Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Late "basic attack" dev stream feedback
Ace1234
Member
I am late to the party for the "basic attack" stream feedback, but wanted to still give my opinion on it.
As long as the basic attacks and each subsequent attack in the "combo use" system plays a role in:
1. Each option having practical situational uses
2. allows you to use the options in an unpredictable and unreactable manner, to deter an overly "campy" meta where the first to act is at a disadvantage.
3. maximizes the amount of control and player-freedom (such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)
4. is balanced by the different aspects of the combat system (such as range/speed/etc.) that each attack has
5. supports both offensive and defensive playstyles-
then it should make for a great system and is a step in the right direction.
From a viewing perspective it seems as though it is going in the right direction in most of these areas, but it is hard to tell without actually testing it.
I absolutely love the direction to move toward more fast-paced skill based combat.
I think that good basic attacks are meant for:
A) a low committment/low risk option that can be used for protection to keep yourself safe by halting more high risk aggressive options, that a standard defensive option might not be able to deal with
B)a low committment/low risk option that can be used aggressively to poke at more defensive options
C) a tool a players can use to create space between the enemy. By being capable of being a threat using basic attacks against enemy options used at various ranges, this can condition the enemy to not want to constantly be aggressive, which can help classes that want to relieve some of that close up pressure, of which a standard defensive option might not always be capable of since that threat might not be there, freeing the enemy to always feel safe closing the gap.
For these reasons basic attacks can set you up for more advantageous situations when used correctly, in order to lead into your higher reward options
-but if basic attacks are used in a predictable manner with no situational awareness or thought put into it, then it can be countered, but this means they need to have the ability to be used unpredictably through player control, to maintain that low-risk aspect
I also really like the idea of the non-magic based attacks showing a more "physical" animation effects rather than the magical, such as the animation trail being the color of the weapon material.
As long as the basic attacks and each subsequent attack in the "combo use" system plays a role in:
1. Each option having practical situational uses
2. allows you to use the options in an unpredictable and unreactable manner, to deter an overly "campy" meta where the first to act is at a disadvantage.
3. maximizes the amount of control and player-freedom (such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)
4. is balanced by the different aspects of the combat system (such as range/speed/etc.) that each attack has
5. supports both offensive and defensive playstyles-
then it should make for a great system and is a step in the right direction.
From a viewing perspective it seems as though it is going in the right direction in most of these areas, but it is hard to tell without actually testing it.
I absolutely love the direction to move toward more fast-paced skill based combat.
I think that good basic attacks are meant for:
A) a low committment/low risk option that can be used for protection to keep yourself safe by halting more high risk aggressive options, that a standard defensive option might not be able to deal with
B)a low committment/low risk option that can be used aggressively to poke at more defensive options
C) a tool a players can use to create space between the enemy. By being capable of being a threat using basic attacks against enemy options used at various ranges, this can condition the enemy to not want to constantly be aggressive, which can help classes that want to relieve some of that close up pressure, of which a standard defensive option might not always be capable of since that threat might not be there, freeing the enemy to always feel safe closing the gap.
For these reasons basic attacks can set you up for more advantageous situations when used correctly, in order to lead into your higher reward options
-but if basic attacks are used in a predictable manner with no situational awareness or thought put into it, then it can be countered, but this means they need to have the ability to be used unpredictably through player control, to maintain that low-risk aspect
I also really like the idea of the non-magic based attacks showing a more "physical" animation effects rather than the magical, such as the animation trail being the color of the weapon material.
2
Comments
lol get real man. Balance and good game design isn't "everything is good and best in the game".
So...I guess your idea of great design and balance is instead having your character not be able do anything at all in the game, through indefinite input delay and being too exhausted to move? You want the "best" thing to be watching your character sleep on the ground rather than having your different attacks all be viable?
1. There is nothing I said that implies "You win" or anything about suggesting one player should have advantage over another- you literally made that up for no reason, which is toxic.
2. "everything is good and best in the game". Wtf does that even mean, these are two condradictory ideas and you are trying to use them together as one idea to make ME sound dumb?
3. Again, at no point did I ever advocate for one thing being "the best" over another. Theres nothing I said that implies anything that, so you are making that up as well for what reason?
4. In fact..lol I said the exact opposite of that so we will go ahead and remove that from the convo. My whole point was around having everything being as equally "good" as possible. In fact, you are the one who said that everything shouldn't be good..."Balance and good game design isn't "everything is good.....in the game". In which case by default, you are advocating that their are "best" types of ways to play, you just don't like the idea other strategies being able to compete against yours most likely.
