Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
How do you feel about the direction the Tank archetype is taking, based on what we shared during the January Development Update?
Watched the live stream and then the youtube video so speaking from the latter more so than the former. If this is the direction that IS is going with the tank then I am not convinced that playing a tank will be as rewarding as I have experienced in other games. Whilst I do not have any particular gripes about the direction, I just do not enjoy fighting with dps/healers over threat; granted the team were level 15 so I suppose there's a chance that at max level there'll be more tools to hold threat, but that still doesn't account for the state of active blocking. Watching the struggle to hold threat as soon as the melee dps hit whirlwind or ranger hit the mob just seemed so out of tune, with no chance of pulling aggro off them given the incredibly lengthy cooldowns of threat generating skills.
It did seem that doing damage was indicative of contributing to threat gain, but the active blocking stops the tank from attacking, thus adding an additional layer to threat generation/maintaining. For me this could go either way in terms of good or bad gameplay, but if it is difficult to hold threat then I'm leaning toward the former as a test of skill. However, the question of how aggro is initially assigned is one thing that has me confused, as it almost seemed like the most hate generated was that of the character that hit the mob first. I didn't notice the threat shifting from dps to dps, just noticed that if the dps hit first, or an extra mob was pulled and wasn't hit, it would go to the healer, then the tank struggled to wrest control back.
What are your thoughts regarding the Tank abilities shown in the January livestream?
I liked the idea of chaining skills together like the shield charge into the stomp, but have major concerns with the cool down length of these skills.
The shield charge should be removed and just made into a charge, and I say this because we were promised that any class can use any weapon. Now I understand that holding a shield would be advantageous as well as fit thematically, but which one are you going for? Are the weapons truly agnostic to the class and efficacious to boot, or does that only hold for the dps and support types?
The only ability I feel that should be reworked, was the Aegis skill. I can see its value in pvp and sieges as a means of protecting strategic entry points, but I don't think its visuals are a good representation of its area of effect. Steven said that it was a zone that pc's can get in, and not behind, so the question is, how big is that zone? What are its limits? Can you be partially covered by it or is it all or nothing? Is it entirely directionally based, with the tanks facing direction determining the position in a fixed spot, or can the tank spin around essentially having a temporary zone of protection behind them at all times?
From a PVE perspective, I think its only use would be for the tank, as I can't imagine anyone standing next to the tank by design; is the intention to have people behind the tank whilst they tank, or are encounters designed in such a way that players have positional power/free reign?
What are your thoughts regarding the Warhammer & shield, and 2H sword shown in the January livestream?
They all worked for me, though I think a tower shield is meant to cover one's whole body, no?
The weapon swings seemed a little fast, but I am not sure if that's the intention to give the feel of pace or something else. If it could be slowed down just a tad, perhaps it could feel more weighty - not a major problem, just a suggestion.
Style wise, I am pleased with how the aesthetic fits with the mobs, and really love the art style and the armor and weapons that came out of it.
For the greatsword, I would rather see the character have the blade resting on a shoulder, or dragging on the ground at a lower stance, but it's a want not a need.
Is there anything in particular you’re excited or concerned about regarding what was shown with the Tank updates?
My concerns/questions are as follows:
Weapon choice vs requirement - are tanks expected to or going to need a shield, or is it a min/max thing that will limit player choice based on community acceptance? Eg: Sword n Board tank vs Dual wield sword tank, advantage goes to SnB because shield? Will augmentation make a difference in needing a shield?
Cooldowns - are skill cooldowns going to be lengthy (aka higher than 10 seconds each) in general or only for threat generating abilities (apologies can't remember the ranger cd's off the top of my head)?
Auto attacks vs blocking - do both auto attacking and blocking generate threat? Can they both? Assuming no, what is the threat uptime threshold for threat loss when blocking, is it time gated or immediate loss?
Threat - Will there be an indicator of how much threat you have on a particular mob? Will there be instant taunt like abilities for emergencies? How as a DPS can one drop threat or redirect it? What is more potent a source of threat, healing in the area, direct damage to the NPC, first strike?
Armor - How will armor style/choice impact ability to tank? Will light armor be as efficacious as heavy, or will there be advantages/different playstyles/tank styles to accommodate each? Just trying to see if we're being guided into heavy armor + Shield + Class = best tank, or if there will be choice; either way, as long as we know the direction we can adjust accordingly.
What I am excited about:
What really has me intrigued are the potential synergies. I understand it's all speculation, but seeing the Cleric debuff and Warrior trigger the stagger into a stun, I expect much similar such interactions with the Tank. A question though, the tank was able to trigger its own synergy with the shield bash + stomp, will all classes be able to trigger the tanks synergies or will there be others we have to wait for?
Thanks for reading this (if you did) and all your efforts thus far.
@AshRen With the healer comment. I probably will get backlash. Hahaha so RIP me for that. But I am speaking to the current MMORP. WoW and NW as well as SWTOR per people's comments and the community etc.. and my limited small experience healers seem to be the easiest.
For cooler ability..... Okay since that is based on perspective. Then I will use your term flashy. So I will clarify and say Mages have the most Flashy abilities. Fighters have more combat Flashy abilities then tanks.
But again that's my opinion and my reason why most people don't pick tanks. Also why the people that do pick tanks because they want to be "Tanky" so survivable, or the armor style, and sometimes tanks are leaders.
Your Opinion:
@AshRen I am curious. Why do you think then Tank is one of the least played classes throughout our MMORPG history? Since the beginning of me playing MMORPG ( Ultima Online, Runescape, SWG, WoW etc.) The tank was always the least played and always in high demand. Why is that?
My reasoning and why I play tank:
The Armor looks cooler in my opinion and they are Tanky and don't die easily. Also for PvP, I love the CC capabilities. This has shown to match my play style of going in deep during PvP or being a leader during PvE.
