Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
A Compromise between action and tab target combat systems. Getting only the best from both!
Cnuppels1
Member
I want to adress the issue i believe the design team is facing in the coming weeks and months, wich is deciding the final form of combat we will have in the game. As you may already know, the goal with Ashes of Creation, is to have a mixed tab target and action combat system, with different skills implementing one or the other system. I believe that Intrepid has a very talented and ambitious team, and they will try their best to create something special in the MMORPG genre.
However, in my opinion this task is in and of itself a huge pill to swallow. In this short writing, i want to suggest an interesting idea, wich i believe would be best suited for the game Steven and the team is trying to make, and it would add a great deal of skill involved in pvp, while at the same time, maintaining the ease of design, and better performance wich tap target offers.
First of all, i want to adress why i think this is a main issue. One of the fundamental design choices Steven and the team made, is that when you swing your sword, you will hit multiple enemies at the same time. If you want to implement this type of swing, you have to implement some sort of action combat with hit boxes and such. But it also has a drawback in large scale action combat only mmos, wich is mainly lagg, ping and the amount of processing the servers have to go through to achive a well optimized and fair action combat system for players playing all around the world (Which will never happen becaouse of ping and lagg issues)
On the other side of the spectrum, we have tab target systems, wich are easier on the servers, and that is extremly important on 250 versus 250 pvp, and generally any scenario, where a large amount of playerbase are present at the same place fighting. The main issue with an only tap target system, is that its boring. Not because its old, but because its limiting the character in a way. For example among other things, you cant just swing your sword wherever you like (Wich gives you a great sense of freedom), but you need a target.
So where is the fine line between the two? I believe i have the answer for that, and i want you to hear me out.
- Intrepid should make all melee basic attacks with every weapon “action combat like”(you can press attack without the need of a target, and can hit multiple mobs at the same time)
- Intrepid should make and design all skills (Excluding aoe abilities and alike), and ranged basic attacks with tap target.
This would combine the best from both systems. Having a melee basic attack wich you can use freely will grant you the feeling of freedom of movement and attack, while the main damage source, the skills, and also ranged basic attacks would use tap target to ease server performance, and both the design and the balance of skills and fights (Excluding like area of effect skills).
This would theoretically make ranged archetypes better suited for single target damage burst, while melee arcehtypes would have better multi target damaging capabalities but Intrepid could of course easily balance this with granting more area of effect skills for ranged archetypes.
Regarding the state of basic melee attacks, i also have another idea wich could deepen the skill level, and would deepen the melee combat in a good way.
- Intrepid should keep the freedom of movement while using melee basic attacks (This would be a light attack type with less damage)
- Intrepid should also keep the locked animation variation with the following changes:
o Make the speed and attack pattern of the forward movement maintained and slowed throughout the whole animation
o Provide this type of attack with additional damage
o Give every 4th swing a knock back effect.
Also, every weapon type should have different attack speed, and different length of knock back.
Why is this important? The first reason, is that it will emphasize different style of melee combat use for different scenarios. If you want the highest damage possible for a stationary object, you will use the locked animation variation. But if the fighting emphasizes quick movement, you will use the “lighter variation” with free movement while attacking. Are you chasing a running enemy? use light basic attack. Are you pvp-ing, and want to knock back the enemy before it hits you with a skill? Use “heavy attack”. The variations are endless (Especially if you consider adding other effects to every 4th swing, for example cast cancellation or faint).
What are your thoughts on this? I would appreciate every feedback .
However, in my opinion this task is in and of itself a huge pill to swallow. In this short writing, i want to suggest an interesting idea, wich i believe would be best suited for the game Steven and the team is trying to make, and it would add a great deal of skill involved in pvp, while at the same time, maintaining the ease of design, and better performance wich tap target offers.
First of all, i want to adress why i think this is a main issue. One of the fundamental design choices Steven and the team made, is that when you swing your sword, you will hit multiple enemies at the same time. If you want to implement this type of swing, you have to implement some sort of action combat with hit boxes and such. But it also has a drawback in large scale action combat only mmos, wich is mainly lagg, ping and the amount of processing the servers have to go through to achive a well optimized and fair action combat system for players playing all around the world (Which will never happen becaouse of ping and lagg issues)
On the other side of the spectrum, we have tab target systems, wich are easier on the servers, and that is extremly important on 250 versus 250 pvp, and generally any scenario, where a large amount of playerbase are present at the same place fighting. The main issue with an only tap target system, is that its boring. Not because its old, but because its limiting the character in a way. For example among other things, you cant just swing your sword wherever you like (Wich gives you a great sense of freedom), but you need a target.