Clearly you don't even understand what the word "balance" means, because it does in fact mean that everything is good within the context its supposed to be good in.
Had I known there would be dismissal of why basic design ideas such as this are important, I could have provided more examples of why actual balance is necessary and I would have added more supporting arguments, but I didn't think that was neccessary for common sense stuff. Clearly I needed to do so for yourself, but you probably would have just dismissed it anyway, so if your looking to sound smart by using a "straw man" on my arguments then your accomplishing the exact opposite.
Do you just go around looking for arguments in all the threads lately?
Its ironic how you accused others of dismissing your points in the other threads, yet you provide no supporting points against my argument, but I guess thats what you do when things are over your head so I can understand that.
Everything you say is some kind of exaggeration. You should see things more objectively.
1. It's toxic that you don't understand what I said objectively and start talking about toxicity due to the well of bitterness inside of you.
If every weapon is perfect they aren't very different from one another. It's boring and lazy design with no character. Bad suggestion from you.
2. You suggested every possible good thing a weapon/ move set could have; being perfect in every way you could think of. For all weapons. Dumb suggestion :^)
3. Again, didn't say that.
4. Why haven't you considered that weapons can have their own unique strengths and shortcomings? What is stopping you from this consideration breaching your brain like a newborn whale in a wide wide ocean of possibility? If you say that's what you suggest then I recommend reading over your own post and thinking a bit more about it. You want every weapon to be good at EVERYTHING. Again, a dumb suggestion.
Hopefully this clears things up.
You want every weapon good in every context. The "context it's supposed to be good in" is the entire game, all the time, according to you.
Hopefully I don't need to elaborate further.
1. Again- pulling stuff out of nowhere. I literally never said anything even remotely close to that. You should be more objective because its through your own assumptions that you view my ideas as "bad". Two mechanics don't have to even be remotely close to be useful and balanced, you are the one lacking understanding in this department so try to brush up on your knowledge before coming at others.
"You suggested every possible good thing a weapon/ move set could have; being perfect in every way you could think of. For all weapons. Dumb suggestion :^)"
2. From an objective point of view (which is the persepctive you are so confident in being able to view things from), there is nothing wrong with that statement, until you insert your flawed perception and interpretation of how YOU think that would translate into gameplay. This is due to your own flawed subjective perception of my points.
"Why haven't you considered that weapons can have their own unique strengths and shortcomings? What is stopping you from this consideration breaching your brain like a newborn whale in a wide wide ocean of possibility? If you say that's what you suggest then I recommend reading over your own post and thinking a bit more about it. You want every weapon to be good at EVERYTHING. Again, a dumb suggestion."
3. I have, again, your own misconceptions is causing your own confusion due to a lack of understanding of how things would actually play out under my framework. "Situational usefulness" by default means "situational uselessness" in relative terms. Kind of common sense.
NONE of what I said required that you can have complete reliance on one individual combat mechanic within the combat system. All of the criteria I mentioned is more about the combat system as a whole, and ensuring that the individual components within that are factored into and play a role in that wholistic approach. The basic attack doesn't have to be the only necessary tool that can do all of those things, in order for it to be a part of an overall system that does do those things. However, it does need to still consider those different aspects in order to find its identity within that overall system, which is why I brought them up for consideration.
So as for your suggestion of "balancing" without actually having the fundamental criteria I listed that would qualify for actual good balancing, I would say- nah, bad suggestion @Sapiverenus
2. allows you options to use in an unpredictable and unreactable manner, to deter an overly "campy" meta where the first to act is at a disadvantage.
3. maximizes the amount of control and player-freedom (such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)
4. is balanced by the different aspects of the combat system (such as range/speed/etc.) that each attack has
5. supports both offensive and defensive playstyles-"
I've emboldened the problem areas. You want what should be a strength of specific weapons be on ALL weapons. Weapons need weaknesses as well as strengths.
A) a low committment/low risk option that can be used for protection to keep yourself safe by halting more high risk aggressive options, that a standard defensive option might not be able to deal with
B)a low committment/low risk option that can be used aggressively to poke at more defensive options
C) a tool a players can use to create space between the enemy. By being capable of being a threat using basic attacks against enemy options used at various ranges, this can condition the enemy to not want to constantly be aggressive, which can help classes that want to relieve some of that close up pressure, of which a standard defensive option might not always be capable of since that threat might not be there, freeing the enemy to always feel safe closing the gap."
