I don't view tab mechanics being hardcore where you can't add a player needing to track and land the hits and be able to react and dodge them consistently.
Yeah, I meant that action combat combined with all the tab complexity would already become hardcore. But I'd personally want it to go even further.
Action combat adds a lot of depth with needing to land your attacks, dodge, react, etc. I don't understand how you can say it doesn't add depth unless i misread something? Needing to face who you are fighting and have some focus on them while being able to handle and dodge other things coming your way adds a lot of skill. Especially when the comparison is where you can hit tab(including enemies off screen), press your skill and it lands on them. That is not difficult for anyone to do, and had no skill element to it. Only example given where it requires some actual element of tracking is your example if they are being retargeted every few seconds. But I'd need to play to be able to fully judge it how much down time it is creating.
I meant it comparatively to what I'd like to play. Yes, counter play in action mmos is definitely more prevalent than in tab ones, purely because you have more ways to utilize it. Tab games might provide you with a few abilities to counter your enemy's moves, while the whole point of action games is to constantly counter your opponent's moves.
But what I want is more verticality in combat. The Absolver gameplay seems close to what I'm talking about. There's high/mid/low strikes and counters to all of those (or at least vertically segmented defenses). It's pretty much a proper 3d fighting game, by the looks of it.
And, imo, compared to the potential depth of that kind of game, plain action games like NW, BDO or LA are so fucking easy they're not even worth mentioning. If they had complex ability interdependencies from tab games they'd definitely be closer to the hardcoreness that I'd like, but they would still just be "2d" games imo.
It's pretty much the same as your comparison of SC to other 2d fighters. You liked SC because it gave you more depth with that 3rd dimension. I want the same for action games, but I believe (and Azherae and others seem to agree) that the game that I want would be barely played, because its complexity would be waaaay too fucking high for any normal person. You seem to agree with that too, considering you don't want those kinds of complexities added to the game.
Old games aside like i said people have made points that games can't do it and developers won't do it yet AoC is allowing players to do 75% action or tab. So I'm curious what you have to say to that element NiKr.
I'd need to see how exactly they're planning on doing that. And I haven't played GW2, which seems to be the closest to AoC in combat design, so I got no clue what Intrepid could even do.
But no matter what they go for, it'll definitely be way less hardcore than what I'd prefer. I'm fine with that though, mainly because I want the game to succeed and not just be smth that only I would play.
Long story short it has to be steps at a time, or that is the most safe way to do it. And designs are created and are or are not successful it will help give more answers on creating content with he versatility you want to try.
Ya we all have to see how it will work so I'm looking forward to it to really dissect things.
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
Actually I think you might just have got tangled up in the argument again, so let's untangle.
1. I know AoC will combine Action and Tab.
2. I know that they will probably make Action much easier than actually difficult Action Games, and that it will therefore be less 'far' from Tab Target than those games (Absolver)
3. I believe that Noaani has correctly argued in the past that you would have to replace some of the Tactical Thinking difficulty if you wanted to have more Action Difficulty in A Raid Setting.
Neither you nor I would like for that to happen, and the 'cost' will be less TACTICALLY complex raids, with additional complexity based on physical skills of a decent level (below what NiKr would want, for example).
I was saying the same thing as you. Developers will only add the easier or 'fake' parts of 'Action Combat' if they want to keep complex battles, and this will be good because it will mean that Tab Target players will be effective too.
@NiKr, this is the reason I have the concern about the Fighter speed. That dash is not 'fake'. If you are 'required to use that' at a skill level anywhere near Absolver/Melty/Genshin, it will be rough for a lot of people. Imagine a scenario like this:
"Boss winds up for an attack with 20f startup that causes an AoE smash knockdown around them, but either recovers or does a second 40f explosion attack almost immediately if the boss is hit by any melee attack during that time."
The Fighter must see this attack start, react by backdashing out of the way to avoid being knocked down, and then IF the Fighter is confident that no one else hit it with a Melee attack 'during the animation' as a 'trade' (for example a Tank might be able to resist the knockdown), to optimize their DPS they should dash again immediately back into the enemy and attack.
Because it's a free window for using a bigger damage attack than the Fighter can normally get. Let's say the Boss goes into a blocking stance or a counter-block stance for a moment, about 30f after that AoE knockdown.
So the Fighter player must 'see and react to the AoE', 'react to whether or not they think any Melee Allies did NOT react to the AoE (and stop their own attack to prevent the explosion part), instantly dash back in if they did not, and activate a move with exactly enough startup to hit before the Counter-Block state.
In the game type I am used to, the boss would be able to do this AoE attack back to back. If the Fighter's best option for hitting in the gap is on cooldown, they must now decide which option is best. The previous two decisions also change.
In a 'truly challenging raid' of the level I am used to, this would NOT be optional. Similar to the Lost Ark thing. Either you can execute this, or you will lose the raid (let's assume that the Counter from the Counter-Block stance hits VERY hard).
If you react to the Knockdown 3-4 frames late, you fall.
If you react to 'someone hitting the boss during the knockdown' 3-4 frames late, you get hit by the explosion while in an offensive/recovery state.
If you react too late to 'no one actually hit the boss' and dash in and attack, and CounterStance is up, you DIE outright.
If you choose an alternative move that has too slow a startup because you are under an 'attack speed' debuff' from one of the boss' other previous abilities, and Counterstance is up, you DIE outright.
If you lost track of 'the attack speed buff your Bard was giving and it wears off and you choose a move that only works if you have that buff, you hit Counterstance, you DIE outright'.
