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.

Dodge Roll vs Quick Step and Dash

HalaeHalae Member, Alpha Two
edited October 2022 in General Discussion
Something I've seen in discussions, both in the Ashes community and elsewhere, is the topic of the dodge animation. A lot of people appear to have an opinion on it, and I felt that it might warrant its own topic of discussion as a result. Note, this is NOT a discussion about invulnerability frames. This is JUST about animations.

For my part, I can see arguments for both sides. I've heard arguments that quick steps and dashes feel like they should be shorter range maneuvers, and thus shouldn't have the same kind of maneuverability as a dodge roll, and therefore fit a faster pace of combat. Some people also seem to feel that longer range dashes shouldn't be possible in heavier armor. By contrast, dodge roll detractors appear to feel that it makes characters look incompetent as their character's feet leaving the ground and eyes losing sight of the enemy is a cardinal sin in a fight, making an otherwise competent character look stupid by doing a rookie mistake to reposition in a fight and avoid attacks; however I've seen arguments that the flow of the movement is often flowing and sensible for a heavy impact and weighty feel. The implication these sides usually carry is that dashes and quick steps make a character a character look more competent but more unreal, while a dodge roll makes a character look less competent but more grounded and hefty.

What's your opinion on this debate? And, more importantly, based on what you've seen of the combat Ashes of Creation is going to have, what kind of dodge and combat mobility animation do you think it should have?
«1

Comments

  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Magical 4-directional dashes, short 8-directional sidesteps and long but slow 3-directional rolls. That the stuff I'd prefer to see.

    Magic dashes feel fine cause they're magic. Short sidesteps are fine because they are realistic. Big rolls should only go forward and to the sides and would have to be very precisely timed if you wanted to avoid any attacks with them.

    I could maybe see a rogue or a ranger doing a backflip or some shit, but I'd have to see the animation for it first. We've already seen the ranger doing some air pirouettes, so backflips wouldn't stand out as much, but it should still fit the overall movement style.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Personally rolling is boring and over done, different classes or armor types should have a mix of different motions. That way there is some flare and identity to different types and not every single class is doing the roll animation.
  • HalaeHalae Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Personally rolling is boring and over done, different classes or armor types should have a mix of different motions. That way there is some flare and identity to different types and not every single class is doing the roll animation.
    Hmm. Neverwinter did something similar to what you're suggesting, but it had the problem of some classes having blatantly superior dodge mechanics over others due to the structure of the game. If it was just an animation change and it all worked mechanically the same, sure, I could get behind, but I wouldn't want to give any class an advantage in a basic universal mechanic.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I prefer flips both sideways and backflips over slides and side steps, however, I've only appreciated these on rogues, rangers and casters.

    I prefer active blocks, parries and richotettes for heavier armoured toons.

    I think dodge rolls are better for repositions and not necessarily for damage reduction. I would expect jumps, blocks and dodges to be required. I'm just not convinced all three should be blanketed across all classes.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Halae wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Personally rolling is boring and over done, different classes or armor types should have a mix of different motions. That way there is some flare and identity to different types and not every single class is doing the roll animation.
    Hmm. Neverwinter did something similar to what you're suggesting, but it had the problem of some classes having blatantly superior dodge mechanics over others due to the structure of the game. If it was just an animation change and it all worked mechanically the same, sure, I could get behind, but I wouldn't want to give any class an advantage in a basic universal mechanic.

    Some classes should have better dodges, like rangers and rogues for example.

    It also depends on the design for it, you could have different animations and have them move the same distance rough but I wouldn't recommend that. Based on the class and what it does there should be different dodges.

    Example

    Like warrior might have the roll or something and can move in any distance and the same amount. But Ranger can't forward dash, but their back dash is a bit longer and their side dashes are longer as well.
  • ScarbeusScarbeus Member, Alpha Two
    The animation and distance could be based on armour and race. It makes sense to me that The bigger you are or the heavier your armour that rolling would be difficult and so a quick sidestep would be for you. The smaller, lighter and more nimble you are then a roll. However Dwarves are small yet a quick side dash would be more suitable I think.
    r7ldqg4wh0yj.gif
  • HalaeHalae Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Some classes should have better dodges, like rangers and rogues for example.

    It also depends on the design for it, you could have different animations and have them move the same distance rough but I wouldn't recommend that. Based on the class and what it does there should be different dodges.

