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.
For Those Who Want Active Blocking...
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Are you for, or against, 'blockstun'?
I realized that my opinions about active blocking in an MMO are based around the concept that there would be blockstun on it. But this would mean that a blocking player could either be stunlocked or forced to take damage.
However, active blocking in a PvP situation tends to get very weird when there is no blockstun, and it would probably look both confusing and terrible, because flicker-block is functionally a type of animation cancel even if you can't start blocking while doing something else. If you only need to be blocking on the frames where the game could register a hit, you can flicker it.
If you only need to be blocking on ONE of the frames where the game could register a hit, you could plink-block even if blocking itself has a recovery time.
But we saw the game being quite fast in the basic melee weapon attack thing. I don't know if Intrepid will let you block basic attacks, but that's just a random thing thrown in.
If you are in support of Active Block, do you want 'blockstun', 'long recovery from block animations', or 'flicker-block'? Please add any opinions on whether or not most characters should be able to move while in block stance.
I realized that my opinions about active blocking in an MMO are based around the concept that there would be blockstun on it. But this would mean that a blocking player could either be stunlocked or forced to take damage.
However, active blocking in a PvP situation tends to get very weird when there is no blockstun, and it would probably look both confusing and terrible, because flicker-block is functionally a type of animation cancel even if you can't start blocking while doing something else. If you only need to be blocking on the frames where the game could register a hit, you can flicker it.
If you only need to be blocking on ONE of the frames where the game could register a hit, you could plink-block even if blocking itself has a recovery time.
But we saw the game being quite fast in the basic melee weapon attack thing. I don't know if Intrepid will let you block basic attacks, but that's just a random thing thrown in.
If you are in support of Active Block, do you want 'blockstun', 'long recovery from block animations', or 'flicker-block'? Please add any opinions on whether or not most characters should be able to move while in block stance.
♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
0
Comments
Personally, I don't care too much how blocking is done, and I'd be hard pressed to have much of an opinion without spending a good amount of time actually playing the game. Some games have active blocking that's a lot of fun; some have nothing more than passive blocking and are still a lot of fun; it all depends on how blocking meshes with the entirety of the combat system.
There also seem to be options beyond what you've described for how to do blocking. Maybe this is what you mean when you say "forced to take damage", but in some games, blocking only reduces damage rather than making the blocker completely invulnerable while blocking. There's also a lot to consider with how blocking interacts with resource management. Some games don't have a stun break that you can do against a blocker but do have reduced resource regeneration while blocking so that the blocker can't simply shell up forever.
Flicker-block refers to manipulating netcode to hide your intentions from your opponent. You press block for a small number of frames (usually 2) and then release and move your character and then start an attack. The opponent sees you start blocking due to ping, and any visual reactions they have are 'tricked'. By the time they realize 'you were attacking, not blocking', the attack is already happening.
Plink-block refers to 'just tapping block for one frame before you attack'. In some games, this would cause a situation where you were actually blocking on that one frame (and therefore get the bonus for blocking even if your opponent's attack has multiple active frames) but the system never really 'cares' about it and doesn't limit you, making it an 'animation cancel', except that it probably doesn't even start the blocking animation, and therefore never puts you in block recovery.
You blocked, but never dealt with any of the recovery of blocking. This isn't guaranteed, but designing around it in an MMO tends to lead to some extremely frustrating/spotty situations. Usually a game is either 'very rigid', 'allows flicker-block' or 'allows plink-block'. So I'm asking which one people prefer.
Hope that clarifies it.
I don’t agree on there being cooldowns to active block. Then it wouldn’t be active block, just an ability on a different keybind. Animation canceling is a skill like any other, I don’t see an issue with letting players fake each other out. It’s not different than a rogue misleading players as to their location using smart positioning and clever movement.
That said, having some level of functionality to shields for "active blocking", like an associated shield skill that they have to hold which blocks X% amount damage in a cone in front of them - that could work. I just don't think active blocking is appropriate for this size game.
....plus, from playing tank in NW, amongst others, active blocking means you spend 60%+ of the time as a "raid tank" just holding right click and hoping your stamina doesn't deplete; not very fun gameplay
Founder and Guild Leader of -Providence-
Ive also seen opinions about a block meter that is short and recharges slowly. This encourages you not to hold the block button when you don't need to.
"flicker block" or "block stun" depends on how blocking is used in combat, but im leaning more on block stun. slower is better.
And in that context I'd like to see a system that tracks which part of the attacker's ability "hit" you in the block.