So where is the fine line between the two? I believe i have the answer for that, and i want you to hear me out.
- Intrepid should make all melee basic attacks with every weapon “action combat like”(you can press attack without the need of a target, and can hit multiple mobs at the same time)
- Intrepid should make and design all skills (Excluding aoe abilities and alike), and ranged basic attacks with tap target.
This would combine the best from both systems. Having a melee basic attack wich you can use freely will grant you the feeling of freedom of movement and attack, while the main damage source, the skills, and also ranged basic attacks would use tap target to ease server performance, and both the design and the balance of skills and fights (Excluding like area of effect skills).
This would theoretically make ranged archetypes better suited for single target damage burst, while melee arcehtypes would have better multi target damaging capabalities but Intrepid could of course easily balance this with granting more area of effect skills for ranged archetypes.
Regarding the state of basic melee attacks, i also have another idea wich could deepen the skill level, and would deepen the melee combat in a good way.
- Intrepid should keep the freedom of movement while using melee basic attacks (This would be a light attack type with less damage)
- Intrepid should also keep the locked animation variation with the following changes:
o Make the speed and attack pattern of the forward movement maintained and slowed throughout the whole animation
o Provide this type of attack with additional damage
o Give every 4th swing a knock back effect.
Also, every weapon type should have different attack speed, and different length of knock back.
Why is this important? The first reason, is that it will emphasize different style of melee combat use for different scenarios. If you want the highest damage possible for a stationary object, you will use the locked animation variation. But if the fighting emphasizes quick movement, you will use the “lighter variation” with free movement while attacking. Are you chasing a running enemy? use light basic attack. Are you pvp-ing, and want to knock back the enemy before it hits you with a skill? Use “heavy attack”. The variations are endless (Especially if you consider adding other effects to every 4th swing, for example cast cancellation or faint).
What are your thoughts on this? I would appreciate every feedback .
0
Comments
While the performance cost of perfect Action Combat with collision is high, Attack Trace is not.
What you are suggesting is simple, and might seem like it would help, but it's really not necessary at the level of the engine they are using, or the style of game it is.
Intrepid probably is not having issues with basic status within coding. If they are having a problem at all, it's more likely with a design consensus issue, and their striving toward balance.
Your suggestions are either 'already implemented', or don't help with balance much, and contain a lot of components that many players already have voiced their dislike for.
Also you say make all abilities tab target abilities. What about directional abilities and aoe abilities that can be placed? I would prefer these not to be discarded as they lead to interesting opportunities in the combat (like choke points, or controlling a space in the battlefield). Also I do not know what should be done with ranged weapon attacks. Since melee attacks are not tab target, should ranged attacks also not be tab target? But it's also much more difficult to hit a ranged attack than a melee attack.
I like the idea that the last attack in a weapon attack combo has an special effect, but what effect occurs should depend on the weapon that is used and depend on the weapon skills chosen by the player.
Hi!
At first the free movement and locked animation basic attack seems conflicting, but i believe the use cases for them are different in a way that they will only help and deepen each other.
I also believe that ranged attacks should be bound to tab target, simply because its the most convinient and easy to balance regarding pvp. Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for you feedback. The reason i wanted to bring this up, is because it seemed to me that the development and the design choices in most cases are not yet decided, and there are many player feedback that contradicts each other. The system i suggested is not merely about performance, but combining action combat with tab target in an easy to balance way, so they can join their efforts on finishing other core elments, like the node system
I absolutely appreciate your data as well, since I like compiling all the data. I hope your topic continues to get responses, as well.
I think there should be an option for both. It could either be by weapon choice (long bow free aim, shortbow tab), weapon progression spec, or some hybrid where your range weapon will function like a tab skill up to a certain range. Using a range weapon works like a tab skill but if you want to shoot farther than ~30 meters, you would need to manually aim.
Hi, thanks for your feedback!
Ranged, let's take Bow.