    Example

    Like warrior might have the roll or something and can move in any distance and the same amount. But Ranger can't forward dash, but their back dash is a bit longer and their side dashes are longer as well.
    The problem with making certain basic universal mechanics worse for some classes than others is that it inherently makes specific classes more difficult to actually make work in specific content. Taking Neurath's example of a parry/block mechanic for instance - if that replaced the Tank's dodge ability, they lose out on a lot of mobility, which makes tanks strictly worse than a Summoner/Tank in mobility-heavy fights, and potentially make it impossible to balance the mobility requirements of certain encounters and dungeons against the limited mobility of one class versus the much higher mobility of, for example, a rogue.

    Universal basic mechanics are universally spread out for a reason. While I do quite like Neurath's parry/block mechanic idea, getting rid of mobility for it would likely cripple the ability to operate of a class that took that as an option, making it a universally worse choice in many fights than a much more mobile summoner, making it a balancing nightmare. Your suggestion of giving this kind of unique mechanic to every class is doable when you've only got like three classes as if it's Dragon Age or something, but every time you add a class to the game the balancing load for this kind of system becomes exponentially worse, and at eight archetypes Ashes is well beyond the breaking point for that kind of thing.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    A class shouldn't excel at everything so having strengths and weaknesses is fine to me. And they can scale the strengths in each way how far or close they are to being universal. The base could be 100% and a increase of 10-20% for motion. Or if they feel it is too much they could always go 5-10% of motion.

    As far as animations go, it is simply a animation it shouldn't really make a difference between a roll or cartwheel as they can also control the values and speeds and distance.
  • Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?

    Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

    There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

    Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • SpodosSpodos Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Abilities like this should be restricted to classes that are based on mobility / acrobatics. Giving them to everyone reduces depth in combat. There should be variety in how people deal with damage from opponents - some dodge, others invuln, others tank, and some do none of that and just try to kill people first. This will make combat more engaging and dynamic.

    Not to mention seeing wizards doing dodge rolls just makes no sense whatsoever.
  • Azherae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?

    Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

    There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

    Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.

    This just sounds like an excuse because you don't like rolling or dodging. The simple fact is that if I dodge out of the way and the ability curve is the problem. I wouldn't mind not having any damage reduction if abilities didn't curve. We will also have to see how the tracking will work in real combat and against other players. I know we saw a little bit of it in the range video but that was against mobs. I want to see what it will look like against other players in Alpha 2. If I'm playing against another player and I dodge or roll around a tree or rock and it curves with me, that really feels bad. It feels worse than those complaining about no-tab targeting and pro-tracking of targets. People shouldn't have to spec into evasion in order just to avoid the in-game aim assist. That would be a waste of skill points.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I love rolling! I’d want to constrain consecutive rolls - the monk rolling in WoW was a bit extreme especially in WSG.

    The GW2 dodge roll was ok - similar to the evasive rolls/maneuvers in NWO.

    If rolling / quicksteps are damage mitigation in addition to movements, I think we’d need to make it clear & intuitive as to exactly what type of damage they can evade and when. I’m mostly concerned about PvP, particularly with the hybrid targeting system.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    .
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?

    Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

    There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

    Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.

    This just sounds like an excuse because you don't like rolling or dodging. The simple fact is that if I dodge out of the way and the ability curve is the problem. I wouldn't mind not having any damage reduction if abilities didn't curve. We will also have to see how the tracking will work in real combat and against other players. I know we saw a little bit of it in the range video but that was against mobs. I want to see what it will look like against other players in Alpha 2. If I'm playing against another player and I dodge or roll around a tree or rock and it curves with me, that really feels bad. It feels worse than those complaining about no-tab targeting and pro-tracking of targets. People shouldn't have to spec into evasion in order just to avoid the in-game aim assist. That would be a waste of skill points.

    Definitely. But you don't need any iframes to dodge-roll...
    - out of range (or out of the tracking cone, i.e. too far left or right)
    - behind a rock
    - behind your tank
    and have the arrow miss you.

    Dodging like that that should definitely be made to work.

    Like Azherae was saying, the point of dodging is to make one of those things happen, and have the arrow hit something other than you. You don't need iframes for that. Just don't let arrows do u-turns.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?

    Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

    There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

    Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.

    This just sounds like an excuse because you don't like rolling or dodging. The simple fact is that if I dodge out of the way and the ability curve is the problem. I wouldn't mind not having any damage reduction if abilities didn't curve. We will also have to see how the tracking will work in real combat and against other players. I know we saw a little bit of it in the range video but that was against mobs. I want to see what it will look like against other players in Alpha 2. If I'm playing against another player and I dodge or roll around a tree or rock and it curves with me, that really feels bad. It feels worse than those complaining about no-tab targeting and pro-tracking of targets. People shouldn't have to spec into evasion in order just to avoid the in-game aim assist. That would be a waste of skill points.

