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.
Comments
You're definition of an RPG from a game design standpoint is flawed.
I'm going to start off by saying that I think you are over-exaggerating the impact of RNG here.
In an MMO, the RNG factor makes up perhaps 2% of any given outcome - at a stretch. The rest is a mix of how you gear, spec and play your character. In 20 years of playing MMO's I have literally never once had a death that I blamed on RNG. It just doesn't happen.
That aside, your perspective here is exactly why both systems need to be incorporated. You prefer one, others prefer the other. The only thing is, a player can't use all of both at the same time - there needs to be a scale.
Game design is game design.
The theme and conclusion decides its genre, not gameplay.
IE if a game is designed to be a "sporty/strategy" affair that lasts for x duration (under a day) then it's a sports game/moba, if it lasts for way more than a day it's a host of other things.
You seem to have a problem with putting things in the same basket, "this is an mmofps", if it has classes, an open world and team activities its an mmorpg, regardless of its fps gameplay.
There is no good, bad or wrong gameplay design, most critics or reviewers will be the judge of that.
And, sure, critics will critique.
Consumers will determine viability of the design.
An RPG is different in fundamental ways than an FPS. In more ways than just what you simplify to "a role to play".
And a key aspect of RPGs is that character builds determine combat results more than player twitch skills.
Similar to - just because I, as a player, am aware of a trap, does not mean that my character is aware of the trap. Just because I, as a player, have the wisdom to decipher a script does not mean my character has the Wisdom to Decipher a script.
After tanking in Tera I was never able to tank again in any other game, I would love if AoC could be the game to give me that feeling back, but as it is a tab/action hybrid I dont have a lot of confidence, as I think the tab-target portion of combat will prevent the action combat side from shining as bright as it could.
Would love to be proven wrong tho.
No, not an exaggeration, perhaps a little vague to prevent a word vomit post but no, not an exaggeration.
And no, it doesn't prove why both systems NEED to be in the game. I know you're team TT even though you say you want both but many know that Jahlons community and circle (or whatever shape you prefer) is in favour of TT.
I dont know where you get the 2% from if the RNG is become a dependant for gameplay mechanics going off the % chances and range allowances.
nice! me too! lots of experience with video games.
If you have analyzed combat as I have, you will know that RNG is not that big of a deal.
You'll know things like %chance to block is often based on the amount of damage a hit will cause - meaning it will almost always block bigger hits, unless that bigger hit has a component to prevent this (where the design intention is that the player come up with a different strategy for dealing with this hit).
There are many things that are weighted like this, and when taken together, reduce the impact of RNG on a game.
These aren't things that are expressly explained to players, they are only really able to be learned via analyzing combat tracker data.
Edit to add; the above is also assuming you have appropriate gear - if your gear is not up to standard for the encounter, that hit will not be blocked, is very big, and you will die - this is the purpose of such abilities.
It is just starting to sound as if you think you're better than me (or others) to be honest when you reply with wording like that.
Not to sound rude or anything but the RNG blocking dependence comes off as an older and less skillful game mechanic. Remember how in diablo games where you % chance to block on it's RNG variables and your character would just sit there tanking mobs showing the blocking animation repeated ( a bit extreme for an example but relatively similar), it just doesn't fit the modern design of video games in my opinion.
Percentile RNG blocking is just wrong for this type of game (again, in my opinion). It's going to cause turmoil between the two types of systems and two types of game style. I personally think it should just be one or the other and unfortunately for tab targeting, it's not RNG percentile stat patting. What's the point of wearing a shield if potentially the only time using in TT is RNG based, feels like a decoration instead of a tool.
As much as I have enjoyed TT over the years regardless of RNG percentiles mechanics, when I see AoC, it says it should lean more to the action combat side of things to elevate not only its potential, but the genre's potential as well.
But hey, you want RNG blocking, I want active blocking, hopefully having both doesn't damper the games potential. I do agree with what Jahlon said though about the studio coming out and saying which direction they're more leaning towards because creating a dual system for both 50-50 is going to cause a head for everyone involved.
Its interesting to see people that considers RNG blocking to be a "less skillful mechanic" just because it is simple a different type of skill required instead of Active Blocking but fail to understand that.
