Has Ashes of Creation gone 180 on Tab Combat?

Jahlon

Usually I do a recap of the entire livestream, but this time something caught my attention that was a huge red flag.

We've gone from a tab game, to a hybrid game where abilities would be action or tab, now to a game where abilities may end up action and tab.

I'm interested to see what everyone has to say about this.

https://youtu.be/-IrBVYULfaM

McMackMuck

Okay, I played along and paused at 4:25.

I think it is a good thing that Intrepid is exploring the best ways to implement combat. I am open to what they can offer. The limitations of previous titles might also apply to Ashes, or Ashes might find novel solutions that improve gameplay beyond that which has gone before.

I don't see Action combat reticles working without AOE. AOE reduces the impact of lag as the attack box and the hitbox have a much greater chance of overlapping. So for AOE ground effect reticles, AOE cones and AOE corridors I see no issue with those forms of action combat being in the game.

Action combat single target reticle attacks with a "single pixel" attack box vs a regular hitbox will be extremely vulnerable to lag induced misses.

I don't believe that it is sensible to use what the player sees for hit/miss determination. The client can be hacked, so that isn't a viable option to remove the lag effect.

I think Action combat single target reticle attacks would have to use AOE cone for hit determination, even for abilities that aren't stated as AOE, but only damaging the target (including hard cover) that is nearest to the attacker. The cone gives a degree of lag immunity. Perhaps the spread angle increases slightly with ping, further compensating for lag?
Also, now solid obstacles need to be given hit boxes as they can block attacks. I don't know if every tree (rock, stone pillar, market stall component? etc.) currently has that.
Sniping a Mage past the intervening bodies and scenery would be nearly impossible in a dynamic combat situation, but that feels like a good thing. Attackers should not know where the cone limits are (i.e. only show the reticle, don't show the player the spread angle) otherwise they would be able to 'game the system' too easily. If they can 'game the system' by hands-on learning how the invisible cone is applied to obstacles then that can be made a feature of those weapons or abilities.
Example: The Target is mostly hidden behind a tree, only a shoulder sticks out to the left of the tree. There are no other intervening obstacles. The Attacker has a feel for the spread of their single target reticle cone so they aim left of the tree by the correct amount; the cone misses the tree but hits the Target. The Target takes damage.
A non-hostile steps in front of your cone. Does your attack ignore them and pass unhindered? or block the shot but they take zero damage? Should it only ignore them if they are within 2 yards/metres? ....
>>>>>Action combat single target reticle needs conceptual thought.

I'll continue the video and see what you think. If I edit the above it will only be for typos or clarity.

1a) Does this change worry me?
No. I fully respect that others have good reason to be emotional about a missed release date. I haven't committed anything other than my time (which I did to entertain myself and others who enjoy the debate), so I don't feel I'm owed anything.
1b) Do I think Intrepid has a plan for its combat?
No, or only a loosely guiding plan. I think they are trying things to figure out what they want their plan to be. They will continue to change it until they are happy.
1c) Do I think Intrepid has a plan for all the different systems they intend to have?
No. Intrepid has great positivity on their side instead. That appears to be the management style. I don't believe Steven has worked in an environment where project planning measures up to industrial or military standards, so I wouldn't expect him to implement anything that would be recognizable outside a commercial or marketing endeavor. That doesn't mean his more relaxed method of planning can't work, it just means that he might need to re-invent the wheel for things that a larger longer established company would already have in place.

2) Would I play if Ashes was tab only or tab enhanced?
Yes. It wouldn't bother me, it's the same interface available to everyone else.

3) Would I play if Ashes was hybrid?
Yes. I think this could be the most interesting result, so long as both tab and action combat options are viable and going tab only or action only doesn't put you at a noticeable disadvantage.

There will be many hours of playtesting before the combat solidifies into whatever mix of tab and action the majority feedback is happy with.