If you don't turn correctly in time because the boss' AoE knockdown is actually a short charge with a pushback and you were slightly off position (because a Fighter should be at the side of this boss to prevent being caught in the longer 'forward line' of the attack) and you end up having to spend 2 more frames turning to make sure your ability hits properly... oops, Counterstance. you DIE outright.
The above is a description of Monster Hunter (no specific monster that I can think of, it's just a similar feeling).
Whew... ok, so now to put that back in perspective of the question...
"By making the Fighter's Dash so far, so fast, etc, it allows them to make this design type the top level of play, and anyone who cannot do it should theoretically lose the raid or at least have to reset everything else to revive whichever Fighter can't do it."
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
Honestly to get a better understanding on this rather than talking about things can't be done because of max decisions or something saying it will take complex elements away. It is better to have a discussion on what element of action combat and what level would it have to be that it takes awake from complex mechanics. And what point does it add more depth to the overall gameplay without removing the mmorpg feel.
Dodging is just something I like it adds more complexity to pvp and has more push and pull and having mobility to your moves. Though being a mmorpg if we are going to be talking about PvE content there needs to be a limit on how much you can get away from and some stability of damage you are taking needing to rely on gear, buffs, team work, etc. But also if things are being made more easy on that front, it isn't something you can approach int he same way as before and other elements are needed to further up the difficulty in both skill and mechanical elements of the content.
Personally I don't like the instant wipes akin to lost ark, or needing to be frame perfect or you lose. It feels a bit of out of place in a mmorpg but this is just imo. Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement. That would start to be dialed more towards the action side. This doesn't mean there can't be some content or points like that in raids, etc as i believe there should be a vast amount of mechanics and lose conditions in place to keep things mixed up.
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
Honestly to get a better understanding on this rather than talking about things can't be done because of max decisions or something saying it will take complex elements away. It is better to have a discussion on what element of action combat and what level would it have to be that it takes awake from complex mechanics. And what point does it add more depth to the overall gameplay without removing the mmorpg feel.
Dodging is just something I like it adds more complexity to pvp and has more push and pull and having mobility to your moves. Though being a mmorpg if we are going to be talking about PvE content there needs to be a limit on how much you can get away from and some stability of damage you are taking needing to rely on gear, buffs, team work, etc. But also if things are being made more easy on that front, it isn't something you can approach int he same way as before and other elements are needed to further up the difficulty in both skill and mechanical elements of the content.
Personally I don't like the instant wipes akin to lost ark, or needing to be frame perfect or you lose. It feels a bit of out of place in a mmorpg but this is just imo. Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement. That would start to be dialed more towards the action side. This doesn't mean there can't be some content or points like that in raids, etc as i believe there should be a vast amount of mechanics and lose conditions in place to keep things mixed up.
And this is why I say, you don't even need to argue. You don't want 'top Tier Action Combat Difficulty'.
"Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement."
This is the definition of Top Tier Action Combat Raid Difficulty.
This is what Top Tier Action Raid players might define as a 'Hard Fight'.
Your definition is different. Noaani's definition is even more different.
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
Honestly to get a better understanding on this rather than talking about things can't be done because of max decisions or something saying it will take complex elements away. It is better to have a discussion on what element of action combat and what level would it have to be that it takes awake from complex mechanics. And what point does it add more depth to the overall gameplay without removing the mmorpg feel.
Dodging is just something I like it adds more complexity to pvp and has more push and pull and having mobility to your moves. Though being a mmorpg if we are going to be talking about PvE content there needs to be a limit on how much you can get away from and some stability of damage you are taking needing to rely on gear, buffs, team work, etc. But also if things are being made more easy on that front, it isn't something you can approach int he same way as before and other elements are needed to further up the difficulty in both skill and mechanical elements of the content.
Personally I don't like the instant wipes akin to lost ark, or needing to be frame perfect or you lose. It feels a bit of out of place in a mmorpg but this is just imo. Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement. That would start to be dialed more towards the action side. This doesn't mean there can't be some content or points like that in raids, etc as i believe there should be a vast amount of mechanics and lose conditions in place to keep things mixed up.
And this is why I say, you don't even need to argue. You don't want 'top Tier Action Combat Difficulty'.
"Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement."
This is the definition of Top Tier Action Combat Raid Difficulty.
This is what Top Tier Action Raid players might define as a 'Hard Fight'.
Your definition is different. Noaani's definition is even more different.
That is because this is a mmorpg I don't view action and mmorpg action combat as the same.
"By making the Fighter's Dash so far, so fast, etc, it allows them to make this design type the top level of play, and anyone who cannot do it should theoretically lose the raid or at least have to reset everything else to revive whichever Fighter can't do it."
There's a small chance that the dash was doubled in that showcase because it had its cd turned off. Just like the shadowey green dash from the weather showcase didn't have one. This would make your interaction way easier because the fighter would only need to react to the initial animation. Now they could obviously have another gapcloser, so there's that too.
But as you said in the following post, this is not really complex but just a bit difficult. For me, that kind of interaction is close to my L2's mages combo of "remove the dagger's target, blink in while they're confused, use a stun blink (that warped you backwards) to try and stun them, all while they're still lost after the detargeting". I had to keep my distance cause having a rogue near you usually meant death, but outside of the stun blink I didn't have any hard CCs so I'd need to catch moments where I could try using it. Both blinks were action abilities and relied on where your character was facing (and as I said before, turn rate was somewhat slow). And depending on the situation I might've wanted to redirect myself to get to a more beneficial position.
