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
Dygz tends to know alot about the game overall, can just be confusing sometimes, as they seem to be very, word for word, specific and never clarifies anything... it does lead to alot of circular arguments tho. idk
My only concern would be directional damage and off-tanks picking up adds. Active blocking and directional damage shouldnt be a guaranteed needed thing to do - especially if you have to run around. You will be taking hits from behind.
And from the wiki it states that actively blocking directional damage may add a bonus to damage reduction. It may not be a "needed" thing to do. Which I agree with.
Another fun fact I came across, you don't HAVE to wield a shield to be a tank, it just makes it easier.
I like the idea of the 2nd option for balancing purposes, but I think it needs to be balanced and broken down a bit more to be fully fleshed out.
There's a difference between assuming something is a certain way and suggesting something could possibly be a certain way.
I think what I said is that it appears that the Active Block we saw in the June 2022 Combat Demo appears to be Fighter Active Skill rather than Weapon Skill.
I don't think I told you that it's impossible for Shields to have a Block boost on them or that it's impossible that Shields will include Active Block.
But, we would have to look at the specific quotes for the context, rather than rely on your paraphrase of what you think I said.
Just looking at our previous conversation....
I did not "call you out" for assuming Block is a weapon skill linked to weapons.
You stated that people have to Block with Daggers and 2-Handed Swords.
I replied that you are assuming that the Block we saw in the Demo came from the weapons rather than the Fighter Primary Archetype.
And I also argued against your insistance that people with access to Active Block must use Active Block.
Here, you admit you recently learned from the wiki that Tanks don't have to use Shields as a weapon. Even though I had previously told you that any class can use any weapon. So, no, Tanks are not obligated to using a Shield.
Of course, the Tank Primary Archetype might also have Active Block, rather than the Dodge of a Rogue.
In that case, a Tank might be able to Active Block with any weapon. And while Daggers or Great Swords may not add to the Block score - a Shield might very well boost the Active Block of a Tank or Fighter.
All that being said, that doesn't mean that every Tank will choose to use to use Active Block. Having accs to an ability does not mean every player ust use that ability or tactic.
Evasion Tanks might prefer to Evade rather than Block.
None of what I wrote "calls you out".
I'm just participating in a discussion by saying it's not as clear cut as your conclusions presumed.
We are still missing lots of details about how Active Block works in Ashes.
We know that the Weaponmaster was able to Active Block with the weapons he wielded.
We still need to learn more about the specifics of Active Block rather than jump to conclusions.
Sorry but Dygz doesn't make sense in his posts. On one hand he talks about how RPGs must have RnG and then on the other he says I never said you can't have an RPG without RNG. I'm sure he means well but he just says things with no meaning or makes no sense half the time.
Also he keeps making comments about twitch skills as if RPGs are all turned based strategy games. There's always twitch skills involved in a PvP MMORPG. Sure action might have more aim based but a tab game still can have complex multi-button skill rotations whilst concetrating on your positioning, hp, reaction times, awareness etc. At the end of the day it's a game with RPG elements not an RPG story with game elements.
I just think it's a little odd and probably confusing to try to use the same stat in 2 different ways.
But, I bet the quote of me talking about RNG in RPGs is a generalization, rather than an absolute.
Post the quote where you think I said RPGs must have RNG and let's see.
Also, post a quote where I stated that RPGs can't have player twitch skills.
I think all you've done here is demonstrated that you tweaked what you thought I wrote instead of comprehending what I actually wrote, but...
I'm human. I could have mis-stated something.
Feel free to post quotes if you really want to check me.
It seems you don't seem to understand what you have actually written. Maybe you don't mean to but both of these statements are in absolutes. You didn't write it's more about character skill than twitch skills, you wrote "not player twitch skills". The second statement is an absolute way states that there will be RnG because ashes is an RPG.
The 2nd statement explains why the Ashes devs have chosen to ensure that while Action Combat will have less RNG than Tab Target, RNG will always play a role in Ashes of Creation combat.
"RNG will always play a role in Ashes in PvP or PvE. But one way to mitigate that is through the Action system. The Action system is going to be far less dependent on those dice rolls and they will be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that (RNG), but it's a way for us to reward (player) skill play versus tactical/strategy type play."
---Jeffrey.
RNG is fundamental to RPGs. That doesn't mean that every single RPG must have RNG or else it's not an RPG.
The more a game focuses on player twitch skills rather than character build, the closer it becomes to being some other game genre, like an FPS with RPG elements or a Survival gme with RPG elements.