Active block is all about previsible reaction, see your enemy wind-up animation for a big attack worth blocking, and boom! skill blocked, nice reactive skill bro.
Passive RNG block is all about the the stategy skill of dealing with unpredictability, you don't know if you will block the big attack or not, but you will probably block stuff that might come before that, changing scenarions and therefore making you change plans on the fly, and having options like trying a CC against the big attack or evading with a movement skill.
Both skills have value even tho some might value or simple disregard one over the other.
As i said in another comment answering another person "Without rng stat checks such as block/parry/evasion to check tab-target skills, it would straight up make it the meta over action skills(unless overly buffed breaking balance) that can be escaped through movement/positioning and requires aiming, this isn't about being "lazy" or "boring".its about core funcionality and balancing."
As much as you may want Ashes to heavily lean towards action, it is Hybrid, and therefore requires hybrid mechanics, not action or tab, but both. Having both doesn't "damper the games potential" it makes it reasonable.
Aren't we all sinners?
I wont deny that RNG blocking isn't part of strategy or that RNG plays a role in games like this as I previously mentioned with how base damage range and crit ranges work in my previous posts. I dont think it's lazy coding either I just feel this game would be better with active blocking instead of RNG luck dependence. I'm not belittling game design choices i'm sharing my opinion on the threads topic.
One thing to consider about hybrid is it's a spectrum, not something that is split down the middle always as a 50-50 system. Hybrid has lots of grey zones for its nuance. I do feel though by reading some peoples comments on these forums that they think Hybrid translates to Dual system integration (which to be fair, could be a possibility). One side of the spectrum is the extreme TT, the other as the extreme AC example (black and white). It's going to be a grey game but what shade of grey?
I do appreciate your point of view on it as it's something I have and do consider as well
I just personally think the game is probably going to lean a bit more towards AC than being split down the middle and RNG blocking isn't the best fit for it. Currently, you have 10 ability slots and a left and mouse click (we'll just ignore keybind customisation for now), I just think hitting a button to block regardless of press and hold vs toggle on and off is a much better immersive experience that stat patting for passive RNG block chance.
The game is in development, nothing is guaranteed as things can easily change so the community (including myself) need to keep an open mind to the project we're supporting as we do come from different backgrounds and preferences but as Jahlon said, it's Steven's game, it comes down to what he decides at the end of the day.
I’m not sure if I’d do it exactly as Jahlon laid out, but it would be in the same ZIP code.
No problem, that's just your opinion and i do comprehend it.
My opinion is that we just shouldn't have one INSTEAD of the other.
Btw having both blocks makes "RNG luck dependence" lesser.
Yes, you are correct, Hybrid is indeed a spectrum(even tho the spectrum might happen to be in the middle) with lots of grey zones and nuance. I don't think Ashes will go for either extremes.
Consider it reciprocal.
It is interesting that you believe that "the game is probably going to lean a bit more towards AC" the last stream certainly gave off that impression without context from Alpha 1 as ranged weapons weren't presented but ranged weapons basic attacks worked in Tab target(not requiring active aim just lokking all attacks in the target.). The thing with the active blocking from last stream is that we don't know if the active block will have a duration or cooldown or will simple rely on a resource(like block stamina or something) without know that it is hard to say how the block would work independently or alongside passive RNG block.
It's simple impossible for me to disregard passive RNG blocking considering players will be able to have up to 75% tab target skills and tab target Ranged basic attacks(considering Alpha 1).
Also take in consideration this wiki quote
"The number of skills on the action bar will be contained (fewer than 30)."
when considering ability slots. https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Active_skills
Yes it is necessary to keep a open mind, those debates are important to be had with as many diverging opinions as possible while stuff isn't set in stone, even tho its possible to acknowledge Steven's patterns and evaluate his statements..
Aren't we all sinners?
Part of the reason I say that is because of the example used for the target lock on for the tab targeting system. That lock-on system from the crosshair provides the tracking lock which resembles a tab targeting system opposed to the traditional methods of click to select, cycle key with a combination of camera direction. ( yes, some games have a tab targeting cycle based on where the camera's centre is currently facing, not necessarily the direct the character is facing).
so with that mind, the option to still freely aim and target can be translated relatively as both AC and TT. Now with 75% of the abilities being tab targeting friendly, it could also means that there is a good probably that the remaining 25% will be AC only which also could imply that a majority of those abilities and their difference could translate to slightly favouring the action combat as they're providing a large portion to the tab targeting style.