    I'm not sure if you mean me personally or not, so I'm going to assume you don't mean me and answer this relative to Intrepid design as I experienced it.

    Enemies don't seem to have 'projectile attacks' as often, and they can't 'know you're going to dodge' the way a player can, so they fire off their abilities without 'aiming'. This also means they use a few more 'ground lines' and so on.

    Those abilities would then be blocked by terrain if you rolled, and whether or not they hit you anyway if you didn't get behind something would be up to the ability and their design style. Ground Lines and other things like that, the roll does the job by getting out of the way, and the damage reduction is the reward for 'doing the right thing but not quickly enough'.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Scarbeus wrote: »
    The animation and distance could be based on armour and race. It makes sense to me that The bigger you are or the heavier your armour that rolling would be difficult and so a quick sidestep would be for you. The smaller, lighter and more nimble you are then a roll. However Dwarves are small yet a quick side dash would be more suitable I think.

    I am not entirely sure but I THINK, counterintuitive as it is, that this is actually the OPPOSITE of how it works.

    When you're smaller, you roll both less far, AND less quickly (by a tiny bit). Rolling in Armor, if one rolls correctly and your armor doesn't suck, is basically the same, the realistic thing might be to have it take more STAMINA to roll in heavy armor, but rolls are one of the 'movement types' that are least affected by this.

    I'll absolutely accept correction from someone with more experience on this than me.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • LordBlankLordBlank Member
    edited October 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

    In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

    If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

    I agree with ith you but I can see why they put it there since most abilities track their target. What would be the point in dodging if range abilities can curve and track toward you?

    Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

    There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

    Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.

    This just sounds like an excuse because you don't like rolling or dodging. The simple fact is that if I dodge out of the way and the ability curve is the problem. I wouldn't mind not having any damage reduction if abilities didn't curve. We will also have to see how the tracking will work in real combat and against other players. I know we saw a little bit of it in the range video but that was against mobs. I want to see what it will look like against other players in Alpha 2. If I'm playing against another player and I dodge or roll around a tree or rock and it curves with me, that really feels bad. It feels worse than those complaining about no-tab targeting and pro-tracking of targets. People shouldn't have to spec into evasion in order just to avoid the in-game aim assist. That would be a waste of skill points.

    I'm not sure if you mean me personally or not, so I'm going to assume you don't mean me and answer this relative to Intrepid design as I experienced it.

    Enemies don't seem to have 'projectile attacks' as often, and they can't 'know you're going to dodge' the way a player can, so they fire off their abilities without 'aiming'. This also means they use a few more 'ground lines' and so on.

    Those abilities would then be blocked by terrain if you rolled, and whether or not they hit you anyway if you didn't get behind something would be up to the ability and their design style. Ground Lines and other things like that, the roll does the job by getting out of the way, and the damage reduction is the reward for 'doing the right thing but not quickly enough'.

    but wouldn't this just incentivize players to fight close to or behind cover? I guess I would be fine with it if specing into evasion is also applied to rolls and dodge. If specing into evasion gave a small multiplier(.25), which is applied when a charter rolled or dodged but on the flip side the higher you spec into evasion the longer your roll/dodge gets. This way rolling/dodging becomes effective but not abusive. So a fighter who is up against a ranger can save their rolls or doge to counter abilities like snipe or use it to dive behind cover before a crit hit. Keeping the nature of an iFrame but capping how often it can be used and making it something that someone actually has to spec into taking their ability to spec into other stuff. If you play Destiny 2 you have a rough idea of what I'm talking about. Except in Destiny 2 the more you spec into dodge the lower your CD gets.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    I’d want a base level roll / quick step.

    If there’s a skill, maybe it adds 1 more roll before cooldown. Or a reduction to stamina cost, benefit to roll speed, etc. Nothing too OP, but enough to justify the skill point.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • CROW3 wrote: »
    I’d want a base level roll / quick step.

    If there’s a skill, maybe it adds 1 more roll before cooldown. Or a reduction to stamina cost, benefit to roll speed, etc. Nothing too OP, but enough to justify the skill point.