But:
- To me, Tank is the least Flashy ( Which I hope Ashes changes with the second class Spell shield) So I can have lava slam like in Alpha 1.
- To me, Tank is super easy. Even if you make threats harder. Threat Mechanic will and still is an easy boring mechanic. Just memorize your move rotation and done. Memorize two rotations one if you lose agro and another if you gain. That's why I want more mechanics, blocking mechanics, and mitigation mechanics.
About the flashiness, I'm sure the class system will allow you to change that, I can see the shout staying like that for tank/tank, but maybe tank/mage with fire school upgrade will have the A1 lava slam effect, doubt they would trash old animations anyway, they just need to be careful, the skill effects are already affecting visual clarity.
Agreed, it has gone a long way and a lot for level 15 was impressive. I do agree that I don't want Tanking to be just cut and dry and boring. It's a balance of adding difficulty but proper difficulty.
So if Ashes continues to improve which I am sure it will. I hope they improve the following:
- Threat mitigation is easier than the live stream and a Good tank can maintain it without too many problems.
- Blocking Mechanics that require some skill like Valheim, Elden Ring etc..
- CC and positioning Mechanics to keep the tank mobile
- Health and Damage mitigation
If all those things are added/improved but make it difficult or equally skilled required as other classes. Then that would be awesome!
Shield wrt Tank:
While I understand you are not going in a direction to have separate skill trees by class and weapon, the active blocking feature practically begs additional options for the Tank beyond holding one key down.
Option 1:
Incentivize active block with the tank to build up a little offensive power while actively blocking.
Option 2:
While in active block mode, provide actions/options for the tank to utilize some sort of tactical technique or special move suitable for the class.
Aegis
Classic tank operations/tactics has been to engage the boss, provide CC on the trash, position yourself on one side of the opponent so that the rest of party attacks from the rear (typically gaining some advantage). You can then re-engage based on cues such as opponent facing towards allies (with shouts/taunts, trips or charging as counters). Or some variation thereof. The Aegis ability seems contrary to this normal behavior, and as such may be more limiting on the tank than the presumed benefit.
Aegis as depicted would appear more useful if multiple tanks perform some sort of shield wall in a larger scale combat, but I think that's very situational and limited. So with all that said, should the tank be able to quickly reconfigure abilities based on these tactics (frontal assault/shock troop say in PVP versus wading into the crowd to cc the enemy and provide the advantage to the rest of the group which is normal in PVE situations)? Or is there a way to project Aegis on the backside of the controlled crowd/opponent? Could there be different patterns of such protection available (full front, full back, partial flanks, etc.) that the tank could toggle? Such finer control with Aegis could even make it more flexible in both PVE and PVP. I think of Aegis as not necessarily a magic shield, but the conceptualization of the tank's ability to thwart attacks against others when in close quarters combat.
I like the direction the Tank is taking. Area control, threat generation, and damage mitigation are all things I want to be doing as a Tank. Looking forward to seeing more Area control and team Damage Mitigation for PvP situations.
What are your thoughts regarding the Tank abilities shown in the January livestream?
I really like the Tank ability kit so far. I do not expect much tab target abilities from the Tank Class as a lot of it needs to be AoE oriented for gaining threat and generating battlefield control.
What are your thoughts regarding the Warhammer & shield, and 2H sword shown in the January livestream?
I'm enjoying the developmental progress on the weapons and how they look. I have faith the team will get them to where they need to be by Beta.
Is there anything in particular you’re excited or concerned about regarding what was shown with the Tank updates?
Ok, now into the meat and potatoes of this.
Firstly I'm excited to see the direction you guys are taking the Tank in terms of PvP. I want to see more battlefield control and ways to manipulate your opponents. As a Tank I'm not worried about my burst damage, but controlling areas of opponents is where I think you can really make the Tank shine and stand out in PvP.
My concern and optimism comes from Active Shield Blocking. After playing New World and using their active block there is a few directions I would love to see Intrepid take with it.
1) Have abilities you can use while blocking such as the Shouts, Knock Downs etc. This will give the player things to do while damage soaking. I like being able to Active Block, but I need more interaction while doing it to have fun.
2) Make the Tanks weapon choice matter out side of just taking the best stat stick while using a Shield. Having such a large list of weapon choices, I'd like to see real diversity in their utility. Some examples of this would be when using a weapon such as a Spear or Short Sword, let me have an attack action (probably weakened) while Active Blocking.
3) Allow Active Blocking to create Threat in some fashion. An example of this would be through crafting with the addition of a Shield Spike.
4) Use a Stamina system for blocking and have that system favor Tanks in some fashion. I've given this one some thought and personally think Stamina should be used over Mana as you need a way to balance your Active Dodging as well without being able to spam it forever.
Over all I'm loving the direction the showcase took and am very excited about the Tank class.
As it stands, how blocking works in the game doesn't feel right, nor particularly entertaining. I think that blocks should be broken by a telegraphed heavy attack. That way, you can't perma-block because you risk getting punished by an unblockable attack, and this would make mitigation more entertaining by forcing you to switch up blocking and dodging. You can also utilise animation cancelling for some sneaky fakes in PVP. It can also give dps a job to do if a boss is blocking.
The comments that Steven made that anyone can block and any weapon can block were really interesting. I love it when players are given stuff to experiment with. However, something needs to make the tank archetype feel special regarding blocking, and you cant allow blocking to be strong on high mobility dps archetypes.
From a UI perspective, threat needs to be more clearly communicated to players. One of the addons I always use for tanking in WoW lets me see threat based upon the colour of the mobs healthbar. There are three colours the healthbar can become to demonstrate when you have threat, when you dont have threat, and when your threat lead is low. I find that the addon helps a lot for making choices on where to dump threat abilities. It also works for dps players by letting them know when they are going to overtake the tank.