Here's at 0:58 and onwards you can see the player making these dashes to catch up to the enemy. And you could cut down on turn frames a bit (his are a bit sloppy), so you could just click the ground behind your char and almost immediately use the backwards blink. I'm sure I could've learned the frames of the turns and all that, but I mainly just did it by feel https://youtu.be/p58LvAERuEs?t=58
So if AoC's fighter dash was just a backdash, I'd imagine that the fighter would have to do the actions you described, but also add a 180 turn after the first dash away, so that he could go back to the boss.
For me this would be a nice action to practice until I have it in my muscle memory and the only real reaction I'd need to do is to the boss' animation. And as for the "no attacks on the boss" part, I'd like to have proper visual and auditory feedback when someone gets hit, even if a small one (ideally with some size options), to make it obvious what I gotta do next. L2's soulshot sound and visual was amazing for this.
This is the definition of Top Tier Action Combat Raid Difficulty.
Imo, difficulty (in any kind of gameplay) can have as way to judge it simply "how much and how big mistakes are allowed"
Go to hollow knight with gods and glory addon, you can increase each boss fight difficulty simply by making them hit twice harder or... one shot for all their skills. in this last , you will have to play extremly safe, because a simple mistake kills you.
And this is why mag, it is hard to think otherwise when you say "action is better because more skill on action side"... ok but if you lower with softlock or other tools... where is the "harder than tab" ? You want action to have a game asking more skill than a tab targetting, but want not a too high skill... Really what you defend implies lesser skill than what tab is able to ask.
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
Honestly to get a better understanding on this rather than talking about things can't be done because of max decisions or something saying it will take complex elements away. It is better to have a discussion on what element of action combat and what level would it have to be that it takes awake from complex mechanics. And what point does it add more depth to the overall gameplay without removing the mmorpg feel.
Dodging is just something I like it adds more complexity to pvp and has more push and pull and having mobility to your moves. Though being a mmorpg if we are going to be talking about PvE content there needs to be a limit on how much you can get away from and some stability of damage you are taking needing to rely on gear, buffs, team work, etc. But also if things are being made more easy on that front, it isn't something you can approach int he same way as before and other elements are needed to further up the difficulty in both skill and mechanical elements of the content.
Personally I don't like the instant wipes akin to lost ark, or needing to be frame perfect or you lose. It feels a bit of out of place in a mmorpg but this is just imo. Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement. That would start to be dialed more towards the action side. This doesn't mean there can't be some content or points like that in raids, etc as i believe there should be a vast amount of mechanics and lose conditions in place to keep things mixed up.
And this is why I say, you don't even need to argue. You don't want 'top Tier Action Combat Difficulty'.
"Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement."
This is the definition of Top Tier Action Combat Raid Difficulty.
This is what Top Tier Action Raid players might define as a 'Hard Fight'.
Your definition is different. Noaani's definition is even more different.
That is because this is a mmorpg I don't view action and mmorpg action combat as the same.
Ok so here's the problem with that, I think I've given enough background for us to all finally get it.
The fight I described to NiKr above only has ONE Action-ish Combat aspect to it. "The turning speed of your camera causing you to need 2 more frames before you make an attack".
You're right that in a 'weak' Tab game (I don't know any like this personally but let's assume they exist), you would just press the button instantly without aiming and things would work. In an Action game where you have to aim basically at all, now you have 'A Requirement that would mean that the time it takes to aim properly might kill you if you weren't perfect'.
If that isn't POSSIBLE, then it's the same as a Tab game.
"If you can't die from not being Frame Perfect, it's the same as a Tab Game."
So here's the issue. Tab Games OFTEN require you to be frame perfect, but at least there, all you have to do is hit the button, so you can't 'lose frames by aiming' (again, this isn't true, most Tab Games require you to aim ENOUGH that you might lose out from 'Aiming Frames').
TOP LEVEL Raid 'Tab' Content requires you to be Frame perfect a lot of the time. You don't like that. That's okay, everyone has their preferences. But Noaani and I DO like that. So if you make it like that, it's more fun for me (at least) to keep trying until I am Frame Perfect, and everyone else with me is 'Coordinated Frame Perfect'.
If you add Action to that, now I have to be "Frame Perfect even with Aiming Frames". I welcome this challenge. You don't like it. But now we added variance.
If you don't want the variance, you might as well play a Tab Target game. Again, starting from a premise I'm not sure you believe in.
Top End Tab Target Content requires you to be Frame Perfect. Some games STILL have the Aiming Frames.
This fits with your previous note that you don't really like this type of content and don't think the game should be designed around it. Noaani does, though, and Noaani's wish, if I understand it, would be 'Why even bother with adding Aiming Frames when it will just end up replacing some other difficulty that I would like better?'
This is extra-true because unless the boss is VERY mobile, the Mages and Rangers won't even be using any of those Aiming Frames and most of the time the Tank will be standing still. "Might as well be Tab Target since you won't have to worry about it Aiming Frames."
If you don't like Max Challenge content, it makes sense that you 'don't like having to be Frame Perfect', and the reverse is true too. If you generally don't like having to be Frame Perfect (because you prefer to feel 'I aimed well, and therefore I won, the challenge is in aiming and dodging!') then you won't like Max Challenge content, because Max Challenge content for top players is 'yeah aiming and dodging is automatic, but are you ALSO Frame Perfect?'