    Yes, but it will still have to be effective at evading attacks. Otherwise, there will be no point in investing the skill point when you can just spec into defense and roll for the movement.
  • HalaeHalae Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Yes, but it will still have to be effective at evading attacks. Otherwise, there will be no point in investing the skill point when you can just spec into defense and roll for the movement.
    Yeah. Monster Hunter and similar games show us that a short range, stamina-limited evasion ability, even without iframes, is still valuable for getting your character the hell out of the way of AoEs. For a more MMO based example, a lot of classes in Final Fantasy XIV have short range dashes that don't grant invulns (the one that immediately comes to mind is Dancer) but are still useful to players trying to reposition. As long as there's incoming AoEs, abilities that go "I don't want to be here anymore" will always be valuable, iframes or no.

    Skill points adding to range, and then adding in iframes, sounds viable. Make it an investment.

    EDIT: Slight clarity. I'm agreeing, not arguing.
  • Halae wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    Yes, but it will still have to be effective at evading attacks. Otherwise, there will be no point in investing the skill point when you can just spec into defense and roll for the movement.
    Yeah. Monster Hunter and similar games show us that a short range, stamina-limited evasion ability, even without iframes, is still valuable for getting your character the hell out of the way of AoEs. For a more MMO based example, a lot of classes in Final Fantasy XIV have short range dashes that don't grant invulns (the one that immediately comes to mind is Dancer) but are still useful to players trying to reposition. As long as there's incoming AoEs, abilities that go "I don't want to be here anymore" will always be valuable, iframes or no.

    Skill points adding to range, and then adding in iframes, sounds viable. Make it an investment.

    EDIT: Slight clarity. I'm agreeing, not arguing.

    100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.
  • I'd rather there be 1 frames on a dodge as opposed to none. No having I frame on the base dodge works in a game like monster hunter because chances are you not fighting a while group of enemies. It's typically one large enemy that's relatively telegraphed in its action. This means you learn the most optimal times to dodge and the times where dodging won't do you any good. In an mmo that's planning to have a server size of 8-10k you bound to run into groups of other players and if you have no way of realistically dealing with their softlocking single target abilities then your doomed to die everytime. I'd rather every player have a chance at getting away or being the underdog and coming out on top as opposed to always dying in such a scenario.
    I suppose one counter argument could be, why not travel as a group yourself? And the answer is its impossible to always be buddied up if you think about it logically. I enjoyed eso dodges since all classes had access and it burned stamina so sure if you wanted to spam it go ahead but it wasn't gonna protect you from aoes or CC. I believe dodges should cost mana in ashes and everyone should be able to do it.
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    LordBlank wrote: »
    100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.

    I think you mean hard lock in this case. A 'soft lock' just means I'm in your target reticle. A roll mechanic is fundamentally meant to avoid soft lock attacks. A 'hard lock' attack means I'm your target (as in the tab target sense of target) and if I roll away we're talking about homing and 'to hit' statistics.

    Just want to make sure we're all using the same language.

    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

    So you want soft-lock to also require iFrames to avoid?
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • AlldbiscuitsAlldbiscuits Member
    edited October 2022
    For me the ability to dodge roll or sidestep should depend on a certain stat your character has like agility for example. The effectiveness of the avoid would be better with more of the attribute you have and each class/race has a hard cap on the effectiveness of their avoid. I have this opinion because it helps create class/race uniqueness. For example a rogue can sidestep more regular than a tank can. The armour you are wearing and weapon should also play a huge part in your ability to avoid
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

    So you want soft-lock to also require iFrames to avoid?

    Iframes, blocking, movement (Id expect some skills will miss not everything is going to work like a very fast arrow), using obstacles.

    It shouldn't work any differently between hitting a target in those mode and how things normally should be working anyway. If it is projectile base it could be less accurate based on th =e range and easier to dodge roll out of it physically for both action and tab. ie* Curving strength - Distance = curve amount
  • CROW3 wrote: »
    LordBlank wrote: »
    100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.

    I think you mean hard lock in this case. A 'soft lock' just means I'm in your target reticle. A roll mechanic is fundamentally meant to avoid soft lock attacks. A 'hard lock' attack means I'm your target (as in the tab target sense of target) and if I roll away we're talking about homing and 'to hit' statistics.

    Just want to make sure we're all using the same language.

    yes. I mixed it up
  • Mag7spy wrote: »
    Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

    Ok, this is interesting. Because as someone who will be playing on the action side of the combat I don't want to get 360 no scope by someone using tab. In terms of at least requiring a tab user to face their character toward the target. A target within a 180-degree view of you can be targeted but not targets behind you unless you turn your character. I think that would be fair given someone in action can't target and sometimes even see what's going on behind them.
Sign In or Register to comment.