The lance on priest of mitra also had a ranged aoe of heals around the target - often used to heal the melee/tank around a mob. I feel dual targeting would still be perfect too. Would be good if the aoe burst at a target heals and damages to give the cleric another aoe.
I want to give my opinion on active blocking.
I actually like active blocking, but there must be some trade off when holding block all the time.
Being able to block all the is not skillfull at all, when active blocking is actually there to add an element off skill (needing to act to midigate more damage instead of just taking the hit and stat checking your enemy)
Maybe if blocking hits costs resources while something like parrying or perfect blocking a hit would give resources back, could be a solution. Making blocking a skill of resource management.
Maybe the tank could use some form of active taunt, but not an OP one wich would make the gameplay around threat useless.
Other than that i really like the direction in wich the tank is going.
https://studio.d-id.com/share?id=fb5a66b52067a815c7c9cd990616ddaa&utm_source=copy
I'm pretty sure active blocking does use mana as is. I think you could see it tick down as he blocked. It didn't seem very demanding but I think it exists. Just a balance thing maybe.
About the tank archtype: What i've seen i'm pleased with as a baseline, personally i would love to see the "Tank" be renamed to "Defender" archetype, as from what i've seen that describes the roles for both primary and secondary archtype better. A defender can tank in the traditional sense (pve orientated) or defend his team by providing damage mitigation (pvp/pvx) additionally for those who take the Tank as a secondary archtype it will be more clear of what the archtype combo will do, while "Tank" suggest beeing able to hold aggro, the "Defender" archtype would more clearly signify adding defensive properties to your build.
As for the abilities that were shown, i think they were a good baseline. Unlike most traditional MMO players i don't think there should be a taunt skill in the toolkit, instead, i would love to see one of the following:
1) A few of the skills have an upgrade option that makes that skill do additional threat, and/or become a taunt.
2) Taunt is an augment that the Tank archtype gets to add to its skills
3) Taunt is an upgraded status effect on some abilities
I was especially pleased with Aegis, as skilled players can use it in many pvx situations. Eg a magical mitigation equipped off tank uses aegis to reduce the damage of the main tank during magical abilities. Two offtanks assist the main tank on damage mitigation, allowing the main tank to spec, and gear towards more threat output instead of damage mitigation. Offtanks reduce the damage the melee dps get with cleave abilities and in pvp Aegis could help any player (eg a healer) by mitigating the incomming damage.
The other abilities were good starting abilities and starting combinations, only inciting strikes seemed as a starting ability missing its goal somewhat due to having a to low increased threat modifier. While it looks capable of holding aggro, it doesn't seem to be able to hold aggro on multiple targets against a single healing ability or a single aoe ability.. But with rankups and augments or a higher baseline threat modifier i think it will become a mainstay in many builds.
On an animation side it looked good for me, Due to power disparity its unclear for me if a 2 handed build is viable early on as a tank, The showcased build clearly requires a shield and shield assault, as well as the one hander is having more baseline damage, and even some penetration, resulting in more threat then the 2 handed sword, even without considering shield assault.
My main concern with the showcase, was the initial livestreamed version. During a development update, i expect a slightly more polished version, like the reuploaded one. (wich would have been perfect) instead we got a stream of developers that were unprepared, uncoordinated and unscripted. While i enjoyed an inside look at developers playing their in development game with all its ups and downs, thats a different type of format than i expect from an update.
All in all after the showcase i'm more hyped for ashes then before, and i'm hoping to see each archtype be presented in a similar fashion in the upcomming year. Repeat after me: Every two months an archtype showcase!
I feel pretty happy with the direction the tank is taking, I especially love aegis and grit.
I just have some concerns regarding aegis, active blocking, and the threat management.
Aegis:
As we've seen on stream, if a whole group stands behind a tank using aegis, during a strong AOE (the spiiiiin), the tank melts. Transferring damage to the tank instead of offering a flat mitigation to everyone is a good mechanic, because it would prevent some abuse that could turn the game unfun in PvP. It also makes it an interesting element of strategy when doing hard encounters, you'd need to decide how many people the tank can afford to take in his Aegis to withstand the incoming damage, and it needs to be lined up with other mitigations methods, etc... So it would not be a free joker that allows the whole group to survive a big mechanic.
However, I am worried that it would cause new tanks to get killed very often due to inexperience, trying to use it at the wrong time with too many people, or worse, that some players would cause a tank death by coming under the dome when it's not necessary, increasing the damage taken by the tank. So the amount of damage transferred should be calibrated carefully, and maybe the amount of max protected targets should start low and increase as the ability is augmented. If a class has a core mechanic that can cause their own death, it tends to redirect some of the new players to other classes.
I can imagine group boss encounters with the melee dps sheltering behind the tank during a big AOE to continue applying damage instead of running away (and losing dps), before coming back to their position to not stand in the cleave attacks targeted on the tank, and I really like that concept.
Active blocking:
I love active blocking, however it needs to require some timing, so it doesn't become "passive blocking", as in, you stand there holding block for the whole fight.
Some suggestions if I may,
One way to do that is to apply some kind of perfect block window (think valheim or elden ring), it doesn't have to be very tight timing, but there should be a short period of time after you started blocking that will have improved effect (better mitigation, CC applied to the attacker, whatever), it is also very satisfying to land.
An other way to do it is to make sure the stamina drain is calibrated properly to force the tank to drop block if they hold it for too long under constant attacks.
You want your tank thinking about what is a good time to block, so they only block when it's necessary, this makes the gameplay engaging and reactive, instead of very bland and passive.
Threat management
I am not used to play games with a threat generation system, I mostly played games with the taunt effect, you cast a skill and the boss will be on you for the duration of the effect unless someone else uses a skill with a taunt effect. The threat generation only comes in if nobody taunts at all. I'm not sure it's a great system, but no dps likes to hold off on doing their damage, and that's something that I think should be avoided.