I feel like this post STILL ended up too long, but I request you read it carefully because I am saying all this so that I don't end up somehow upsetting you again with the simpler version of this explanation.
Btw, what yalls opinion would be on mobs having detargeting abilities? Especially boss fights, be it directly from the boss or maybe adds that you'd need to kill in order to stop them from detargeting your members.
Ideally detargeting would mostly target high dps and healing players, so that there'd be a chance to stop one of their casts (well, I expect that detargeting would cancel casting, mb it won't).
Btw, what yalls opinion would be on mobs having detargeting abilities? Especially boss fights, be it directly from the boss or maybe adds that you'd need to kill in order to stop them from detargeting your members.
Ideally detargeting would mostly target high dps and healing players, so that there'd be a chance to stop one of their casts (well, I expect that detargeting would cancel casting, mb it won't).
I'm used to this from multiple other forms, not 'detargeting'. Since I'm used to it, I don't mind it or care.
I actually think it would NOT work well because of Hybrid, but on the other hand, you could make some really mobile and interesting bosses where this matters. They just wouldn't be good Raid bosses. If we aren't talking about Raid-size bosses, bring it on.
"By making the Fighter's Dash so far, so fast, etc, it allows them to make this design type the top level of play, and anyone who cannot do it should theoretically lose the raid or at least have to reset everything else to revive whichever Fighter can't do it."
There's a small chance that the dash was doubled in that showcase because it had its cd turned off. Just like the shadowey green dash from the weather showcase didn't have one. This would make your interaction way easier because the fighter would only need to react to the initial animation. Now they could obviously have another gapcloser, so there's that too.
But as you said in the following post, this is not really complex but just a bit difficult. For me, that kind of interaction is close to my L2's mages combo of "remove the dagger's target, blink in while they're confused, use a stun blink (that warped you backwards) to try and stun them, all while they're still lost after the detargeting". I had to keep my distance cause having a rogue near you usually meant death, but outside of the stun blink I didn't have any hard CCs so I'd need to catch moments where I could try using it. Both blinks were action abilities and relied on where your character was facing (and as I said before, turn rate was somewhat slow). And depending on the situation I might've wanted to redirect myself to get to a more beneficial position.
Here's at 0:58 and onwards you can see the player making these dashes to catch up to the enemy. And you could cut down on turn frames a bit (his are a bit sloppy), so you could just click the ground behind your char and almost immediately use the backwards blink. I'm sure I could've learned the frames of the turns and all that, but I mainly just did it by feel https://youtu.be/p58LvAERuEs?t=58
So if AoC's fighter dash was just a backdash, I'd imagine that the fighter would have to do the actions you described, but also add a 180 turn after the first dash away, so that he could go back to the boss.
For me this would be a nice action to practice until I have it in my muscle memory and the only real reaction I'd need to do is to the boss' animation. And as for the "no attacks on the boss" part, I'd like to have proper visual and auditory feedback when someone gets hit, even if a small one (ideally with some size options), to make it obvious what I gotta do next. L2's soulshot sound and visual was amazing for this.
I think I verified later that the Fighter Dash is in any direction the player wants, so it's not a backdash only.
But if we extend the scenario explained (I'm trusting that you read all of it because you always do), let's assume "Tank in front of Boss, Fighter at the side, Rogue at the back."
"Boss does the stomp-rush AoE. Tank is pushed but not knocked down. Fighter backdashes because backdash is the only way to avoid. Boss moves ENOUGH that if Fighter wanted to get back to the EXACT same spot relative to the boss, they must aim 12 degrees to the left."
"Fighter optimally should get back to exact same spot in case the boss does that exact ability again. Or maybe they need to get there so that if a DIFFERENT ability happens they can hide behind the tank, or go assist the Rogue, and only from that spot could they perfectly dash to both."
Or maybe 'Fighter needs to stand precisely there because if their ability crits before the Counterstance engages, they will have hate now, and then need to dash behind the Tank before Counterstance wears off so that the boss doesn't turn and stop the Rogue's Sneak Attack positioning from being correct and waste a big burst damage from the Rogue."
Or in the case of a hypothetical "Action FFXI", they might want to dash behind where the Rogue is so that Trick Attack is available for even more damage because their Tank is a badass and has SO much hate that the optimal strategy is to do Max DEEPS.
I actually think it would NOT work well because of Hybrid, but on the other hand, you could make some really mobile and interesting bosses where this matters. They just wouldn't be good Raid bosses. If we aren't talking about Raid-size bosses, bring it on.
I'd see it as one of the main pushes towards the game truly being a hybrid. I'm sure that people will find a way to only use tab abilities. So I'd personally like the game to fuck them over by making them use at least a few action ones too, or always pay attention to what's happening.
And with some tricky scripting and AI manipulation you could mess up a ton of players if you have some mass detargeting right after a huge semi-wipe ability or during a boss animation (detargeting done by adds). You wanna use a big heal after the wipe mechanic? Well, you better pay attention to what the boss or adds are doing. You wanna cast a defensive ability on the tank? Make sure that the detargeting mage add is dead.
That's obviously a fairly simple mechanic, but I feel like if the game has detargeting in pvp - why not in pve too.
I actually think it would NOT work well because of Hybrid, but on the other hand, you could make some really mobile and interesting bosses where this matters. They just wouldn't be good Raid bosses. If we aren't talking about Raid-size bosses, bring it on.
I'd see it as one of the main pushes towards the game truly being a hybrid. I'm sure that people will find a way to only use tab abilities. So I'd personally like the game to fuck them over by making them use at least a few action ones too, or always pay attention to what's happening.