1. Tab Target bow attacks are interruptible by melee. If you want to tab target shoot things, you have to be safe. Otherwise, use Action Mode or pull out your other weapon.
2. Action Bow attacks can be charged for more damage or just slightly higher proc chances if the damage becomes an issue. But charging them takes time, in which you could have just shot again with the Tab Target version for similar damage assuming you hit.
3. Sticky Reticle settings based on Accuracy and Evasion that autobalance the two so that only the most perfect aimbot can completely blow away Tab Target archery damage.
4. Tab gets weird maneuvery shots more often since it's more like a 'Basic attack' for them, Action uses only abilities for this.
So benefit of Tab - Player skill less required, slightly higher movement options.
Benefit of Action - Better procs, maybe damage if you're really good, can shoot regular attacks even when under melee attack or at close ranges.
Anything that looks unbalanced, throw into a ground line target ability.
Thanks again for your comment!
The significance of bow attack interruption is questionable until we get a working version of it. I think this system would be an overcomplication.
So basically, all ranged skills will be like a tab target aoe placement, but you place it with camera movement instead of clicking there. Its a tap target system without the mouse. There is an interesting question here. Wich is better? Placing aoe skills with mouse and indicators, or aiming the aoe skills with camera movement and indicators. They should test it out as well!
Rewarding action combat with higher dps is OP in PVE, since there are bossfights where the boss is basically standing there, making other skills not worth using.
That isn't what it does, though. A Tab Target player would just shoot more often. And if the enemy is not moving, there probably aren't too many people who will 'definitely not go into Action mode'.
There's already a minimum distance limit to your target planned for ranged attacks.
While melee characters have a max distance proximity where they're eligible to use their sword and melee weapons, Rangers are going to have a minimum distance requirement.[25] – Steven Sharif
But I'm talking about 'if you are just standing there being a Tab Target Turret, someone else who you are not targeting can hit you to stop you from using your Tab Target attacks'. This is important because it serves the same purpose as body blocking your attacks. Could even make it so they only do it from the front.
Also, no, not all ranged skills. There are some that could reasonably hit a bigger cone, or a small area. Most are just 'point reticle and shoot' if in Action Mode. You charge it up to line up the shot, and benefit from the additional damage or proc because you were charging the bow while lining up the shot.
As opposed to 'having to shoot rapidly perfectly'. You could still do that, but that's not the same
Curious to see where this goes, but thought I'd add my 2 cents in.
My Ranger Compilation doesn't actually assume that a certain skill from old wiki notes is necessarily staying, but I think it would be good for your style of play. A small ground target shot that you use while basically backflipping or back rolling away from the opponent. Standard ability cooldown, and not too hard to aim, by comparison.
Honestly, I was thinking that all CC of a certain 'small ground target' type should just 'automatically work as if Tab Targeted' when your opponent is really close to you in certain situations, and this would be one of them. Your opponent charges right up to you, you would have a relatively easy time in Action Mode to stop them with a single reticle shot but not with a ground target shot. To balance this, just have it so that you can 'let them get close' and then fire it off 'on your position' automatically instead.
Unlike most things I think about, I can't be sure that one would work well in any given system, so I didn't say it before, but I offer it to you as a thing to think about. If you hate it, it probably isn't a good idea.
- Dedicated block (RMB for example)
- Light and Heavy basic attacks for deeper variety between abilities
- Mob/Boss attacks should have to strike your hitbox, not auto-hit if you’re in range. This way you can see a swing coming and dodge/block/move accordingly.
All of the above will still function for players who play with tab-target mode while giving action players something engaging. All your tab skills will still auto lock, your basic attacks will function the same way except that you’ll be able to do light or heavy, your movement will remain the same, and you’ll gain a dedicated block.
The bullet points I presented don’t conflict with the most commonly used arguments from the tab players.
I’m also purposely not going into deep details as it’s been done in other threads and this list gets the general point across for most people. If you don’t understand something, ask.
The issue with pure tab range for me is that the range gets capped relatively short, usually around 30 meters. This is obviously done because giving tab ranged attacks too much range with tab will allow them to aim hack across the map. I don't like this because it limits the range players can engage each other at as you have to be relatively close.
I think the best example of this in castle sieges where the limited range of tab skills limit their use. I'd prefer for players to be able to shoot from the walls and for attackers to be able to return fire.