Looking at the preview, it seemed like Steven was able to hold the aggro when he was actually using and landing his abilities, and he wasn't when he was just swinging his weapon around (good). As long as each class has ways to increase or reduce the threat generated by their abilities, we should be good. I like the idea that it requires skill and micromanagement to hold the aggro on multiple enemies, but it shouldn't become impossibly hard if you have a god tier dps in your group. It feels bad for both the tank and the dps (the tank feels like he's not doing his job properly and the dps is penalized for having a good damage output), so the tank should be able to comfortably generate more threat than the dps as long as they use and land their skills properly, even if a dps initiated the fight, the tank should be able to react after the mob was pulled and before the dps got smacked to snatch the aggro back. The tank's single target abilities should have stronger threat generation than the AOE ones, making it easy to take back and hold a single enemy, and increasingly hard to hold a group of mobs, the more mobs there are.
And that's it for my feedback
on a good path , i guess
What are your thoughts regarding the Tank abilities?
-Aegis
Amazing approach. Love it. Thats what I wanna see: group interaction; shielding your team. That is a worthy tank ability. As Omegacontagion mentioned, the aegis shield is too small. You definitly should increase the protection zone behind the tank. Why? While I love cuddling with females, i dislike feeling the sweaty body of the male mage with his stick in my back. Since you can always use more tanks to increase the width, there is no reason for the range classes to come so close.
-Shield assault
really nice! shields are not only for cosmetic. A shield is a weapon itself.
Minor aspect: I would prefer either a longer range or no travel distance at all. Just a melee attack. Also no aggro on it. Speaking of Aggro: The ingame tooltip doesn't mentioned its a aggro creating skill. May add it, or just remove the aggro of it. Definitly would prefer the last. One aggro skill is enough.
-Inciting strike
Well, for those who like the aggro system, thats your aggro creating skill right there.
I am okay with it as long as its only one.
-Tremoring Bellow
Yeeeesss! give us combos! Combos are great. They increase teamplay, organisation, communication, etc...
Thats a mmorpg skill.
-Grapple
looks good. Pulling the mob to you skill. The class definitly need one of those.
-Grit
nice. Minor aspect regarding the duration: Either the hole time like a buff or with longer cooldowns between.
It is the jack of all trades we wanted. And they tried to combined and merge it.
Action vs tap-target players will always be in conflict but it seems that intrepid likes to find a common ground. We need to respect their desicions and try to bring both worlds together. And yes Alice i agree with you that the counterplay potential and mobility is still missing.
What are your thoughts regarding the warhammer & shield and 2H sword?
Like the tower shield, a shield needs to cover my char completly. At least it should be reaching of the ground till the neck.
The Warhammer looks like in any other mmo. Not really special. The real warhammers are not blunt on both sides. Would be cool if you take a real on and size it up a bit.
Not a fan of 2H swords in general so.. i don't know.
Is there anything in particular you’re excited or concerned about regarding what was shown with the Tank updates?
I am exicting to use the active block. The system where thewolfofgear, gaull and nonameftw are not a fan of. BUT I AM. A Tanks job is to stay alive and blocking is something he can do, otherwise hes just a bunching bag and always needs a healer. The challenge of a tank is to make the decision between I need to block, I need to move, or I need to use grabble to get the mob of the dps. That is the challange. That is the thrill! So..
My concern is that you will add to much information onto the screen. DMG Numbers, blocking numbers, who has what percentage of aggro, enemy or npc, etc... . It is not needed. In a Battle you don't have all the information. There is Chaos, especally on the front lines. Why bother reading numbers etc if you could talk with each other, like "a mob is on my tale, please take it" , etc...
UI should stay simple and minimalist
This was my first thought. No definitive way to tell who had aggro at any time. Not a biggie on simple encounters, but wipe fodder for anything challenging where a tank HAS to control the encounter.
And this was my second thought...tanking 101
I missed the live version of the stream and was only able to watch the video uploaded after the fact, so that is what im basing my feedback on.
the video was Interesting- there has definitely been a lot of progress which is nice to see.
My main concern is if the direction of the tank combat will be based on what we saw here or what we've been told about vision of combat, because they seem to be a little different from each other based on the implied design direction I noticed during the showcase.
I understand that what was seen could just be more of a situational type experience that is still consistent with the vision, and not representative of the standard tank gameplay experience, due to the choice of enemy encounter, and other core features still being worked on- but if that's the case then it was an odd choice to display this specifc kind of encounter for the class showcase, without talking more about what a finished product experience would feel like.
1. counterplay/skill gap
TLDR:
Overall, I do think this showcase highlighted an issue (mainly with showcase itself, and possibly with design direction itself, depending on whether this showcase was an accurate representation of the intended tanking experience) which may be why people are reacting so negatively to it, and making "WOW" combat comparisons/saying combat looks "tank and spank"/"mashy"/"static" due to being able to optimize your positioning so easily for very long periods of time, being able to mash melee attacks/skills with no thought, and not really have to think about when to block/attack or not having to consider ranges/weapon selection/attack speed/etc., making the tank experience more of a "math calculation" that was "solved" before combat even began.
In terms of the tank skills specifically, to me it didn't seem like there was much "counter-play" going on, or many mechanics that made the skills super relevant, and when they were used it didn't seem very skill-based or that there was much "decision-making" or reaction required by the player moment-to-moment.
Again it could have been the type of encounter chosen, and the lack of other combat mechanics and AI, but this is a showcase of tank abilities so if this was not representative of the vision, then I feel like there should have been more clarification of the intended experience.
It seemed like fights were just about face-tanking until numbers went down- everything was just very "static" and "tank and spank" as other people are puting it, where it was best to just spam abilities as they came off cooldown.