Designing this formulaicly is unnecessary.
There need to be abilities that allow players to excel; such as a quicker attack to disrupt the enemy and punish riskier moves rather than reserving that function to the auto-attack.
Or simply not having a solution for everything in your kit. If you don't like a certain playstyle then use a different weapon.
In no way does that highlighted stuff require the weapons to function the same.
-Weapons can all have different spacings, timings, and risk/reward ratios damage wise within any combination of those aspects to create unique feel, all of which has their own respective counterplay within that framework- while still having the attributes that you highlighted as "problem areas".
-unpredictability can happen acrossed all weapon classes, its simply about subverting the expectations of spacings and timings during combat through not being reactable and having the option to mix up timings (through things like animation canceling) or spacings (through things like movement)
-Offensive and defensive styles can both be supported regardless of weapon variety. This has to do with the viability of killing the opponent vs the viability of protecting yourself. This is done through the balancing of the attacks (any damage dealing hitbox) and defensive options (shield, dodge, etc.) And the ability to retain this balance (and subsequently the desired combat pacing and playstyle variety), as you begin introducing varying types of attacks (hitboxes with different ranges/spacings, and timings). This can actively encourage weapon variety and is more about the balance and role of each combat component within the overall system.
- as far as the "formulaic" point. It is neccessary to design it formulaicly. That the whole point of designing something. You have a goal of achieving something specific and create a formulaic approach to do that, in my case the goal is achieving those criteria in the combat system. The risk/reward can still absolutely vary and I encourage them too, but because of how risk works in terms of spacings and timings during combat, a low risk option is generally going to be best ratio of being the quickest option with the lowest amount of endlag that can reach the enemy, in which case when you are in range, that generally is represented by the most "basic" attack in most combat systems, which is why I referenced that particlar risk/reward ratio for that tyoe of move. That doesn't mean you can't have other types of moves with other combinations of strengths/weaknesses- for different options that are all unique.
The criteria I mentioned is generally accepted as the core makup of a good combat system as a whole. In which case the "whole" trumps any kind of "feel" you would like to have from components that make up that system, if said feel required sacrificing those design principles. But it doesn't even require the sacrifice, as I explained how both could coexist.
Your problem is that you immediately become hostile because you don't even realize there are ways of still having what you want in the weapon design while reading through my ideas, due to your own assumptions of what I was referring to. You should learn to check yourself and have an attitude of listening and learning rather than of pride and foolishness.
@Sapiverenus
You suggest multiple ways the weapons should function the same.
You seemed to like the melee demonstration; in that demonstration the weapons function much the same in terms of character mobility and even AoE/ penetration. They aren't that distinct. They could be much more distinct.
Clearly and conveniently you ignored my entire explanation, as I broke it down for you to understand how weapons could still be distinct, if not moreso following the criteria I listed. The state of the demonstration has no bearing on the vision that I laid out for you. My satisfaction with the demsontration was with the direction and not the end result, otherwise I wouldn't have posted these suggestions to begin with. Common sense.
So yes it was a convenient cutting of the chaffe. If you like the demonstration then you don't like there being weapons more distinct than the demonstration from Intrepid.
Here is common sense: People talk a lot and talk is cheap.
Problem A: you view differences in spacings, timings, and risk/reward ratios as "slight variations". That is actually comical that you take that stance at this point after all your snarky comments. That literally means all but endless possibilities in weapon variation if you have 2 brain cells to think about the implications of that.
Problem B:
Because of Problem A, this led to problem B which is "I connected what you are saying to the real execution of it: dagger vs greatsword in the melee demonstration.
So yes it was a convenient cutting of the chaffe."
If you are so mentally powerful why aren't you impressive? Show me how with your infinite intelligence you easily master the tools of game dev and blast Ashes of Creation out of the water. Or figure out how to become a physical Hulk and flex on losers like myself.
"Differences can be smaller or larger. There is a scale to things, and limit to player execution."
Great observation, you can either have small scale differences or large scale differences depending on how much you want to manipulate the different combinations of spacing/timings/risk/reward ratios that I provided for your weapon variations.
"If you are so mentally powerful why aren't you impressive? Or figure out how to become a physical Hulk and flex on losers like myself."
After how you started off- this conversation was more than enough to do that.