I've said it countless times, it really comes down to how the ability functions for requiring a target and it's tracking. In terms of projectiles, their trajectory plays a roll in it too for level shots, arcing shot, volleys etc which can easily be translated similar to how ground target and ground target aoe's work regardless of macro manipulation in games such as WoW.
The TT is going to function more in favour of AC but also have allowance for some of the traditional means depending on ability. The plethora of ability shapes and types directly affect how the abilities differentiate in their functions regardless of similarities. As an example - directly target vs projectile tracking and trajectory.
Obviously I do not know the full 100% details on this as i'm sure no one truly does on these forums outside of the people whom work at intrepid for their class design and augments. Many can speculate and have educated guess but time will reveal all. With projectile and physics being a thing, a good chance for body and environmental interactions and interceptions.
Take arrows for example, they'll probably have an effective range for accuracy but after a certain distance, veer off the target and/or becomes easily avoidable. Having a 100% tracking at any range for archery also seems silly to me as the same with spells. It would create a nice element tfor game design where accuracy falls off because if the TT side of range abilities is easily manipulated and OP, not many are going to bother with the AC side where it takes more skill in physically aiming.
I can go for hours about this stuff.. lol that's probably good for this post
Do I think I know more about tab target combat design than you? Yes, yes I do. I've talked to a lot of experienced tab target game developers and learned that I know more about it than they do.
This isn't an accident or a fluke, I've put more time in to studying MMO combat systems than I put in to my degree. Significantly more - because I enjoy it.
Do I think that makes me a better person than anyone else? Nope (if anything, it means I wasted a LOT of time), I have no doubt there are many things you know significantly more about than I ever would. Should we find ourselves ever talking about one such topic, I do hope you will point that out to me.
Fact is though, like most things that some players think are pure RNG, %block in most MMORPG's is actually normalized so that the more damage an attack would do, the more likely it is to be blocked. This means that if a massive hit lands on you, 99.99% of the time it is because your gear is not where it should be, or you are not in a tanking spec. It's just different gameplay.
In a game like this, your characters ability to block an attack in a game like this is a result of your ability to gear that character up, and spec it to block better.
I would agree with you if you want to say that this doesn't work in games like WoW, where everyone just gets the game gear and runs the same spec. Totally, 100% agree with you on that. There is literally no skill in that at all.
However, in a game where there are multiple viable gear paths, meaning there are multiple viable spec paths, and where things like your own personal reaction time, your connection speed to the server, and even the speed of the computer you are running all have an impact on what is best for you to do, there is no one size fits all for gear or spec, and so it is up to the individual player to work out what they need to do.
Getting the right gear and spec that works for you in such games is a skill in and of itself.
I expect Ashes to be such a game.
A players gear can be considered the sum total of their game play time up to the point they are at. If you have really good gear, it is because you have played really well. If you have really poor gear, it is because you played really poorly.
What this means is that passive defenses are literally a result of how well you have played the game up to this point, while active defenses are how well you are playing it right now.
Actually, if I were playing a tank, I would probably go about 50/50 in my scheme from earlier. Perhaps even lean more towards active defense. I would look at mostly active defense and mostly tab attacks as the best way to play a tank.
I don't argue these points because it is what I want, I argue them because it is what people expect from Ashes. If a game has a hybrid combat system where players can pick and chose between action and tab (up to that 75/25 split), that whole thing is wasted if they have to always run active defense.
LOL that just comes off as arrogant dude but it literally contradicts you as believing you're better than other people.
As for the whole end game ideal stat's based on specs, it's relatively more similar to wow than you think except for how AoC may have more freedom in personalisation of specialisation. Ironically with what Jahlon was saying in the OP with 360 blocking etc is how WoW relatively works with it's RNG % chance reactive passive blocking procedurals. WoW is heavy on the RNG proc chance side of things, it's literally woven into almost every class and spec's main rotation as so. Then they have active which enhance those value's to improve things like block chance, evasion, armour rating etc which can still be implemented for active blocking. They can be engaging as you can have procedurals or even just actives to enhance your block during active play.