To me the aspects of a tank's "control" should be very skill-based and grounded in different range/positioning based strategies- trying to mold the battlefied in your favor through skills like knockbacks/pulls/obstacles that are linked to active abilities, and require skillfully using those abilties to leverage their effects, and those effects don't keep the enemies static for extended periods of time, but long enough to get a positional advantage. None of this really happens when you can stay in the same location the whole fight with no real mechanics/counterplay going on.
B- Counterplay between offensive/defensive weapons
In addition to constantly having to worry about positioning, movement- a player should also be making impactful choices with offensive/defensive weapon/skill usage
Defense being relevant does not require a dull combat system where players avoid combat and never engage each other (as a lot of people are concerned about regarding active block). The overall design should encourage/incentivize players for proactively engaging enemies, as a means of determining a clear winner at the end of a fight, since you can't really have a winner if both players are shielding and avoiding each other the whole time.
Within that overall design of proactive engagement- both offense/defense should be relevant in the player accomplishing that goal. Your choice should matter of whther you block or attack in different situations. Offense should have situations where it is encouraged, and defense should be used to create those offensive situations/opportunities. This means offense should not be punished when used correctly (unless players are at equal skill level in order to prevent stalemates). Why should a player who landed his attack first be taking damage from an enemy who is mashing attacks while being hit? If they both hit each other at the same time that would be different but the player who landed the first strike clearly played better but is punished for it, so if you can just attack at any time with no difference, then how does choice matter? Its just watching numbers goes down while you mash attacks.
Based on my observation during the showcase- there is no counterplay there with weapons/blocking, when both the tank and enemy are mashing attacks successfully with no regard to positioning, timing, weapon range/weapon speed- compared to an alternative of maybe having the player who successfully lands the first hit, being able to interrupt the attack attempt of the other combatant. Skill of landing your attacks needs to matter, a more skilled player should be encouraged to attack, by being rewarded when attacking in a better way than the opponent. As long as that is the case, and a player is encouraged and rewarded for being aggressive and tactical, then you can promote proactive combat pacing that encourages players to engage each other, and where skill matters in how they approach landing their attacks.
The way to make defense relevant while retaining good combat pacing, is to fit it into that context. Have defense be a means for achieving that goal of getting into aggressive positions, through allowing defense to counter players who use offense in suboptimal situations/conditions (which would be kept in check through stamina system). That way the choice is there and it matters, but ultimately players can have that strategic goal of engaging enemys through being rewarded for being aggressive, but doing it through skill, since it would require using offense in the right scenarios, and using defense to put themselves into those situations.
This would prevent combatants from wildy swinging at each other with no consequence and no skill ("mashy" combat). As of now they don't really have to think much and its just a matter of watching numbers going down- I think the approach highlighted above it would allow for more interplay between offense and defense for more interesting interactions and counterplay, when combatants find themselves in those "static" situations (which should be rare, and not last very long), that would occur when the player is able to earn and temporarily maintain that positional advantage.
C) Counterplay regarding movement, even when the tank has aggro and is the target.
As of now it seems like the movement skills are just used once at the beginning then never again, due to no situational changes or need to adapt to what is going on. There should be a need to utilize more weaving/"overshooting" (crossing up the enemy by getting behind them or on different sides) movement strategies such as attempting to avoid/dodge melee attacks and using movement skills that can move around/through the enemy to reposition and require spacial awareness/adaptation/reaction from the combatants, even when both are within a small area with not much room to maneuver.
Overall, I don't think there should ever be AI and combat mechanics so basic you can just stay in the same spot the whole fight to "tank and spank". It just seemed like there wasn't much of a need to use any of the abilities or use any counterplay during the showcase. The player and the enemy just kind of stood in the same spot mashing melee attacks and spamming abilities. So I think another important goal is that even lower level enemies should still be a threat and still require good combat strategy/tactics to be used, you can always add more effiiciency/effectiveness to the enemies through better stats and more complex mechanics as the player progresses, but even the easiest content should still be engaging and fun.
2. Rng influence in combat experience
Tldr:
Overall, the rng is just really unsatisfying and reduces the importance of choice which are 2 important aspects I have read about Steven's combat vision, thus these aspects should be considered reasons to re-evaluate this rng influence in combat actions. Basically, rng is only good if players still have control over what is going on.
All-else-equal; it could be perceived that RNG evasion does help with agency (through avoiding cc/root effects) but its not through actual skill which is the problem- RNG feels bad from both the giving and receiving end, because its literally out of your control and by "way too much". I understand you "have control through your build choices of investing in evasion" but that should never spill over into the actual deliberate skill-based combat mechanics- there are 2 reasons for this-
1. because its completely unecessary to introduce this level of intrusive combat rng, in order to accomolish the goal of rewarding builds, when you can still have "build complexity" by focusing on the "effects" that happen after the actions take place (like damage/health/etc.) rather than invalidating actions themselves.
2. because combat itself, frankly, is way more engaging and higher priority to get right than, making sure "builds" have ever-so-slightly more too them, this is pointless to do this, just for builds to eventually become "solved". Even though build theory-crafting is fun, its not nearly as engaging/replayable in the long term as actual combat depth.
Again, I understand the "passive strategy" aspect of incorporating RNG combat mechanics like evasion, but in an all-else-equal scenario there are other ways to do this without watering down the combat. If you want people to be able to avoid CC, then empower them with skill based tools to do so. Make it counter play oriented, rather than relying on rng. (I really hate the rng in this iteration)
-If the point of the rng is simply to make enemies feel unique in their resistances- rng is not a good way to do this either (in terms of affecting the outcome of active skills). If you want enemies to feel unique and different, then do it through unique combat mechanics have unique effects, that players have to adapt too and have direct control over countering- not through rng resistances and rng in general, that the player can't account for in-the-moment.
