at all in any of that, and you are right. However, if you consider what is needed to make these things happen, you will see how RNG is kind of needed. Lets look at the third of the above first, as the first two go hand in hand and need to be considered together. If players want to not be in a game where rotations are king, literally the only way to get there is for things to be different from time to time. The only way for this to happen is for things to involve RNG. Some RNG can be good (a percent chance that any skill will have it's cooldown halved, for example), and some RNG can be bad (a chance that a spell doesn't land). .
Dreoh wrote: » The argument is "What makes a fair/balanced PvP"
JustVine wrote: » My point was that I agreed with your perspective in a world where hard cc 'must' exist and Intrepid should probably follow your advice because its the least dumb option, but it's not going to have a huge difference in the games design, just your fun (which is important.)
JustVine wrote: » It is unpopular because its hard and fighting games are niche. Not because the design is bad.
Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible. Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear?
Dreoh wrote: » Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible.
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible. Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear? Maybe dont bring up this question if you don't want it brought in to the conversion yourself mate. Who is having trouble following the conversation? That's the only reason it came up.
Absolver is an online multiplayer combat game
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Dreoh wrote: » Fighting games are entirely PvP from the ground up and have been optimized over the lifetime of the genre to have as fair and engaging PvP as possible. Which fighting game is it you have in mind where players create the build and select the gear? Maybe dont bring up this question if you don't want it brought in to the conversion yourself mate. Who is having trouble following the conversation? That's the only reason it came up. I have no problem with you bringing up a fighting game - if you bought up a fighting game. You didn't. Tekken is a fighting game. Mortal Kombat is a fighting game. Street Fighter is a fighting game. Absolver is not. From the publishers own website. Absolver is an online multiplayer combat game So again, I have no problem with you giving an example of a fighting game where players create their build and select their gear. I do have a problem with you claiming a game is a thing that the publisher itself doesn't in order to try and prove a point that you can not otherwise make.
JustVine wrote: » Man your being as definitionalist as Dygz now. And therefore there is no value in continuing to try and talk with you on this specific subject other than to tell the audience to read Azherae's post above if they feel at all confused about Absolver by this weird off topic squabble.
Vhaeyne wrote: » @JustVine Did you miss quote me in that? I am confused.
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Man your being as definitionalist as Dygz now. And therefore there is no value in continuing to try and talk with you on this specific subject other than to tell the audience to read Azherae's post above if they feel at all confused about Absolver by this weird off topic squabble. Not at all. In the context of the discussion, we were talking about fighting games. Games where you enter a ring and fight against a single opponent, three times. When asked for a game from this genre that had a specific feature, you decided to throw in a game from a different genre. Sure, they both contain fighting, but the game you suggested is an action RPG with quests and a somewhat open world. It is an entirely different genre. It is not what was asked for, and yet you attempted to pass it off as such. It is fairly standard internet protocol when this happens to ridicule the other debater, claim they are being impossible due to wanting to stick to the original parameters, and say they are impossible to discuss things with. That is the stock standard way to get out of the particular corner you have painted yourself in to here.
JustVine wrote: » You never brought up your definition of fighting game before this point. It fits my definition and can be played via your rule set.
JustVine wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, this post is a long read, but I've decided I am just going to skip to the end point of my point Dreoh wrote: » The argument is "What makes a fair/balanced PvP" That is the wrong question to ask. If Intrepid want fair, they need look no further than chess. Fair and balanced is understood well enough, and is not Intrepids goal with Ashes (they have told us as much, remember?). Rather, the question that should be asked is, "what is it players find engaging in MMORPG's" For almost all MMO players, the answer to that is threefold in terms of what pertains to our discussion. The first is worthwhile character progression without introducing power creep. The second is having multiple and varied viable build options, each with specific strengths and weaknesses. The third is to avoid a combat situation where mindless ability rotations are all that is needed. Now, you may look at this and think to yourself that there is no RNG at all in any of that, and you are right. However, if you consider what is needed to make these things happen, you will see how RNG is kind of needed. Lets look at the third of the above first, as the first two go hand in hand and need to be considered together. If players want to not be in a game where rotations are king, literally the only way to get there is for things to be different from time to time. The only way for this to happen is for things to involve RNG. Some RNG can be good (a percent chance that any skill will have it's cooldown halved, for example), and some RNG can be bad (a chance that a spell doesn't land). . Forgive me for stopping my read here if you address this point further down simply let me know and I will read the rest. RNG: Random Number Generator. The game decides for you whether your answer is correct. This is a seperate concept from. Random Chance: There was a chance of something working but it didn't for various reasons. The machine isn't required to be involved here. Games that lean into action combat use Random chance via class design and situational spacing relative to those tools. Rock Paper Scissors. I can agree with you that something needs to happen to prevent stale rotations however you are setting up a false premise from the very beginning of this post. It's an option between two design sets. RNG mechanics are not the one and only way. Now I personally think Steven just wants people to be happy and have fun. I think he didn't actually have an opinion one way or the other and your proposed 'rng only' focused design wouldn't go against his intent. But neither would RPS. If he didn't want the RPS crowd to play hybrid combat wouldn't have even come up after all as action combat tilts towards that direction.
Tritri wrote: » Just my two cent as a veteran fighting game player who participated and organized a ton of tournaments for this genre. Most fighting games that offers "customization" are shun upon by the community and not played much. Smash Bros for example, has customization in it but the competitive scene gets rid of it Street Fighter X Tekken died pretty fast and was criticized a lot for it's gem customization system MvC4... I know it died fast aswell for multiple issues, but I don't remember it having a customization setting other than the stone you could chose which was more close to an assist sytem than a real customization ? Soul calibur tournaments all ban any character customization, same with Tekken There are even some publisher outfit / colors that can be banned because they affect gameplay in some way (special color from guilty gear xrd or blazblue for example) edit : although I'm not entirely sure I understand why people bring this genre into this topic