And with some tricky scripting and AI manipulation you could mess up a ton of players if you have some mass detargeting right after a huge semi-wipe ability or during a boss animation (detargeting done by adds). You wanna use a big heal after the wipe mechanic? Well, you better pay attention to what the boss or adds are doing. You wanna cast a defensive ability on the tank? Make sure that the detargeting mage add is dead.
That's obviously a fairly simple mechanic, but I feel like if the game has detargeting in pvp - why not in pve too.
This doesn't work because of the F1-F8 (probably) method of targeting party members, for Healing, and because Tab Target games also often come with Targeting Macros that are like /assist Player, so while you'd definitely still be relying on that player getting THEIR targeting done, I just don't feel like it would affect Tab Target players much in PvE without the mobility to back it up.
But if we extend the scenario explained (I'm trusting that you read all of it because you always do), let's assume "Tank in front of Boss, Fighter at the side, Rogue at the back."
Yep, that'd be a nice decision-making tree that depends on reactionary actions to the boss mechanics and on proper coordination between raid members.
Add to this some short-timed reactionary buffs from the bard. Smth like "take a certain amount of dmg and transfer it as a dmg boost onto another player", with maybe a second or two for the receiving part and the buff itself (shorter if the timings allow).
Then add healer's high cd "link with a player to keep him at full hp by burning your mana at the same rate as his hp drops" and a summoner's "sacrifice a summon to fully restore mp to a player".
And now you have yourself a huge deeps moment that relies on tight timings of almost a full party of people, all through synergistic abilities and all dependent on the boss' action.
In other words, there's a ton of stuff like this that could make a fight fun and complex by combining tab's depth of interdependencies and timings with action's movement and positioning (especially if Intrepid go deeper down the road of formations, like the one Steven mentioned in the AMA).
This doesn't work because of the F1-F8 (probably) method of targeting party members, for Healing, and because Tab Target games also often come with Targeting Macros that are like /assist Player, so while you'd definitely still be relying on that player getting THEIR targeting done, I just don't feel like it would affect Tab Target players much in PvE without the mobility to back it up.
But it would just be an additional thing to track. Yes, you can just click a button to return to your target, but your cast might've been broken and you're now on some big cd w/o the effect or you might've been paying close attention to another thing and missed a few frames of action which led to an imbalance of the encounter.
It'd just be another tool for boss encounter design, which might trip up low-mid skill players while also requiring more from the top lvl ones.
This doesn't work because of the F1-F8 (probably) method of targeting party members, for Healing, and because Tab Target games also often come with Targeting Macros that are like /assist Player, so while you'd definitely still be relying on that player getting THEIR targeting done, I just don't feel like it would affect Tab Target players much in PvE without the mobility to back it up.
But it would just be an additional thing to track. Yes, you can just click a button to return to your target, but your cast might've been broken and you're now on some big cd w/o the effect or you might've been paying close attention to another thing and missed a few frames of action which led to an imbalance of the encounter.
It'd just be another tool for boss encounter design, which might trip up low-mid skill players while also requiring more from the top lvl ones.
I don't mind 'additional things to track' of this type, just noting that I don't think it would be a very effective one in many situations based on my fluff-expectations of Ashes. It would work much better in TL and I hope to see it there, though.
I feel like the Cleric showcase, even if minimal, whenever we get it, will be a much bigger boost to people's faith and understanding of the combat system.
Or maybe I'm just arrogantly thinking that I can 'deconstruct their probable aims' from watching it. Still, knowing that Steven and I both follow the Cleric path quite a bit, seeing what Steven 'is willing to allow/has in mind for Cleric', especially if he showcases anything Actiony (do it, Steven! Do it for me! You know I got you!)
I think it would add a lot to that small 'synergy concept' we have growing as they build more towards Alpha-2.
Even better, they get to do it all without committing to anything.
[CorporateSpeak]"Let's revisit this after the next milestone.[/CorporateSpeak]
It is pretty amazing that @Azherae here is trying to say im trying to add more action elements to the game and ragging on tab target?
Actually makes no sense it is the other way around with me saying action can work fine and they are trying to saying no developer will have more action elements in the game since it won't work or suddenly become too hard that makes no sense gameplay wise.
I've said this before u realize AoC will let you go 75% action right, which is in contrast to what you are saying about developers won't do it?
If you have changed your stance from what you have said in the past, then I apologize.
I don't want to have the discussion about the whole 'don't add more Action because it lowers tactics' thing. As long as we can all agree that it's a SLIDER for skill and which type of skill, then I have no argument. Noaani wishes 'less action so that there can be more thinking skills'.
I will repeat that I don't agree with Noaani on this entirely because I also like the physical skills and IF they make PvE enemies with the correct types of physical skill challenges, I will consider it to be just as fun and tactical as a fully Tab Target encounter.
I am not arguing with you if you are not saying that Tab requires less skill OR if you are saying 'Skill in Tab could be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'. I also believe that some 'skill in Tab can be replaced by adding a skill type that I like better'.
It's called ArcheAge.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
I never said they wont add some, I said anything they add in one area will require them taking away from another area.
As is the case with Soul Caliber, the developers added a third dimension of movement, but in doing so, slowed combat down. A game lime that, with the same speed and such but on a 2D plane would be very boring. Add the 3rd dimension and it works, make combat faster and it works.