Basically rng is only good if players still have control over what is going on.
3. Agency vs CC
TLDR:
Overall, when CC skills are finished in design, they should not emulate the amount of "static" gameplay observed in the showcase. It should be very counter-play focused, with lots of agency. CC is good, and I want a wide variety of CC options and they should still give positional advantages, but it should do this without locking combatants down for too long, and should require skill to use- in order to be both useful and engaging.
I also think that CC should be earned through skill, so I like the idea of hard CC skills being tied to skills that are tougher to pull off (risk vs. reward) as long as the majority of the experience allows for freedom/control and is very movement/strategy focused. Please just remove the rng from these skills/effects it makes them way less satisfying to pull off/avoid and detracts from that risk/reward aspect by undermining your skill.
- It was great to hear the mention of direct ways to defend against mobs- I really like this aspect and it helps a lot with fluidity and movement in combat, and adds agency through more options/counterplay, due to having to adapt to where the enemy is going and trying to intercept them.
- in terms of CC, one aspect that can be explored is through giving players/AI some form of control (but still less) during CC effects. This could be some form of "directional influence" where they can influence the effect of the CC in some way that makes it more interactive and less like a cutscene, while still retaining the consequences of allowing yourself to be CC'd. This might allow for a bit more flexibility in terms of implementing various CC effects that can affect positioning of yourself or the other combatant.
-I think the amount of agency is generally very good, there just needs to be more of a reason to utilize it and engage with the movement tools.
4. enemy behavior:
TLDR:
1. A good threat/aggro system should only affect target priority, with no additional long-term predictable CC effect. It should also encourage gameplay and mesh well with combat design instead of discouraging actions. I personally prefer something active and engaging, which generally would mean manually intercepting enemy targets rather than manipulating AI, however as long as threat management does not detract from other skills too much, and adds depth to the combat, then I would be fine with that, as long as it translates well between pve and pvp.
2. Mob leashes are a concern for using guerilla tactics to kiting/exploit rather than fully engage with the combat system.
3. I like unreactable enemy attacks, and dynamic mixups of enemy behaviors- as long as players have the situational tools to deal with those mechanics through planning/preparation, through dynamically reacting/adapting to situational changes to deal with those encounters.
I have a few concerns with the enemy movement, threat system, and AI
Its not quite clear to me how this specific iteration of threat works, as far as whether threat applies a "CC" effect that influences enemy positioning/movement in some way, or if it just simply affects who they are targeting at that point in time, with no additional effects. I do not want any long-term predictable lockdown effect if that is the case, but if its simply a matter of targeting priority then that I would be open to that. It also should synergize sith the combat system, and not discourage players from playing the game/limit actions in a frustrating manner.
I don't think it should be easy to get and hold threat, because the player should be required to intercept enemies to protect teammates in a skillful/engaging way. That is how you should "get aggro" as a tank player most of the time, by doing it youself as the player. I do prefer that this would be the case all the time, rather than being able to manipulate AI, but as long as threat management is skillfull and you still do have ways to directly intercept enemies most of the time then I would be open minded about that system of threat management. Basically it should never be less engaging than having to manually go and protect teammates, and it should never have a CC effect that locks down enemies for extended periods of time, requiring no positional awareness or counterplay using movement skill. If threat is going to be in the game I very much appreciate that it is tough to hold aggro when relying solely on managing threat. I just think overall the focus should be on the skillful gameplay revolving around situational awareness/decision making/positioning/range/timing/etc., regardless of who is being targeted at a given moment, rather than being one simple input (like an aoe taunt) that might not even translate well to pvp.
If there is going to be a threat system, then yes I appreciate the management aspect and how it is tough to maintain aggro, providing more opportunities for direct interception of the target. Imo it should be designed in that a good tank can be the center of attention, but that doesn't require allowing them to indefinitely hold aggro, the player should be required to use combat skill and different tools at their disposal to become the center of attention, rather than just being allowed to hold threat indefinitely- depending on the direction taken, the majority of skill could just boil down to managing threat, which is way less fun/engaging than if it could instead focus more on actively utilizing the available combat tools at the players disposal. Whatever direction you take with threat please ensure it is more skill-based than what it seemed in the showcase. I just think that general implementations of "threat" are outdated, reducing my preferred aspects of combat skill and detracting from aspects of combat that are more fun to me.
Maybe you could consider more of an "incentivized" system of threat management that could also translate to pvp- Such as threat
actually empowering the tank to become more efficient/effective at "becoming the target" by buffing thosd more direct methods of intercepting enemies. This would be a more organic way of accomplishing the goal, rather than manipulating the AI. I think that
if you just instead focus on giving tools to the players to be able to organically/directly impede enemies' targeting attempts, then that will emulate a lot of players' desires to "hold threat and fullfill the tank role" that people are asking for, but in a way that is much more engaging/fun/consistent through a higher amount of player skill.
-In other words, it might be best to start with what would work and be fun in pvp and then bring pve up to to that level and balance around that. The AI should be targeting the tank because they are smart and it makes sense in that situation, or because they can't get to another target, not because they are being told too.
B- Mob leashes
-A concern I have with enemy leashes, is that it seems very easy to exploit and create an easy/boring meta of guerilla tactics where you get the attention of the enemy then kite them to the end of their leash, and repeat until they are dead. This would be very low-risk/high-reward in that you can pretty much stay out of any long-term danger while killing the enemy because they are bound to that area as you chip away at them.
C) Mob attacks
- I really loved how enemies have unreactable attacks such as the burst of sword swings. This is extremely important in creating a skill-based and engaging gameplay, since it rewards both being proactive during combat, through punishing those who try to rely on waiting around to react and punish aggression- while also rewarding strategy and planning out your attacks ahead of time, through puting yourself in advantageous positions, and preparing for/adapting to different situations, rather than just simply reacting to everything as it actually happens, while using a direct counter.