For tab target stuff, if you had the block up before the attacker started casting and still you still had it up when the attack landed - you lose 80% of mana relative to the dmg you would've received (if you managed to flick the block on both frames, awesome, but you still lose the 80%). If you only reacted to the cast and blocked during it, you lose 30% mana. Obviously you receive 20 and 70 percent of the damage respectively.
For action/aoe abilities that hit your block, you lose 50%.
The passive for blocking could reduce mana usage, increase dmg mitigation per mana unit and, maybe, as the third lvl of the ability have a counter attack if you blocked an action or last part of a tab skill. This passive ability would probably have to be one of the most expensive passives in the skillset, so that people would have to make a conscious choice between being a blocker or being an attacker.
Imo this kind of system would increase mana play complexity, would make you rely on your partymates (I'm assuming we'll have mana restoration on one of the archetypes), while still allowing for the high skill "animation cancelling" gameplay in the form of plinks that not only predict enemy action (in case of the "full block" of tab attacks) but also perfectly catch the attacker's skill effect right on its frame.
As for the stun part, I'd personally be against it (considering that we'll have knockback while blocking), but could be persuaded otherwise during testing.
It depends a lot on the rest of the mechanics/functionality of active blocking.
if we use the active block shown in the melee combat video
(No cooldown, no fixed duration and ~50% dmg reduction)
I Believe something like blockstun would be required to balance it out.
But if we take the same active block and add cooldown and duration(like the active dodge) blockstun becomes unecessary.
Aren't we all sinners?
I'm feeling like this is a 'joke' but most of the time that's really what you need, right?
I think that's part of the reason why so many games just make it a stance. You're just gonna be 'holding block' anyway. I don't think that's how it should work for a PvX game, but I'm good at both 'tapping block on the right frame and then attacking' and 'animation cancels'.
However they have said that there will not be a reliance on animation cancels, so we'd have to see if Active block has any exceptions to it.
Flicker block- yes
The game should focus on more than just getting punishes on reaction. If things are too reaction based its going to slow the pacing down and become very passive, waiting for your opponent to act first so you can input your punish. You should have ways of throwing off your opponents reaction time in order to promote proactive gameplay. It also removes a lot of the depth because you dont really have to manage different potential situations and risk/reward scenarios, because you can just react to what they do and directly counter it, which isn't very fun imo.
Plink block- no, (except for on parry, that would be fine)- however for regular block, if there are multiple frames of an incoming attack (multi-hit), then it should auto-lock you in block long enough to react and re-activate block to defend against the rest of the multi-hit
Block stun- depends
If block stun is too excessive then block can become more more of a liability which will discourage it from being used. You shouldn't be automatically punished for blocking unless there is simply no direct counter to it- it should be more about managing your block. As things are now, it seems like there isn't really a direct counter to it because of a lack of grab, unless they choose to have block be more about damage mitigation, or choose to have basic attacks or other moves "break block"
- I don't think block stun in neccesarily inherently bad, it just can be abused if not tuned right. It should be a tool for balancing different moves to allow for aggression against a blocking opponenet to be safe in certain situations, but it shouldn't be extreme to the point where its constantly unsafe to block because of the stunlock leading to punishment (unless that particular option is meant to counter block)
Damage on block- depends
The problem with relying on this as the means for countering block, is that it makes ranged attacks very powerful if its a flat damage bonus, because of the constant chip damage. If should they choose to do this the damage should be curved to account for having to block to get in range to use shorter ranged weapons.
I think it should be more of a deliberate process that you have to manage in order to counter survivability options such as blocking, rather than just automatically countering them through simply using your attacks to where the opponent down. I think that waters down the defensive/offensive dynamic. I think that in the combat system should encourage aggressive play more organically rsther than directly- by having the block be 100% effective (or at least the potential to be through class choice) and making them manage that block through stamina.
Basic attack counters block- no
The problem with this is the same as the damage on block, different basic attacks will have different ranges (assuming different weapons have different basic attacks)- this will make the longer-reaching weapons way more op, by making it way harder to use block as one of your methods for closing distance to get in range to use a shorter-ranged weapon.
Additional block features:
Parry window- yes
This will reward timing, especially when paired with block flickering which is good for the skill gap and promotes faster pacing. It would need to be tuned to prevent spamming block flicker to get a parry against any form of offense, it should require good timing by having a reasonable amount of time between parry attempts.
Block stamina- yes absolutely
This would be the best way of forcing proactive aggressive gameplay, but rewarding players who manage their defensive options, rather than directly punishing the use of them. This would also serve as a direct counterplay to blocking by wearing down their stamina- rather than having the counter to block be based on a specific move, which can lead to imbalanced moves and forcing different playstyles around said move to be effective.