That's why i'd like the option for range attacks to get more distance by being fired free aim. I still think at normal tab ranges, they should function like tab but would like an additional option for them to get bonus range when aimed.
Thanks for your comment. I have to agree with you on the fun side of things. Its really more entertaining to fire at long distances especially at castle sieges. The damage done altough should be nerfed, its too op to stay out of range while firing full blowing skills. Thanks for your feedback it put me into new perspectives.
I’d say keep it very simple and just give a small damage increase if aiming using a reticle, as opposed to locking onto your target with tab. As an added bonus, the reticle mode could reach much further. Still balanced though because in tab target mode the projectile is always going to hit unless the target dodges the incoming projectile.
Hi thanks for your feedback. I get the argument for more action-combat like combat system, and the way the two can co exist. The way i see it, is that the main difference between the two, is that you either select your target by pressing tab/clicking, or select your target by camera movement (moving the crosshair towards the enemy). Its tab target at its roots, the only difference is that you have two options for targeting instead of one. Please correct me if you know othervise. Thanks
Would you like to read multiple dissertations on design?
Azherae will give you a lot more detail and probably better explanation than I can, but my correction to your final statement would be the following:
While playing in action mode, with the reticle, your attacks and abilities will not lock on as if you were tab targeting. It's not tab at it's roots. You are correct that you're choosing whether to aim freely (I can shoot my arrow into a crowd of enemies and if the arrow projectile actually hits something it does damage) or tab aim (I have to lock onto a specific target and my arrow will hit that target unless they dodge the projectile).
Both can coexist. Some people like aiming and being able to miss fairly, some like to lock on. Totally possible to have both and just give more range/damage to the free aim since you *can* miss.
This is spot on imo.
To me, the real design decisions for hybrid combat are not in regards to attacks - attacks can be either tab or action, and in theory all attacks should probably be a mixture of each (we do need to take at least 25% of each, so if all bow attacks are either action or tab, where does that leave bow classes?).
To me, the issue is in defense.
If you have an action melee attack and you hit me, what defenses can I out to use? If I am mostly tab target based, is your action combat attack then subject to my tab target stats? This would mean that even if you aimed it properly and "hit" me, it may register as a miss if I have high avoidance stat, even if I didnt use an action combat based avoid.
On the flip side, if you use a tab target ability on me, should I just be able to side step it like I could an action combat attack, regardless of how high your hit chance is?
Neither of these scenarios should happen, as it means putting either combat system up against the other creates an inherent imbalance.
It is also not appropriate to say that action combat abilities can only be defenses via action combat, and tab by tab. Nor is it appropriate to say that only action combat defenses or tab target defenses should exist on the game.
This is, imo, where the real trouble with a hybrid combat system begins and ends, as there is no acceptable compromise that I can think of, as opposed to deciding on which attacks are action or tab which is largely just a matter of preference.
@Cnuppels1
Similarly, one of the biggest discussions we had in the big post where we discussed this for a long time was:
"What should your Accuracy/Evasion stats do when Action Combat abilities are happening?"
The only option that people seemed interested in (basically, the only thing that was actually a solution instead of 'just apply them normally' or 'See, Action Combat is useless') was the idea that normally, the targeting reticle 'snaps' or 'sticks to' a target that you move over so you don't have to aim perfectly which also solves some server lag issues.
Then if your Accuracy is higher, it takes longer to 'unstick (in terms of how far off center you get)'. If the opponent's Evasion is higher, they can strafe or move and cause it to 'unstick' more easily, forcing you to either quickly mash Q for a Tab Target lock on (wasn't actually an option at the time, but still works within this system) or keep up perfectly with your own targeting (which, at the very least, delays the ability). If you go for Tab Target lock-on because your Accuracy is low or your opponent's Evasion is high, then when you use the Tab Target version of the shot, now you are subject to standard Acc vs Eva RNG.
An extension of this would be 'increase in RNG dodge chance based on how far the reticle was from the center of your view in Action Mode', which would help keep some of the RNG in the game. Nearly no one is perfect enough under pressure, consistently, to always get the shot lined up, so some 'drift' can come in.