This is the point I am making. Both action and tab target games have players at an acceptable level of engagement. If you take an action game that has players at a similar level of engagement and want to add some tab elements to it, you need to take something away from it somewhere.
The same can be said of a tab game. If developers want to add aiming to a tab game that already sees players suitably engaged, they will need to take something away.
I'm not really even making any assumptions as to what it could be that developers take away. I mean, fighting games do this in 2D vs 3D, which is not something i had even considered (a side scrolling MMORPG could be interesting).
It may well be that developers take mana away or something. Anything taken from a game to give players less to use up time or thought means developers can add something back in. On the other hand, if you are able to add to a game without issue from players, then your initial game didnt have players fully engaged.
Comments
Long story short it has to be steps at a time, or that is the most safe way to do it. And designs are created and are or are not successful it will help give more answers on creating content with he versatility you want to try.
Ya we all have to see how it will work so I'm looking forward to it to really dissect things.
My whole stance is against him sayings devs WILL NOT ADD action elements with tab complexity and that it is impossible for people to handle it.
I believe devs can add it and it is not impossible for players to handle that kind of content...
Actually I think you might just have got tangled up in the argument again, so let's untangle.
1. I know AoC will combine Action and Tab.
2. I know that they will probably make Action much easier than actually difficult Action Games, and that it will therefore be less 'far' from Tab Target than those games (Absolver)
3. I believe that Noaani has correctly argued in the past that you would have to replace some of the Tactical Thinking difficulty if you wanted to have more Action Difficulty in A Raid Setting.
Neither you nor I would like for that to happen, and the 'cost' will be less TACTICALLY complex raids, with additional complexity based on physical skills of a decent level (below what NiKr would want, for example).
I was saying the same thing as you. Developers will only add the easier or 'fake' parts of 'Action Combat' if they want to keep complex battles, and this will be good because it will mean that Tab Target players will be effective too.
@NiKr, this is the reason I have the concern about the Fighter speed. That dash is not 'fake'. If you are 'required to use that' at a skill level anywhere near Absolver/Melty/Genshin, it will be rough for a lot of people. Imagine a scenario like this:
"Boss winds up for an attack with 20f startup that causes an AoE smash knockdown around them, but either recovers or does a second 40f explosion attack almost immediately if the boss is hit by any melee attack during that time."
The Fighter must see this attack start, react by backdashing out of the way to avoid being knocked down, and then IF the Fighter is confident that no one else hit it with a Melee attack 'during the animation' as a 'trade' (for example a Tank might be able to resist the knockdown), to optimize their DPS they should dash again immediately back into the enemy and attack.
Because it's a free window for using a bigger damage attack than the Fighter can normally get. Let's say the Boss goes into a blocking stance or a counter-block stance for a moment, about 30f after that AoE knockdown.
So the Fighter player must 'see and react to the AoE', 'react to whether or not they think any Melee Allies did NOT react to the AoE (and stop their own attack to prevent the explosion part), instantly dash back in if they did not, and activate a move with exactly enough startup to hit before the Counter-Block state.
In the game type I am used to, the boss would be able to do this AoE attack back to back. If the Fighter's best option for hitting in the gap is on cooldown, they must now decide which option is best. The previous two decisions also change.
In a 'truly challenging raid' of the level I am used to, this would NOT be optional. Similar to the Lost Ark thing. Either you can execute this, or you will lose the raid (let's assume that the Counter from the Counter-Block stance hits VERY hard).
If you react to the Knockdown 3-4 frames late, you fall.
If you react to 'someone hitting the boss during the knockdown' 3-4 frames late, you get hit by the explosion while in an offensive/recovery state.
If you react too late to 'no one actually hit the boss' and dash in and attack, and CounterStance is up, you DIE outright.
If you choose an alternative move that has too slow a startup because you are under an 'attack speed' debuff' from one of the boss' other previous abilities, and Counterstance is up, you DIE outright.
If you lost track of 'the attack speed buff your Bard was giving and it wears off and you choose a move that only works if you have that buff, you hit Counterstance, you DIE outright'.
If you don't turn correctly in time because the boss' AoE knockdown is actually a short charge with a pushback and you were slightly off position (because a Fighter should be at the side of this boss to prevent being caught in the longer 'forward line' of the attack) and you end up having to spend 2 more frames turning to make sure your ability hits properly... oops, Counterstance. you DIE outright.
The above is a description of Monster Hunter (no specific monster that I can think of, it's just a similar feeling).
Whew... ok, so now to put that back in perspective of the question...
"By making the Fighter's Dash so far, so fast, etc, it allows them to make this design type the top level of play, and anyone who cannot do it should theoretically lose the raid or at least have to reset everything else to revive whichever Fighter can't do it."
Oh, I don't think Noaani was saying that they WILL NOT, or that they CANNOT.
Just that the Raid content would be less COMPLEX if they did and therefore not 'top tier raiding'. I am not sure I agree with that either, BUT again, just like you, I see 'complexity' differently. See post above (the section directed at NiKr).
I don't consider that 'complex', and I bet Noaani doesn't either. It is 'visceral', it can definitely be 'difficult', and I personally would be fine with 'another 7 layers of mechanics added on top of it' (by that I mean a bunch more 'you probably die' situations to track).
And before you push back, remember again I don't necessarily agree with Noaani.
Honestly to get a better understanding on this rather than talking about things can't be done because of max decisions or something saying it will take complex elements away. It is better to have a discussion on what element of action combat and what level would it have to be that it takes awake from complex mechanics. And what point does it add more depth to the overall gameplay without removing the mmorpg feel.