As example (not suggesting):
you can have have an active where if you absorb X amount of damage during active block (within a time frame), you can proc enhanced defence for x amount of time or even proc an offensive buff for counter depending on class, spec etc. Literally so many options for abilities to enhance the feature with it just being an automatic RNG % chance to block.
I'm not against passive damage mitigations and things a-like, I just don't see the RNG side of passive block chance as engaging within the game as it could be for active blocking. With how almost every RPG style game regardless of it being an MMO or not, it's essentially focused around stats/attributes on your players functionality if by level and/or gear you earn. That's called a progression system. They come both as vertical and horizontal. Being able to more freely choose stats does allow for more unique builds and situational builds, but it doesn't really support the idea that RNG reactive blocking is strategically better especially when similar abilities and functions can be directly integrated to active blocking in a majority of scenarios.
So games have more tangential stats to focus around, some have a few to keep it more simple where they can focus that allocation of attributes more simplistically through the developer side.
There's a lot of more potential for tactical gameplay with active blocking. We will have to see what these passives evolve into over time and they directly translate to the blocking mechanic.
Where there is even more tactical gameplay, is where players have the choice of active or passive. It may well be that they want a build that has them having to focus on other things, but they still need an amount of protection.
A player can then flip block off to be more passive, and put some of their focus in other areas. Or that same player could leave fully active blocking, where they need to put a good amount of their focus on it - but have other things simplified (perhaps having 5 or 6 attack abilities as opposed to 15 - 10).
Keep in mind, I am not saying players should have to use passive defense. I am saying they should be able to use active or passive as they see fit.
I get where you're coming from the whole choice of passive vs active but I still stand by with active being a much better choice for this game
And it's hybrid combat, so...
Expect plenty of RNG blocking.
Suggestion, give shields:
1) a high percentage damage reduction ("dam red%")
2) a high percentage chance to negate criticals (neg crit%) and some other proc-ed abilities?
Being hit repeatedly knocks down the damage reduction / crit negation percentage.
Passive blocking
- the dam red% / crit neg% recovers slowly over time.
- actual damage reduction and crit negation is half the specified value.
Active blocking
- the dam red% / crit neg% recovers more quickly.
- the actual damage reduction and crit negation is the specified value
- a small movement speed penalty based on how heavy the shield is, due to the focus on a defensive stance.
Medium and Large Shields - block ranged and melee
Buckler sized shields - block melee only
Give some melee weapons an inferior 'block melee' ability.
If you give damage reduction % and crit negation % to shields you should also consider giving them to armor.
I'm also in favor of armor having a small movement speed reduction based on its effectiveness as armor (-25% movement for full plate seems a reasonable trade off to me, before we start talking mitigation and exceptions), but I don't think that opinion is shared by everyone.
there's RPG's that dont rely on RNG blocking, lol so we can also expect none?
That doesn't mean that the exceptions become the rule.
and vice versa
you can be such be such an odd ball with how black and white you perceive game genre's and systems with your responses like these, lol.
that's an interesting perspective and suggestion for application to shield type in relation to damage reduction regardless of active or passive rng blocking.
What about melee weapon type and weapon weight class to that?
Ashes is an RPG so there will be RNG in combat. Less RNG associated with the Action Combat abilities.
Some devs like to make radical changes, sure.
Also, I didn't say that a game can't be an RPG if there is no RNG.
I'm not denying that there is going to be RNG as I previously stated several times in past posts, it's not what I have been discussing about. I'll re-iterate it again though specifically for you as we're all aware of how base damage RNG range interacts with Crit RNG ranges as one example. And no offence, but that was a long time ago and he isn't around anymore. The dev's and community will work out what is best for the game in the end as things have already changed especially from the past to present combat animations with root motion and weight as one example. Nothing is truly 100% guaranteed in development.
Some days I wonder what colour the sky in your world
you're more than welcome to back and re-read the conversation for a better explanation
All I said was to expect there to be RNG blocking because Ashes is an RPG - and you wanted to argue about that for some reason.
If you want to fool yoursef into thinking that there won't be just because Jeffrey is no longer a dev, go ahead.