Move while blocking- yes
Options all have their strengths and weaknesses inherently, that shouldn't affect the player's management and freedom to use said options. If you can have the ability to use movement to manage your spacing while using your different options, then it would be beneficial to the gameplay.
TLDR
Ideally I think the best way to handle active block would be to allow for full effectiveness but tie it to a stamina bar. I think this will allow for the fun interplay between managing defense/offense without overly punish the use of blocking- all while still encouraging aggressive pacing because of your limited defensive capability that you have to manage.
This would be supplemented by allowing for flicker block, parry, and the ability to move while blocking.
There should only enough block stun if its neccessary to balance offensive and defensive options through lowering the risk of each. This would be based on the specific properties of a given move used on block. Block stun should not allow for specific counters to block because that would be done through stamina management in this context. "Holding block" would be fun because of the management aspects of mixing up your timings for parry chance and flicker blocking, managing your stamina, and adjusting your postitioning during block- while allowing for balance between different attacks and promoting proactive play
Regarding abusing netcode flicker-strike - I have no personal experience here so a few questions:
- Is it frustrating when opponents do this, or do players accept it as part of the mechanics of combat?
- Does it effectively function as a true feint? I feel like half of the game is already about pre-empting your opponent's thinking, so wondering how much of a difference it makes?
I personally am not annoyed by it, but you must always remember I'm a fighting game player and this is par for the course there so much that it's almost impossible for me to think of it as a problem.
Also I'm about as mechanically good as one needs to be to consistently flicker-block in most games that allow it, so I am obviously used to playing with people who also learn to deal with it mostly because they can practice against me.
The main thing I think is a concern here is that if all classes have active blocking, and all classes therefore can flicker, it's technically an animation cancel, right?
But because GENERALLY a flicker-block is a feint, not 'something that is used to exploit to get damage', and doesn't work in PvE, I don't think it matters.
That said, against some ability types, it IS a real feint if blocking has no recovery (blockstun being separate, where you have at least some recovery because you actually blocked something), particularly Ranger ones like 'Rain of Arrows' or abilities that can be charged by holding an attack button. I wouldn't say anything that I've seen so far made me think of it except maybe Cleric's Javelin, but I thought about this partially because of just how much Ranger classes are usually affected by it.
I also wanted to use a different non-FGC term for plink-blocking but I couldn't think of one that wasn't slightly misleading (if anyone has experience with a term I'd appreciate it).
I don't expect to 'slip up' in references, but JUST in case I do or one of my group does, the related terms (for the flicker one) are 'Kara Cancel' and 'KC-block' or 'Kara Block'.
Plink is short for 'Piano-link' and I can't think of an equivalent word, as noted, but it's not the same as what people call 'Piano-ing' because it refers to a specific effect of using the technique, not the technique itself, which is why it's used that way.
Hope that clarifies anything.
However, I want a percentage of automatic block/parry chance for mobs basic attacks.
One way to balance this could be that by blocking you send shield skills (a bash, a pushback etc) into a cooldown, forcing you to be sparse with them depending on the encounter.
We might be able to Active Block with any weapon, though, and then shield skills would matter less, any opinion there?
Also, since some may be unfamiliar with exactly how different classes block in Tera, can you clarify? I never played Berserker but afaik their Block is just infinite, or was for a while.
Lancer, I'm familiar with, but I don't want to make any assumptions since the game changed, and either I (technically my friend) or you, might have played at different times. My familiarity is mostly with Brawler when it comes to blocking.
Is Berserker block similarly animation-cancelable consistently? I don't know if you can move right after releasing block or not.
Both Lancers and Berserkers had infinite block. You couldn't move whilst blocking and it was active only as long as you held the right mouse button down. It also of course only blocked attacks from the front, so you'll have videos of people getting hit from behind the shield by larger bosses.
This created a bit of an issue with certain people as character hitbox mattered a lot, leaving people to being forced to pick certain races if they wanted to minmax being a tank.
I'm pretty sure Lancer could animation cancel with blocks as did Berserkers.
Here's a video about block cancelling (in french but should be clear enough):
In later iterations, blocking would drain your MP with every attack blocked (with stronger attacks draining more of it), potentially leaving you unable to use skills for a time.
You also make a fair point regarding shield skills when you have active block for all weapon classes. However I would then posit that perhaps that should be changed to a dodge roll like Slayers or Warriors (when they weren't tanks) had in Tera. Basically melee DPS get a roll with short I-Frames and tanks (Lancer and Berserkers) get an active block.
1. I'm sort of following, but just to make sure, did you mean that this would actually be by weapon instead?
If not, any other change points?
