[Combat Suggestion] A potential way to incorporate the style Steven had mentioned so many times.

Hey all, I'll keep this brief. I played the A1 over the summer pretty heavy and messed around a lot with tab target and the action combat. Unfortunately, to me, the tab target just felt so much better than the action. Why aim a spell when tabbing to the monster does the exact same thing? I believe I may have a unique idea/solution for this that may fit what you are looking for.

Go "Tab target focused" for combat, but have X amount of spells be "high reward skill shots". This would give you the opportunity to have the smooth combat of tab targeting, but gripping moments where you are going to need to aim and hit that important spell. (Maybe some type of over the shoulder Zoom in? AoE ground targeting would not be considered a "skill shot", but i guess it could be argued it is.)

So the break down would be like this:
-Action Combat Auto Attacks
-90% tab target spells
-classes having 1-2 "Action combat" spells (Big reward for landing, big feels bad if you miss.)

I think this would be a really nice implementation and set the "hybrid style" you guys are looking for. Let me know your ideas!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jahlon

What you have described isn't hybrid according to any of the ways hybrid is done. This is basically just Tab + or Tab Enhanced combat with an action filler attack.

Mycology

Yeah but I feel like its the only way to implement anything close to a hybrid style, because the hybrid concept on A1 did not feel good, just forced everyone to tab target.

SirChancelot

We probably won't get to dissect this much until A2, seeing as A1 want really meant to be a combat testing phase ...

But...
I've been curious how this is doing to work out with ranged auto attacks too. Will they be action or tab? If they are action, will they hit scan or be projectiles? Will different weapons have different missile speeds to make them more difficult to dodge? Would you effectively make people want to control their character more like a FPS at this point? Or will it be tab target and just auto hit? If that's the case wouldn't they be 'easier' to play than the action combat counterparts?

If we go by your proposal

Cyanide wrote: »

...
So the break down would be like this:
-Action Combat Auto Attacks
-90% tab target spells
-classes having 1-2 "Action combat" spells (Big reward for landing, big feels bad if you miss.)

I think this would be a really nice implementation and set the "hybrid style" you guys are looking for. Let me know your ideas!

As a mage or ranger would the auto attacks really ever be worth it if they are objectively more difficult to land hits with?

Alacrite

A1 combat was not a close representation to their plans unfortunately.

Copied from the wiki:
"Action oriented and tab oriented versions of skills will have different characteristics. Variables will change based on which version is chosen.[25]

Damage.[25]
Charge up time.[25]
CC effects.[25]
Cooldown.[26]
Energy consumption.[26]
Cost to spec.[26]
Attack range will likely remain the same; as it is driven by the weapon or skill itself.[27]"

honestly we won't be able to give real feedback until they come out with a combat reveal, but that seems like its on high priority right now

Alacrite

inb4 tab target cc being broken in pvp

Balanz

Alacrite wrote:

Copied from the wiki:
"Action oriented and tab oriented versions of skills will have different characteristics. Variables will change based on which version is chosen.[25]

That has profound implications.

To what extent will the tab and action versions of a specific be balanced with each other?
To what extent can tab and action skills appear on the same skill bar? I would assume not at all.
To what extent can the same character have both tab skills and action skills, even if they can't use both in the same skill bar?

It seems to me that having two different versions of each skill will be a lot of work to balance, more than twice as much work.

I think I need to really beat my head against the Wiki, even though things will likely change dramatically before Launch.

Dygz

Ashes doesn't have auto-attacks.

Alacrite

Balanz wrote: »

That has profound implications.

To what extent will the tab and action versions of a specific be balanced with each other?
To what extent can tab and action skills appear on the same skill bar? I would assume not at all.
To what extent can the same character have both tab skills and action skills, even if they can't use both in the same skill bar?

It seems to me that having two different versions of each skill will be a lot of work to balance, more than twice as much work.

I think I need to really beat my head against the Wiki, even though things will likely change dramatically before Launch.

I feel you. I'm extremely curious myself. There are a lot of questions about it, but if its about how realistic the application of a hybrid system is, I think its easily possible. It's more work, but it doesn't even mean double.

One ability can have two different states, each state having different variables for damage, cc, etc. So that means you don't have to have separate bars for the different modes. Some abilities are also probably more natural for tab targeting and will only have that for a mode. Same with action abilities.

I imagine you wouldn't even have to leave the crosshair mode to use tab targeting skills. Clicking tab while your crosshair is highlighting a mob could put them in a selected state to use those tab-only skills.

Maybe a vice versa type action, where using an action-only skill (like the mage beam ability) during tab mode forces your camera to look in the direction of your mob for a moment and you control it afterwards with ur normal right-click camera.

I'm 99% sure whatever they come up will be better. I just hope they stick to keeping hybrid mode because i feel that's a big pull for many people, and action combat is the hot new thing for mmo's.