If you manipulate the different combinations of spacing/timings/risk/reward ratios that you provided for weapon variations; not everything you list as "good direction" in the original post (emboldened by me in a previous message) will be possible for many situations. In fact, you will have to choose your weapon based on the situation; or avoid that situation; rather than fiddle with WASD12345Space.
Yet despite your vast comprehension we have not reached that point of convergence in this conversation. In fact you seem to hope I'm too dumb to know better.
But you are in all likelihood the skinniest person to post on this forum. How is it your comprehension has not gotten you mastery in combat or at least fitness?
Perhaps there are other elements to reality you neglect and dismiss in your formulaic understanding of things.
All of the highlighted info is possible with that. See my response to your highlighted info now with the understanding of weapon variation. I will go over it again in a different way for you.
Risk is kind if the antithesis of player agency when you start increasing risk it generally means making the spacings/timings worse than a lower risk counterpart- but the reward is the balancing factor. Which means you are maximizing player agency through all of the other possible spacings/timings combinations that wouldn't require sacrificing player agency, while still coexisting with a risk/reward style of balancing through having those available as additional options even if it means sacrificing some player agency for those examples, in order to have more variation balanced by the reward factor for those higher risk options.
You still have plenty of options if the agency is what you desire, and plenty more options through the risk/reward combinations for the most amount of variety in a balanced way, which is what you are after.
All spacing/timings/and risk/reward ratios that you choose to implement can be made unreactably counterable (not counterable on reaction) to promote that non campy pacing- and can be provided options to mix up timings through several mechanics such as animation canceling for that added "unpedictability" that was highlighted. You can have these coexist with other combinations of risk/reward options that you choose to make reactable if you so choose, in order to enhance that risk factor and add more variety to the options.
They all can be balanced against defensive and offensive options
A) different combinations of offensive options can be balanced against other offensive options through different timing and spacing mixups (outranging, outspeeding when in range, baiting/conditioning through timing/spacing mixups to get into range)
B)defensive options can be balanced against different combinations of weapons as well, through providing different combinations of spacings/timings/risk reward ratios with safety on hit/safety on whiff/safety on block
Your hem was formulaic auto attacks and 2D or 3D fighter inspiration rather than a formula of weapon distinction lmao. Pretty certain you want magic classes to have 2D/3D fighter combat options as well.
It's lacking in an RPG lean.
edit: by the way it was pretty clear you were 2d/3d fighter "inspired" from your OP
Yes, and I think it is a superior system- and it wouldn't have to ignore any of those rpg aspects, since you can still have a combat system balanced by "tier" to form that progression system, represented by the traditional rpg stat driven mechanics, and balanced as a part of the overall system of course.
I think you can have a healthy mix of both- where the skill gap of the balanced combat can at least make up for a portion of the unbalanced classes or rock/paper/scissors archetype design. Allowing the strategic class choices and the skill in combat to have an important weight in the players' results.
It does though, its just isn't immediately obvious. Through stat manipulation and movesets- you have tank, dps, and support builds with overlap betwen each other similar to what Ashes dual archetype system creates
Where is the fucking RPG. I'm not responding to you anymore.
That example was purely in response to your comment "Name a strategic class choice."
Obviously there is other rpg elements you can have outside of just strategic role choice with your archetype. You have the progression and role playing element and all the other features inside Ashes that add to the rpg experience. What else do you need to the point where a "strategic class choice" is a deal breaker compared to a traditional rpg combat role lol.
You want weapons to have viability for the same roles of offense, defense, unreactability, unpredictability, maximum control and player-freedom "(such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)" and to have auto-attacks have the same role.
In this way each weapon has functions that are the same. I know that there would be variations. Given they are viable for each role they will be similar though.
The issue is clear: they can perform in every role. This diminishes the meaning of "role" and "role-playing". Every weapon should have a niche.
The game should start from RPG and compromise on the competitive 3D fighter aspect of it. Deeper combat should exist as elaborations of each weapon's niche; but you're a perfectionist unwilling to compromise.
This is not a political [rhetorical] or logical exercise.
Yes it boils down to preference; but it's an MMORPG at its premise. Not a 3D fighter. If I went onto a Dragonball Z MMO forum and started talking about RPG elements I would be the odd one out, unloading my RPG bootstrap onto others.
"In this way each weapon has functions that are the same. I know that there would be variations. Given they are viable for each role they will be similar though.