With this approach, in order to avoid frustration/lack of agency, it is crucial that the player has the tools to be proactive and deal with unreactable attacks for different situations. This will retain that dynamic/unpredictable experience that unpredictable and unreactable attacks provide, while also still retaining agency through allowing players to account for different possibilities dependent on how they respond to different circumstances and how strategically they manage their situational tools.
For example, the combat should revolve around finding an opportunity to get to an offensive position to pressure the opponent-
so, lets say an enemy has
A- an unreactable short-ranged sword swing
B- and an unreactable longer-ranged dash attack-
Lets say the player has the goal of attacking with a long-ranged spear
It should be encouraged for a skilled player to get to a good range to safely be able to pressure the enemy with the long-ranged spear. This may mean having a means of advance forward defensively (in order to avoid/defend against the dash attack), to get in range to use the spear, while still being out of range of the enemy's shorter-ranged sword attack. The player doesn't know which of these things the enemy will do (dash attack or short sword attack), but they can manage their tools (defensive gap closer and longer-ranged spear) as counters to different potential threats. At that point the experience is still dynamic because the player has to react to the situation and respond based on what the enemy does- (such as what range they are at/what threatens them in that situation/what situation do they want to put themselves in and how will they do that, based on the enemy behavior)
The player still has ways to deal with enemy options in a proactive way, but the way that the situations present themselves is dynamic and thus requires player situational awareness and situational responses. Basically, give the players the tools they need for different situations, and just keep dynamically mix up the situstions the players have to respond too, on order to keep things fresh amd the players on their toes, without being frustrsting or negatively impacting the actual gameplay.
-I think a good analogy would be to just think of dynamic/unreactable attacks in terms of how pvp works. Players make different decisions and create different scenarios amongst themselves which adds complexity and replayability- but as long as the tools they have available are balanced, and there is counterplay available, then everything is very skill-based and player-driven, and its just about how they use those tools to make different choices and create different experiences to create that dynamic enviornment and add replayablilty.
5. state/flow of the combat experience:
TLDR:
A skilled player should be able to choose to continue fighting or attempt to stop, rather than being forced to stop through unsustainable resources like mana drain. This way skilled players can fully play out long intense fights, and players who are performing well can continue to stay in the fight and have fun, rather than an arbitrary limitation imposed on that experience. Obviously there could be exeptions, such as being outskilled, resulting in the worse player's resource drain, or mismanged resources leading to resource drain, resulting in having to sit/use potions to regen mana. Resource sustainability should be reliable and reward skill (such as being tied to active skills) rather than a risky niche/situational potion usage or alternatively, low risk/easy potion usage during combat, resulting in lame potion hoarding gameplay.
1. design combat engagements to naturally come to a close, based on the a combatant winning through skill, rather than an arbitrary amount of time or skills that can be used before "mana runs out".
2. allow the more skilled combatant to choose to continue fighting as long as they desire, by being capable of continuing/starting new engagements without having their "flow state" being abrupty halted.
This is just for obvious reasons
A) Assuming combat is well-designed and fun- the game should not force the player to stop and rip them from their "flow state" or remove that choice from them on which content they want to engage with and for how long
B- it allows for intense fights amongst skilled opponents to be fully played out, rather than being cut short due to an arbitrary limitation.
(obviously there could be a "failsafe" resource drain to prevent indefinite stalemates between equally skilled combatants, which would still qualify as a skill-based mechanic that just nudges combat forward when players are at a standstill, but in other cases it is unnecessary)
You should be able to sustain your health and mana through skill. Obviously, dedicated classes would be more efficient/effective at this such as clerics, but thats all part of the strategy/skill. This fact actually highlights my point, in that you should be able to sustain your resources through skill- because a party that has a cleric would be more sustianable (showing that sustainability is okay and desired in general), so that philosophy should apply across the board- no matter the team compositions there should be sustainability until a better composition/better combatants outskill you and defeat you.
If a player does not want to continue to engage with the system, they can simply avoid it/disengage, or there could be a more "soft" resource drain that if the player becomes less engaged its easier to mismanage their resources and lose sustainability. This would give that incentive to players to take a break when they lose focus, without being an unnessecary hard limitation.
One important thing to note about this-
Due to the gameplay implications highlighted above, the method of sustianability needs to be a reliable and skill-based function tied to skill, rather than solely a risky/situational thing (like potions) during combat. Potions during combat can be a thing, but it shouldn't be the primary way for sustaining combat do to its unreliability (if there is risk involved in usage) or the inventory hoarding meta is produces (if it reliable to use potions during combat). Ways to tie sustianability to skill is to do just that- give successful skills some mana regen/health regen (like a well timed block/dodge), or give each class some active skills that have mana/health regen as a benefit to landing those skills successfully.
I really don't like the idea of potions being the "optimal" way to refill mana/health during combat. This creates different issues such as either a
1. potion spam meta- where potions are easy to use during combat, meaning meta gameplay is just overstocking potions in the inventory to spam during combat- this is very tedious and boring gameplay and should not be rewarded
2. the potion usage having risk during combat, thus creating more situational form of mana/health sustainability, which could lead to an unreliable form of mana sustainability during combat. This leads back to square one, in that players would have their combat experience abruptly halted due to the niche usage of the potions during combat.
I think potions should have risk when used during combat, which means there should be a more reliable alternative way to sustain your character during combat.