Mycology

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes doesn't have auto-attacks.

Alright, Left Click Attacks lol. You know what I meant!

Mycology

[/quote] As a mage or ranger would the auto attacks really ever be worth it if they are objectively more difficult to land hits with?[/quote]

I think this would be hard to discuss, obviously using ranged auto attacks with "skill shots" (however you wanna phrase it) would need to have more damage if the skill ceiling to hit the Action Combat Auto Attack is much more difficult. Good thought process, I should have thought about that!

Craiken

I like the originally posted idea. Aiming seems like a lot of effort, so I'd like a big effect it if hits.

Merek

The magic in Elden Ring locks on, but if the player it's targeting isn't an idiot, they can dodge, parry or block it. I'd find that system fair, but you know a lot of people would prefer an instant transmission of their spells, because they'd feel weak otherwise.

ClintHardwood

Alacrite wrote: »

A1 combat was not a close representation to their plans unfortunately.

Copied from the wiki:
"Action oriented and tab oriented versions of skills will have different characteristics. Variables will change based on which version is chosen.[25]

Damage.[25]
Charge up time.[25]
CC effects.[25]
Cooldown.[26]
Energy consumption.[26]
Cost to spec.[26]
Attack range will likely remain the same; as it is driven by the weapon or skill itself.[27]"

honestly we won't be able to give real feedback until they come out with a combat reveal, but that seems like its on high priority right now

This is extremely worrying. Balancing combat is hard as it stands, but balancing tab-target and action versions of each skill on top of that will be a nightmare. If there's a hill Aoc could die on it'll be this one. Runescape 3 sure did with the arrival of EOC. Giving players the choice of tab-target or action will only wind up forcing people to use the more powerful version.

For example, if TT fireball always hits its target, then action combat fireball would have to do significantly more damage to make up for it. TT players will complain that their preferred style is weak, and action combat players will respond by telling them to git gud. Good luck finding a competitive guild as a TT player. Or, if TT is as strong as action, people will ignore action completely since aiming is an added liability and lowers the overall dps output.

Instead, make each skill either an auto-target or a skillshot/aoe circle. Then, among the subclasses, make some of them auto-target heavy and others action combat heavy. Action combat classes will have a much higher skill cap due to unreliability, but will also have higher damage potentials. People who suck at combat will have simpler classes to main, and people who want to devote endless hours to perfecting a high-skill class can do so as well. Such a compromise is used by the leading PvP games on the market (ie LoL). Balancing individual, static subclasses can be done more reliably than each class and its alternate toggled form. There's a trillion subclasses in AoC. Differentiating one archer from another with skill variability will make each more unique.

Solvryn

I’d like a very straight forward hybrid style, ADS for bow/crossbow with proper missiles. Over the shoulder / 3rd person for melee magic. Let missiles be missiles, lines be lines, cones be cones, cleaves be cleaves.

That way the reticle is baked into the weapons that need it and the clutter isn’t there for abilities that don’t.

Heal/Support/Buff abilities that are single target be tab.

Let tab be a simple track / highlight system.

Mycology

ClintHardwood wrote: »

Alacrite wrote: »

For example, if TT fireball always hits its target, then action combat fireball would have to do significantly more damage to make up for it. TT players will complain that their preferred style is weak, and action combat players will respond by telling them to git gud. Good luck finding a competitive guild as a TT player. Or, if TT is as strong as action, people will ignore action completely since aiming is an added liability and lowers the overall dps output.

Instead, make each skill either an auto-target or a skillshot/aoe circle. Then, among the subclasses, make some of them auto-target heavy and others action combat heavy. Action combat classes will have a much higher skill cap due to unreliability, but will also have higher damage potentials.

I resonate with this, the git gud thing and forcing people to just play "the more optimal" version of either or would be an absolute nightmare. I still stand with my opinion, but I think your discussion of Auto-target heavy vs action combat heavy for higher skill ceiling is the way to go.

Liniker

No. That's just tab target combat. Idk why people freak out about hybrid combat... It shouldn't be that hard to do, recently played Sword of Legends Online and their hybrid combat was pretty good, just do something like that and get over it.

ashesplayer123

Mycology wrote: »

Yeah but I feel like its the only way to implement anything close to a hybrid style, because the hybrid concept on A1 did not feel good, just forced everyone to tab target.

That was not the final version of the combat, of course it didn't feel good.

Mycology

*redacted for quoting*

Mycology

Norkore wrote: »

Mycology wrote: »

Yeah but I feel like its the only way to implement anything close to a hybrid style, because the hybrid concept on A1 did not feel good, just forced everyone to tab target.

That was not the final version of the combat, of course it didn't feel good.

We are aware, its been mentioned here numerous times. No need to be snarky.

Child Item