The issue is clear: they can perform in every role. This diminishes the meaning of "role" and "role-playing". Every weapon should have a niche."
This is an oversimplification. Thats like saying me and you are the same thing because we are both made of atoms. Of course when you boil something down enough it is going to look more similar, there is nothing inherently wrong with the "weapons performing the same roles" when you have to boil it down to such a basic level in order to make that comparison.
I believe that the 3d combat system where you have the basic tools for different combat scenarios makes for the most dynamic gameplay, and this outweighs any type of "gameplay" you would get from starting with arbitrary rules of "weapon roles" in terms of the ability to perform extremely basic combat functions.
At that point gameplay fun outweighs the "roleplay" aspect for me at least, and that is only at that overly basic level, because I have explained that as you zoom out and look at the different combat interactions that can take place, you can still have extremely varied weapon roles within that system through varied combinations of spacings/timings/and risk/reward ratios for the different weapons, to provide more than enough role play within the combat system.
I think that is a completely fair stance to take considering the combat is supposed to represent the most fun and prevelant "gameplay" for those who prioritize that in an mmo. There are plenty of other avenues within the game to get the role play fix, if that weapon variety within my system for whatever reason would still not be enough for you.
And regardles of whether you want to argue that this "blurrs the generes" it doesn't really matter if it results in more fun for all people, as I explained how their are systems in place to provide different players with different avenues to get the exlerience they want, in which case the "fun gameplay" seekers gravitate towards the combat system, so that gameplay should be prioritized over the role-play aspect- (should you require boiling it down to such a level to make that comparison and force people to take sides) for that specific game system.
Use the sledgehammer on rock elementals. Use the axe on tree monsters. Use the dagger on people.
If you want to kill rock elementals with a dagger, get an enchant for flat dmg bonus against rock elementals. call it "ley cutter" enchant.
You are completely unwilling to compromise on your 3D fighter dream.
1. I am not being "unwilling to compromise" and dismissive though. Its actually kinda the other way around. I am not saying it has to be "only 3d fighter" wheras you are saying it has to "only be rpg". I am willing to have a mixture wheras you are not. There is nothing wrong with combining elements of different genres, and you yourself have advocated for that in your other threads, so using the genre as a barrier for my ideas is not a valid argument coming from you. If its about the ratio or percentage of content from different genres then thats another more acceptable argument, but not the stance you are currently taking. If intrepid took your advice then we wouldn't have ashes, as it pulls from so many different ideas accrossed genre, so that is such a moot point you are making.
2. No matter what the idea is you can look at it and say "but it isn't role play" and I think that is a flawed argument, because you can have content for all types of players. The point is, its okay to have content that is not genre specific, as long as you have enough of the content people expect from the genre they are playing. By starting off with an arbitrary constrain that everything different from the genre is bad because "it could have been role play", is limiting players from having the option to have different types of experiences, as long as there is enough content for each. I have provided sooooo many example examples of rpg elements and role playing you could have in the game, so rpg elements and role play is not lacking- but you know what is unnessecarily lacking within in your framework? The type of gameplay I was suggesting.
3. Just because I think it would be justified to choose to have 3d fighting elements instead of potential role play elements, does not mean that its necessary to do that. You can have both 3d fighting and rpg elements coexist. Just because I think the combat system should follow that set of criteria does not mean that each individual weapon has to meet all of those criteria. The weapons are just cogs within the system. If you so choose you could design it in a way that would allow for as defined of "jobs" as you would like for each weapon, and just provide access to enough weapons at a time, in order for the totality of those jobs to meet the criteria of the overall combat system design. I also stated that archetypes and the trinity could be designed to provide advantageous and disadvantageous matchups to give strategic layer outside of the combat itself, to add even more and tangible role play elements. I said that the strategic role choices, team composition, and other comletitive pokemon-like elements could be weighted against the skill required in the 3d combat system- so that each simultaneously contributes a percentage of impact in determining the resulting winner in battle.
4. Fun may be subjective to a certain extent yes, but my idea of fun is no less important than anyone elses. Choosing to limit players to only certain specific types of fun experiences because "genre" is just arbitrary when you could include enough for everyone. Except that to a certain extent fun can be measured and reproduced to be less subjective, in which case their could be argumenets made for why one idea is more fun than the other, and I have went into certain examples of that already.
I don't think Ashes combines a lot of anything at this point but we will see.
I am not going to read past #2