Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Stances instead of Cameras
Solvryn
Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
I've been formulating this idea,
Stances instead of cameras;
Offensive Stance, which was the Action Combat Camera.
Defensive Stance, which was the Tab/Aim Assist Camera.
Take all of the skills and let them be truly neutral, free aim (or hitscan if we have to) and freely moving across 3d space.
Then assign if/and statements to them.
Example) Snipe: If in Offensive Stance, Snipe becomes free aim and deals bonus damage. If in Defensive Stance, Snipe deals base damage but implements stagger.
Takes a base component of an ability, then adds a variable to be met which would change the behavior of it. Abilities in Offensive Stance can be unhindered by any constraints which makes for tactile, reactive play while Defensive stance makes for predictive, intuitive decision making.
Like the heal/damage ability in the cleric video. In Offensive stance, it hits a mob and does damage, but in defensive stance its cast on the player or any of the players allies.
It sets up ten abilities to have twice the number of decisions in how to use them with just the individual playing alone, then further creates more meaningful decisions with the synergies in between classes.
It allows for many different combinations of offensive, defensive, and utility/support combinations which also match the theme of risk vs reward.
Cheers.
Stances instead of cameras;
Offensive Stance, which was the Action Combat Camera.
Defensive Stance, which was the Tab/Aim Assist Camera.
Take all of the skills and let them be truly neutral, free aim (or hitscan if we have to) and freely moving across 3d space.
Then assign if/and statements to them.
Example) Snipe: If in Offensive Stance, Snipe becomes free aim and deals bonus damage. If in Defensive Stance, Snipe deals base damage but implements stagger.
Takes a base component of an ability, then adds a variable to be met which would change the behavior of it. Abilities in Offensive Stance can be unhindered by any constraints which makes for tactile, reactive play while Defensive stance makes for predictive, intuitive decision making.
Like the heal/damage ability in the cleric video. In Offensive stance, it hits a mob and does damage, but in defensive stance its cast on the player or any of the players allies.
It sets up ten abilities to have twice the number of decisions in how to use them with just the individual playing alone, then further creates more meaningful decisions with the synergies in between classes.
It allows for many different combinations of offensive, defensive, and utility/support combinations which also match the theme of risk vs reward.
Cheers.
0
Comments
And... I think Stances would be implemented by the Ashes devs as an addition, rather than a replacement for Action v Tab.
Steven called them cameras.
The idea is to instead treat them like stances that we can switch between.
Assigning if/and statement changes their behavior based on the stance we take.
10 skills with more choices to make.
And so far it seems like that's the plan. You'll be able to set your ability to either action or tab mode beforehand and only have it in that mode until you change it (with some abilities seemingly available in both modes).
That’s exactly why I thought about stances instead.
Schools are still going to be there, tertiary stats, etc.
Increasing the decision making capability.
Well, they'll cover additional tertiary effects, but they wont cover the behavior of the ability either being free aim or not.
That's a major part of the if/and statement.
I think Intrepids idea to have a hybrid system is great, but I don't the current limitations will achieve what it could.
I think being able to go in between stances offers more depth and makes sure the combat has no missing components.
I agree with your frustrations, but I'm not going there on my thread.
All I know is what I read from the wiki and ashes101.
I think it can be done really well.
We have different experiences; I've seen stance dancing done incredibly well.
There's a chance that for some arbitrary reason Intrepid don't want to tell us a single shred of info about the system, but if that's the case then I find it real weird, considering their "open development" and desire to listen to our feedback.
I'd imagine it's easier to tweak a design on paper rather than changing a whole damn finished product. Our feedback will either not matter, because all augments will have been completed by the time we can even give feedback on them, or those augments will have to be completely redesigned reanimated and recoded if our feedback goes directly against some of them and Intrepid listen to us. And the obvious worst option is that no other augments have been designed yet, which is why we haven't heard about them.
Hmm. I don't remember stance dancer ever being an insult in WoW. Ashes has struggled to nail combat in general.
Some people want tab, some people want action. But hybrid is what we're going to get. I rather not get something inconsistent and lacks continuity when it comes to their other systems, art, etc.
I do not want to see Flintstones in Dubai.
It's the mystery we're all waiting for.
isn't this how it already works? some abilities will be targetted or action only, and some others will do different things depending on your combat mode
Not really, I was thinking about implementing a way to change the behavior of an ability depending on which stance your in.
The "Cameras" you have now don't actually do that. The current iteration of the "Action Camera" is very similar to how the GW2 camera works where tabbing in GW2 is still the superior mode.
It was an idea because I actually can and enjoy stance dancing.
I don't think your usage is the same.
Again... we can't even get the last Know Your Nodes articles released because the devs are still tweaking Node designs. And the 1st articles were released 3.5 years ago.
We haven't truly been in "open development" for years now.
It is open development, it also doens't mean every single thing they do needs to be public knowledge either or where they are at. But you will be well aware of the game and how everything works during development when they are ready to show it and before release.
Consumers shouldn't be knowing every detail on development regardless as they aren't prepared to the challenge of development or have understanding to accept certain things (direction, process, issues, delays, etc) End of the day a consumer is not a developer they can give input on what they like, they don't like, some ideas but that goes only so far and needs to be shown in the correct way to make the best use of it. And not showing a bunch of underdeveloped or prototype things to be over hyped and wanted and removed from being in the game.
We went from what was once extremely transparent to what is now fairly opaque, by comparison.
Steven had to learn learn that consumers shouldn't be knowing every detail - that didn't happen until after Margaret was hired in 2019.
More than likely true. I may be a bit more literal.