2. Tera's various block stuff was very animation-cancel heavy, so there's also that to consider relative to what we've been told so far about Ashes, the video does a good job of explaining that (for various reasons I can at least READ French, and as you said, it's simple, so anyone else who wants a primer should just watch that briefly).
3. MP Cost on Initiation would balance either flicker-block or plink-block, but obviously lots of people would use (whichever we got) anyway and it would still be a question of 'which one is preferred', if they didn't just use Blockstun.
A simple way around that is to allow the block to interrupt other lower priority actions, but have the "leaving blocking" animation not be avoidable. This could be a .5 to 1.0 second animation. Essentially if you decide to block, your stuck with blocking for at least that amount of time.
Slower movement while blocking is preferable to being rooted while blocking
I know they are leaning away from animation cancel style, but it can be one of the healthiest things you can add to combat.
One main reason that different combat systems get boring is when it is much safer to wait for the opponent to move, react and punish their choice- compared to being encouraged to initiate combat.
This can be caused by relying too much on offensive options that are telegraphed- which lets the opponent choose and time their punishes much easier. Having the ability to cancel different moves into different aggressive options allows for the ability to make your offensive options more ambiguous and mix up your timing, which promotes good pacing in combat, and adds to the depth.
It would encourage good pacing by making potentially making it tougher to react to the timing, which puts more emphasis on prediction and adaptation, which rewards being proactive instead of reactive. It adds to depth by having to deal with the ambiguity by making good decisions to counter potential options.
You might say that it can cause issues of people never wanting to commit to an option making it even more campy, or you might say the lack of commitment eliminates risk and decreases depth. These would both be untrue because of the following reasons:
Even amongst full animation canceling freedom,
having faster pacing where different offensive tools are unreactable, rewards commitment to your moves over non-commital animation cancel spamming- simply because when you can reach the opponent in time, it is better to be the one hitting the opponent than doing the one doing nothing (because they canceled out of it), and they don't have time to counter on reaction in that scenario.
The built-in strengths and weakness of each move gives inherent risk to deciding to commit to a given move in a given situation, based on the opponents move they decide to counter with.
So overall you still would have to manage the risk/reward of each move, but have more control over how you do that by having more freedom to manipulate your distance and timing at any given moment, which adds depth and promotes good pacing.
Hit by stun --> reduced by amount of Effort that is stored. Stun consumes Effort given certain threshold.
Camera is cursor locked. Shield blocks in a wide cone, more coverage on side of shield. Wide cone moves slightly to the direction that one is blocking. Size of shield affects this. Size of character also has an impact since cone starts on edge of character.
No block-stun but enemies have 'inertia' to their hits so there is some effect like block-stun but that is CC from their attack (no CC or negligable from weaker attacks/ stronger tank). Timing window is based on whether Shield-user is recovering from the previous hit still and how far along they are (more easily 'pushed over', 'knocked back', and damaged the further from 100% ready to block they are). Chance to block lower when further from 100% ready to block.
Hold Mouse button Shield is on. Blocking. Hold Shift to use Effort on next clicked move such as Block or on Block if already Blocking: after .2 seconds.
Block stays up for .166 seconds after letting go of said Mouse button.
Efforts are used up by blocking but is more like a value that is consumed differently by different attacks; over a certain value the Effort is consumed. Based on physicality of the hit (inertia, knock-back). Effort consumed partway through its effective enhancement to blocking (UI changes, but that Enhanced Blocking meter is still being consumed).
Max 2 Efforts 'stored'. Max 3 additional Efforts per second, updated 'window' every .166 seconds.
Use of Effort accrues Exhaustion. Relates to Stamina. More of a 1 - 5 minute cycle, 7 or 8 minute cycle for high Stamina Tanks. tanks = stamina.
Recovery is constant rate. Rate Ramps up over 2.5 seconds of not using or generating Effort if high Stam; 11 seconds if low Stam. 30% Recovery while using and generating Effort
Have movement stay going for .2 after holding Movement Button for over .25 seconds. Tap opposite direction to cancel.
Movement is Inertia based. Attributes and various physical parameters apply.
Effort increases movement speed but doesn't consume it, instead movement slows max Effort generation per second to 2. Hold Shift while moving to consume an Effort every .3 seconds for increased speed for .9 second. Hold Shift while standing still with an effort built up to Move Quickly once you start moving.
Takes .2 seconds for Hold Shift to begin taking effect on moves and movement.
That's my pitch.
Yeah, for this reason I'm not truly expecting "flicker-block" in Ashes, but I do like the idea.