Dodging is just something I like it adds more complexity to pvp and has more push and pull and having mobility to your moves. Though being a mmorpg if we are going to be talking about PvE content there needs to be a limit on how much you can get away from and some stability of damage you are taking needing to rely on gear, buffs, team work, etc. But also if things are being made more easy on that front, it isn't something you can approach int he same way as before and other elements are needed to further up the difficulty in both skill and mechanical elements of the content.
Personally I don't like the instant wipes akin to lost ark, or needing to be frame perfect or you lose. It feels a bit of out of place in a mmorpg but this is just imo. Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement. That would start to be dialed more towards the action side. This doesn't mean there can't be some content or points like that in raids, etc as i believe there should be a vast amount of mechanics and lose conditions in place to keep things mixed up.
And this is why I say, you don't even need to argue. You don't want 'top Tier Action Combat Difficulty'.
"Mistakes 100% should be a thing but it should be you are losing because of a hard fight, not because of one person makes some slight mistake in movement."
This is the definition of Top Tier Action Combat Raid Difficulty.
This is what Top Tier Action Raid players might define as a 'Hard Fight'.
Your definition is different. Noaani's definition is even more different.
That is because this is a mmorpg I don't view action and mmorpg action combat as the same.
But as you said in the following post, this is not really complex but just a bit difficult. For me, that kind of interaction is close to my L2's mages combo of "remove the dagger's target, blink in while they're confused, use a stun blink (that warped you backwards) to try and stun them, all while they're still lost after the detargeting". I had to keep my distance cause having a rogue near you usually meant death, but outside of the stun blink I didn't have any hard CCs so I'd need to catch moments where I could try using it. Both blinks were action abilities and relied on where your character was facing (and as I said before, turn rate was somewhat slow). And depending on the situation I might've wanted to redirect myself to get to a more beneficial position.
Here's at 0:58 and onwards you can see the player making these dashes to catch up to the enemy. And you could cut down on turn frames a bit (his are a bit sloppy), so you could just click the ground behind your char and almost immediately use the backwards blink. I'm sure I could've learned the frames of the turns and all that, but I mainly just did it by feel
So if AoC's fighter dash was just a backdash, I'd imagine that the fighter would have to do the actions you described, but also add a 180 turn after the first dash away, so that he could go back to the boss.
For me this would be a nice action to practice until I have it in my muscle memory and the only real reaction I'd need to do is to the boss' animation. And as for the "no attacks on the boss" part, I'd like to have proper visual and auditory feedback when someone gets hit, even if a small one (ideally with some size options), to make it obvious what I gotta do next. L2's soulshot sound and visual was amazing for this.
Imo, difficulty (in any kind of gameplay) can have as way to judge it simply "how much and how big mistakes are allowed"
Go to hollow knight with gods and glory addon, you can increase each boss fight difficulty simply by making them hit twice harder or... one shot for all their skills. in this last , you will have to play extremly safe, because a simple mistake kills you.
And this is why mag, it is hard to think otherwise when you say "action is better because more skill on action side"... ok but if you lower with softlock or other tools... where is the "harder than tab" ? You want action to have a game asking more skill than a tab targetting, but want not a too high skill... Really what you defend implies lesser skill than what tab is able to ask.
Ok so here's the problem with that, I think I've given enough background for us to all finally get it.
The fight I described to NiKr above only has ONE Action-ish Combat aspect to it. "The turning speed of your camera causing you to need 2 more frames before you make an attack".
You're right that in a 'weak' Tab game (I don't know any like this personally but let's assume they exist), you would just press the button instantly without aiming and things would work. In an Action game where you have to aim basically at all, now you have 'A Requirement that would mean that the time it takes to aim properly might kill you if you weren't perfect'.
If that isn't POSSIBLE, then it's the same as a Tab game.
"If you can't die from not being Frame Perfect, it's the same as a Tab Game."
So here's the issue. Tab Games OFTEN require you to be frame perfect, but at least there, all you have to do is hit the button, so you can't 'lose frames by aiming' (again, this isn't true, most Tab Games require you to aim ENOUGH that you might lose out from 'Aiming Frames').
TOP LEVEL Raid 'Tab' Content requires you to be Frame perfect a lot of the time. You don't like that. That's okay, everyone has their preferences. But Noaani and I DO like that. So if you make it like that, it's more fun for me (at least) to keep trying until I am Frame Perfect, and everyone else with me is 'Coordinated Frame Perfect'.
If you add Action to that, now I have to be "Frame Perfect even with Aiming Frames". I welcome this challenge. You don't like it. But now we added variance.
If you don't want the variance, you might as well play a Tab Target game. Again, starting from a premise I'm not sure you believe in.
Top End Tab Target Content requires you to be Frame Perfect. Some games STILL have the Aiming Frames.
This fits with your previous note that you don't really like this type of content and don't think the game should be designed around it. Noaani does, though, and Noaani's wish, if I understand it, would be 'Why even bother with adding Aiming Frames when it will just end up replacing some other difficulty that I would like better?'
This is extra-true because unless the boss is VERY mobile, the Mages and Rangers won't even be using any of those Aiming Frames and most of the time the Tank will be standing still. "Might as well be Tab Target since you won't have to worry about it Aiming Frames."