You lined up the shot, 5 degrees off center of a 60 degree cone offered by your Accuracy, and now some calculation determines how much of your opponent's Evasion stat to use. I ran the numbers on a lot of these but I had to base them on three separate systems.
D&D works ok, but it's very discrete and not strongly compared, so it ends up with some failure for particularly high Accuracy or Evasion.
Cardinal (personal tabletop Project) doesn't work great, because Evasion in that game is already simulated from SPD + AGI and therefore technically it doubles up.
FFXI (because I know the precise Evasion and Accuracy Values, they let you check them) works fine but only because differences in level cause level scaling, which isn't intended in Ashes.
Ashes' system for that would have to be its own thing. Not saying it would be hard to do a formula, just that without their numbers, I don't have one.
While it is the closest thing to a good system that us players have come up with, it is still not something I would consider acceptable in a game with hybrid combat.
There wouldn't be "hit chance". If player is using tab, it's always a hit unless the target dodges the projectile. We're talking about a hybrid here. Which means you have to shed some of the pre-conceived notions of how tab will operate. Once again, if player uses tab, it just means they do not have to aim the ability. It aims for them. There is no hit chance or evade chance. Only Attack vs Defense stats in this scenario. Well, that and things like crit chance, crit resist, etc.
And then it goes without saying, if the player is using action mode, literally everything is the same except they have to aim for themselves and gain a slight damage/range boost as a benefit.
Alternately you do it the other way. I ran a different dataset, basing it on a 'tilt value'.
Assume that outside some cone it's an obvious, automatic miss.
Assume that halfway between the edge of that cone and the dead perfect center, is where the comparison is exactly equal to Tab Target as long as the reticle stuck. RNG remains, but probably not enough to be considered unfair. That is, the Action combat user is not on point.
As you move closer to reticle perfect, you get some increasing bonus to Accuracy (tests indicate that this value depends on the game, between 30 and 50%). Assuming evenly leveled players with reasonable gear, this means that an absolutely perfectly lined up Action Shot cannot miss in most systems, but a low Accuracy build still misses a high evasion build.
As you move further away the opponent gets an increasing bonus to Evasion, but this never technically drops your hit chance to nothing. Being outside the cone, or losing reticle lock, is what does this. This means 'if you are outside of the main leniency cone for a reticle aligned single shot Action ability, your chances of hitting are worse than if you used Tab Target'.
This leaves us at a simple point.
"Should a dynamic game allow anyone to evade an attack without physically moving?"
Expanding this to mobs, this would require them to have enough mobility or disruption to cause people to miss attacks on some level. Without that, we'll get what we all expect. Action being perfectly optimal in PvE when the enemy doesn't move and doesn't force the player to move.
The result - There need to be enough abilities on mobs to make the player want to move, or to cause knockback and 'reticle jitter' if one refuses to move, outright, when aiming attacks, for Hybrid Combat to work while still having 'Evasion builds' or 'High Accuracy builds' mean anything.
"While out of range, strafe to attempt to flank has double the priority of distance closing based on recent damage taken."
This is probably a lot less janky than it sounds, from my experience with games that have diverse enemy types., but it does mean that behaviour is a new 'requirement'. It would be under any Action Combat system that gave bonuses to hit chance for good targeting.
Too hardcore?
That is as acceptable as making it so players have to use tab target defenses all the time - which is to say completely unacceptable.
You can't have a combat system in which you give players the choice between being largely tab or largely action for attacks, and then tell them they have to be action for defense - especially not when tab target is your stated fallback.
Again, this is why it is a design nightmare.
This is action combat with aim assist.
If we do, it will be too late to get a proper one. Personally I dont like the option to toggle between action and tab.
Give Steven real feedback.
I think that in the future we will all compromise and stick with one or the other. Nobody will be switching between the two.
Half the players will be playing with an unfinished action system and the other half with an unfinished tab system.
Zos should make the tough call to go with either full action or full tabtarget(with modernized movement, block dodge, gap closer opener).
Either one, I dont mind. As long as it is solid.
Are you saying tab players want to stand still and click buttons and not even worry about being hit because presumably their equipment has a high enough evade stat? Sounds absolutely miserably boring and totally un-immersive. There’s just no other way to do it than what I suggested. Tab players have to leave their comfort zone a bit just like action players have to leave theirs.
Agree 100%.