Animation cancelling mechanics would make the skill ceiling/learning curve higher/steeper for those who are unfamiliar - which is good, but many people have expressed that they don't want to deal with animation cancelling (usually people who want a slower pace of combat). So I don't think it's a hill to die on.
The big holes that people poke in active blocking is its just not good in group PvE. Sure, action combat RPG with small engagements, its fine. This is not the case for AoC. Too much emphasis and importance on a single class(and single weapon type: shield)
Founder and Guild Leader of -Providence-
The system above only works with directional attacks because you would have 0% block behind and anywhere else you remove the block to mitigate frontal attacks. It's excellent in pve and pvp. We don't have directional attacks in Ashes though so we are left with the crapper styles of blocking.
Its just about designing around the mechanic and tuning it to give the desired experience. Really the only question that needs to be asked is whether you want to have more active skill-based mechanics or not, then you design around that. There is no reason "a huge shield in pvp" or "a sweeping motion that can hit everyone" should be an inherent issue unless they just don't design and tune around it.
Plenty of ways to deal with these kinds if designs. If you want balance and aggression, provide players with offensive tools that can deal with big shields. If you want to change the required amount of people/classes for dealing with different tools, then split up that counterplay between different classes/multiple players or concentrate them into a single class/player. If you want it to be several tanks required for a big boss, make several tanks neccessary to block that sweeping motion to protect players behind them- or if you want one tank to be effective then empower that active block to de-activate the boss hitbox so the sweeping motion doesn't hurt the players once its been blocked.
You just have to broaden your outlook when designing then look for more specific solutions from there- instead of first looking at surface level issue and having that pigeon hole your design- because this limited perspective may lead to you thinking that making the game more fun would result in it "not working".
Age of Conan style then?
Considering the speed of Ashes' attacks, what if they were actually directional, at least conal?
Most games with this type of combat can, and do, manage conal shielding, and you could then control the cone. The issue being that most methods for controlling cones makes one of the two 'animation canceled' blocking options more popular.
But not 'necessary'. So you could get that and still have blockstun if you want that as part of the focused stances?
This is an odd sort of concern and I don’t see where you’re making those assumptions
1) Bosses will require a large group due to having exponentially more health than any player character, and significantly more damage options (from minor DoTs to debuffs to one-shots)
2) We already know “one” tank can survive a single boss’s attacks for a good long while due to having, again, 40+ other players helping them outlast it with healing, buffs, and mitigation in addition to their own
3) Ashes is balancing for group play, not solo 1v1s. A tank’s role is to survive upfront burst, so it’s working as intended when they can survive upfront burst from other players, and not just a boss monster. Sustained damage and resource drain is how you beat a tank, not just Big Number.
4) How does this place emphasis on a particular weapon? Active shielding, as far as it’s being discussed here, is an action anyone can take using any weapon that costs a resource. Obviously a full shield would be most optimal in mitigation values and efficiency, but you can block attacks with magic wards and swords to a lesser degree as well
The problem with this is 'the way netcode works' in general.
For flicker-blocking to not be POSSIBLE, then blocking itself must have a cooldown or a 'duration while you are in block stance' of at least 6 frames for most players in the same region to not experience it in a way that works like a flicker block, in the netcode models standardly available (Ashes may have something different, but netcode models don't have a 'perfect form', just different forms with competing priorities).
Without going too deeply into it, the general outcome of 'a block minimum duration of less than 6 frames' is:
"Player A enters block, data is sent to server, then to player B to show that Player A has entered block, with about 64ms (4 frames) between them." - Player B's client might instantly show the block, but if the data is even slightly delayed, on Player A's side, they have stopped blocking and are now moving (probably movement startup will matter here, but it depends on what movement skills are available, and the last thing we saw was a 5 Frame startup full movement dash from Fighter)
This would mean that it was POSSIBLE in a specific situation for you to be 'looking at your opponent blocking' and that opponent (on their client) already BE BEHIND YOU (this would be simple to balance out, I'm just making the point generally).
This is a massive oversimplification of course, but the reason I give this one, is because MMOs have not traditionally been able to use the non-simplified versions of this netcode due to the number of players involved. I believe you're familiar ENOUGH with this for me to not need to explain 'why even a breakthrough to make a multi-entity game able to use the complex version would present a different problem', but I'm not sure, so let me know (~shakes fist at BDO Red Battlefield~).
tl;dr - This type of Animation Cancel is MORESO about 'taking advantage of ping/stutter' than 'demonstrating meaningful skill' because the effect on the opponent varies by that more than by combat ability/awareness.
Is that right?
No, I'm not fully following - but I'll take a guess: I assume "the complex version" is referring to rollback netcode? Which would cause huge rubberbanding with multiple entities?