If you don't like Max Challenge content, it makes sense that you 'don't like having to be Frame Perfect', and the reverse is true too. If you generally don't like having to be Frame Perfect (because you prefer to feel 'I aimed well, and therefore I won, the challenge is in aiming and dodging!') then you won't like Max Challenge content, because Max Challenge content for top players is 'yeah aiming and dodging is automatic, but are you ALSO Frame Perfect?'
I feel like this post STILL ended up too long, but I request you read it carefully because I am saying all this so that I don't end up somehow upsetting you again with the simpler version of this explanation.
Ideally detargeting would mostly target high dps and healing players, so that there'd be a chance to stop one of their casts (well, I expect that detargeting would cancel casting, mb it won't).
I'm used to this from multiple other forms, not 'detargeting'. Since I'm used to it, I don't mind it or care.
I actually think it would NOT work well because of Hybrid, but on the other hand, you could make some really mobile and interesting bosses where this matters. They just wouldn't be good Raid bosses. If we aren't talking about Raid-size bosses, bring it on.
I think I verified later that the Fighter Dash is in any direction the player wants, so it's not a backdash only.
But if we extend the scenario explained (I'm trusting that you read all of it because you always do), let's assume "Tank in front of Boss, Fighter at the side, Rogue at the back."
"Boss does the stomp-rush AoE. Tank is pushed but not knocked down. Fighter backdashes because backdash is the only way to avoid. Boss moves ENOUGH that if Fighter wanted to get back to the EXACT same spot relative to the boss, they must aim 12 degrees to the left."
"Fighter optimally should get back to exact same spot in case the boss does that exact ability again. Or maybe they need to get there so that if a DIFFERENT ability happens they can hide behind the tank, or go assist the Rogue, and only from that spot could they perfectly dash to both."
Or maybe 'Fighter needs to stand precisely there because if their ability crits before the Counterstance engages, they will have hate now, and then need to dash behind the Tank before Counterstance wears off so that the boss doesn't turn and stop the Rogue's Sneak Attack positioning from being correct and waste a big burst damage from the Rogue."
Or in the case of a hypothetical "Action FFXI", they might want to dash behind where the Rogue is so that Trick Attack is available for even more damage because their Tank is a badass and has SO much hate that the optimal strategy is to do Max DEEPS.
And with some tricky scripting and AI manipulation you could mess up a ton of players if you have some mass detargeting right after a huge semi-wipe ability or during a boss animation (detargeting done by adds). You wanna use a big heal after the wipe mechanic? Well, you better pay attention to what the boss or adds are doing. You wanna cast a defensive ability on the tank? Make sure that the detargeting mage add is dead.
That's obviously a fairly simple mechanic, but I feel like if the game has detargeting in pvp - why not in pve too.
This doesn't work because of the F1-F8 (probably) method of targeting party members, for Healing, and because Tab Target games also often come with Targeting Macros that are like /assist Player, so while you'd definitely still be relying on that player getting THEIR targeting done, I just don't feel like it would affect Tab Target players much in PvE without the mobility to back it up.
Add to this some short-timed reactionary buffs from the bard. Smth like "take a certain amount of dmg and transfer it as a dmg boost onto another player", with maybe a second or two for the receiving part and the buff itself (shorter if the timings allow).
Then add healer's high cd "link with a player to keep him at full hp by burning your mana at the same rate as his hp drops" and a summoner's "sacrifice a summon to fully restore mp to a player".
And now you have yourself a huge deeps moment that relies on tight timings of almost a full party of people, all through synergistic abilities and all dependent on the boss' action.
In other words, there's a ton of stuff like this that could make a fight fun and complex by combining tab's depth of interdependencies and timings with action's movement and positioning (especially if Intrepid go deeper down the road of formations, like the one Steven mentioned in the AMA).
It'd just be another tool for boss encounter design, which might trip up low-mid skill players while also requiring more from the top lvl ones.
I don't mind 'additional things to track' of this type, just noting that I don't think it would be a very effective one in many situations based on my fluff-expectations of Ashes. It would work much better in TL and I hope to see it there, though.
I feel like the Cleric showcase, even if minimal, whenever we get it, will be a much bigger boost to people's faith and understanding of the combat system.
Or maybe I'm just arrogantly thinking that I can 'deconstruct their probable aims' from watching it. Still, knowing that Steven and I both follow the Cleric path quite a bit, seeing what Steven 'is willing to allow/has in mind for Cleric', especially if he showcases anything Actiony (do it, Steven! Do it for me! You know I got you!)
I think it would add a lot to that small 'synergy concept' we have growing as they build more towards Alpha-2.
Even better, they get to do it all without committing to anything.
[CorporateSpeak]"Let's revisit this after the next milestone.[/CorporateSpeak]
As is the case with Soul Caliber, the developers added a third dimension of movement, but in doing so, slowed combat down. A game lime that, with the same speed and such but on a 2D plane would be very boring. Add the 3rd dimension and it works, make combat faster and it works.
This is the point I am making. Both action and tab target games have players at an acceptable level of engagement. If you take an action game that has players at a similar level of engagement and want to add some tab elements to it, you need to take something away from it somewhere.
The same can be said of a tab game. If developers want to add aiming to a tab game that already sees players suitably engaged, they will need to take something away.
I'm not really even making any assumptions as to what it could be that developers take away. I mean, fighting games do this in 2D vs 3D, which is not something i had even considered (a side scrolling MMORPG could be interesting).
It may well be that developers take mana away or something. Anything taken from a game to give players less to use up time or thought means developers can add something back in. On the other hand, if you are able to add to a game without issue from players, then your initial game didnt have players fully engaged.