Testes are fundamental to being male, but that does not mean that every male must have testes or that a lack of testes means a being is not male.
The Ashes devs, of course, have chosen to have RNG be fundamental to Ashes combat because that is typical of RPGs. I did not state anything close to "Every single RPG ever made has included RNG."
Just because you mistakenly inferred that from what I wrote does not mean I implied it. I certainly didn't explicitly state what you mistakenly inferred.
"There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS." is not = "RNG will always play a role in Ashes in PvP or PvE. But one way to mitigate that is through the Action system. The Action system is going to be far less dependent on those dice rolls and they will be far more in your own hands. They won't ever completely eliminate that (RNG), but it's a way for us to reward (player) skill play versus tactical/strategy type play."
why do you think statement 1 saying RnG is in Ashes because it's an RPG is the same as statement 2 ashes has RnG?
It's pretty simple logic and you wonder why you have all these back and forth posts all the time. These are two different statements but you act as if they are the same hence my earlier comments about you don't seem to fully understand what you are actually saying in your statements when talking about nuanced subjects.
I didn't infer anything you wrote it yourself - "There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS." This statement means that RPGs always have RnG, unless you don't understand english properly, I assume you didn't mean it, but this is what this statement says.
Statement one does not state that every RPG must have RNG.
Apparently, you fail to grasp simple logic.
You also do not know the meaning of infer.
And no, what you infer from the statement I wrote is not the actual meaning of what I wrote.
You don't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute.
You added 'always" in your inference. I did not write the word "always" or "all" or any qualifier that leads to an absolute.
You have a poor grasp of English.
Bro. You have a hard time communicating effectively. You are well informed, and tend to have good arguments. But your usage of words is confusing most of the time, and you almost always seem standoff-ish or hostile.
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am nice, but not polite.
I'm OK with that.
If you're confused by what I write, ask questions. That's part of the way discussions work.
Im just saying so to let you know. I seem to find you at odds all the time, and we have had our misunderstandings as well. I dont have any problems with you, and tend to value your takes and information.
I don't think you're being very nice at the moment. I'd argue you're purposely and thoughtfully trying to publicly discredit someones education in an attempt to win a petty argument over nothing but semantics.
My comprehension is, you're making assumptions about someone lacking an understanding of the English language based on them misrepresenting your complex statements, then you're providing these assumptions as facts. It's pretentious and belittling.
While these statements may be your opinion that doesn't necessarily make them true and should not be represented as truth.
If anyone can clarify this for me then that would be great because I didn't feel like reading the comments in this thread and someone may have already cleared this up
Currently, we don't know if active block will work simuntaneously alongside the other defensive stats(block/parry/evasion chance) or if while active it disables the passive waterfall defensive stats.
The thing about the active blocking is that even if it works along side passive waterfall defensive stats it still is a garantee of the damage mitigation without the requiriment of an RNG roll, and yes, you can choose to simple not use active blocking and gamble on your passive waterfall defensive stats chances.
Aren't we all sinners?
It's not an assumption. And my statements are not complex.
If someone doesn't understand the difference between a generalization and an absolute that's not my fault.
It means they have poor comprehension of basic English.
I'm not the one who started a discussion about semantics - the person who miscontred what I wrote did that.
It is indeed an assumption as you believe your claim to be true but don't have substantial evidence or argument for your claims to be accepted as truth. I'm not discrediting the possible validity of your statements, just the fact that you came to these conclusions based on conjecture and therefore should not be presenting them as truths.
Assumption would occur before evidence was provided.
In this case, evidence of poor comprehension was provided before I formed an opinion on that matter. And then verified when more evidence was provided.
I'm not sure why you are choosing to discuss this, though. It's really just going to waste your time.
Again, you came to these conclusions based on conjecture not any substantial evidence or argument.
Repeating your false assertions won't get you anywhere.
I do not believe I made any false assertions. I suspect you may have not have fully comprehended my argument. I have made no claim that you did not have evidence to support your statements but rather claimed your evidence as unsubstantial and based on conjecture.
You do not have a detailed comprehension of their education and understandings and therefore can not with certainty provide your opinion on the subject as factual, solely based on your few and brief interactions here.
I really don't care what you believe. It's a free world. You get to hold whatever false beliefs you like.
Anyway. I'm done with this inane, futile tangent. No need for further derail of this thread.
Take the last word if wish.
There have been at least a dozen posters tell you basically exactly this that I can recall - and who knows how many have thought it without saying anything.
If one person doesn't understand you, the problem lies with them. If many people dont understand you, the problem lies with you