Overall, I think you should embrace good combat design through encouraging players to engage with the system as much as they want. You could even add a risk/reward element that grades the player on their combat efficiency/effectiveness through achieving a "combat grade" that can only be ranked up during combat, requiring a player to maintain a state of combat to get a higher and higher grade, with better loot drop rates tied to a higher grade. This adds a risk of pulling more and more enemies/tougher enemies to get a better combat grade, causing the player to risk higher difficulty, making it harder to manage health/resources in order to get that higher grade, or choose to stop and rest which would reset their combat grade after a short period of time. This would tie in well to the "sitting" mechanic that players would then need to engage with in order to recharge their resources.
6. active block/"perfect parry":
TLDR:
Blocking is great, love the idea of an additional "perfect" block mechanic. Blocking needs to be useful, and there needs to be interplay between attacking/blocking, and benefit the player into outplyaing their opponent when using block well, rather than just being a punching bag/delaying death without offering any counterplay potential. A stamina resource for blocking is better than tieing it to mana, because you want to encourage player actions/counterplay rather than limiting action usage. Agency is great while blocking, makes it feel mobile and adds options/strategy. Blocking should be practical and responsive, not clunky and useless in practice.
I don't think it would be a good idea to tie everything to the same resource. The "choice" in combat should be through counterplay with the enemy, not through being limited in choosing what sacrifices to make within your own personal combat kit. Players are already having to make a choice in what tools they use, based on what the enemy uses. So when both combatants are on equal footing there is no need to limit what tools are available to them based on a resource that everything is tied too. This just limits what skills are actually being used, which results in less counterplay which is less engaging. Active blocking should use its own seperate resource like stamina.
-I loved the freedom of movement while blocking and that you don't become very sluggish. This makes combat much more fluid and adds depth through encouraging mastery of movement/positioning.
-The only concern is that active blocking should be situationally useful and fit nicely into proactive gameplay design. You should always be encouraged to engage the opponent in combat, so blocking should just be a means of doing so, it should be a tool used to get into an offensive position, this adds depth through making players choose when to attack/defend but creates good pacing by incentivizing players to always look for opportunities to attack the enemy (which is part of making sure combat eventually comes to an end when played optimally be 2 equally skilled players), and also is important for discouraging overly passive strategies where it is optimal to sit behind shield and never engage the enemy. Stamina is useful at deterring this, but it is important to ensure blocking has a role in engaging the enemy, rather than contributing nothing toward that goal and just allowing the player to be a punching bag when they want too.
-Active blocking also needs to be responsive and flow into other tools, be fluid, and useful. It needs to be practical, and not janky/unreliable.
-There was a mention in the stream about adding a timed "perfect" block/parry. This is an awesome idea I would love to see, and adds a lot to the fun/depth to combat.
7. Tank skills overall direction:
TLDR:
If the "direction" means tank skills will reflect movement, CC, personal mitigation, team protection, cleave/single target attacks, threat management- then I love this direction (depending on how threat is handled). As long as you have access to several skills in each category, instead of being limited to just one at a time from each category. I want to see build options for different ranges (such as long-ranged/short ranged/balanced) through having lots of skills at different ranges. I also would like for the tank skill effects to overlap with other tank skills, and for the skill effects to overlap with universal skills (such as skills that apply CC effects to tank movement skills, or apply CC effects to active block). All of the skills should be very skill based and translate well between pve and pvp.
If the skills shown were representative of movement, CC, personal mitigation, team protection, attacks, and threat generation- If that is the direction then it sounds great (depending on how threat is handled). But if the "direction" is that there will only really be 1 skill at a time related to each of these categories (meaning there way be "more" overall skills, but its more of a vertical progression path of upgrading existing skills, rather than more variety of readily available skills within each of those categories)- then I don't like that direction. Those overarching categories are great, but there should be a large variety of immediately accessible skills relevant to each of those categories. There needs to be a lot of buttons to press and situational tools available at different ranges for maximum engagement (please see my thread on this topic, titled "proactive+reactive offensive/defensive/movement options baked in at various ranges") https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/54950/proactive-reactive-offense-defense-movement-options-baked-in-at-various-ranges#latest
Basically, not only would I like to see tank skills dedicated to each category (movement, CC, personal mitigation, team protection, attacks, and threat generation) but also have those effects overlap between each other and between universal skills (such as skills that allow CC effects on tank movement skills, or CC effects on active block)
Additionally, it would be ideal to have:
1. long-ranged
2. short-ranged
3. balanced
options for tank builds (or any class builds), and the "control" aspects of the tank would play heavily into creating those favorable combat scenarios.
I also hope the skills are very synergistic with each other and flow into each other fluidly to allow for "freeform" skill combinations/strategies
- I very much appreciate the mention of how these abilties translate to pvp in the video. I think pvp should be the main considerstation, as its a lot easier to tranfer abilties from pvp to pve than it is to transfer abilities from pve to pvp.
A) Tank movement skills
I would like to see both agressive and retreating movement skills/effects (obviously tuned to encourage players to engage instead of always retreat)
I would also like to see a plethora of direct ways to reposition to directly get in between enemies and teammates (rather than always being able to hold threat.)
B- tank CC
I would like to see various CC tools that allows that tank to manipulate positioning, such as CC that allows for creating/closing gaps and are tied to active skills. These could be pushbacks/pulls/debuffs/buffs/obstacles/etc.
(I also hope CC is just effective enough to gain temporary positional advantage, and not so overpowered that the tank/enemy are very static in movement most of the time due to CC, and also please no rng to determine CC success rates, it should be consistent/reliable/skill-based)
C) tank attacks
I hope to see ways of pressuring enemies at various distances offensively, not just only melee skills ("pressuring" meaning there is interplay between offense/defense, not just automatic damage)
D) personal mitigation
I hope to see a lot of situational protection skills, such as a personal bubble shield that is attached to your character, an absorb/deflect, more efficient/effective active block/timed parry, positional barriers, distraction abilties
- I also really hope to see some form of skill-based and reliable mana/health sustainability, that is less effective than dedicated classes would be capable of, but still available to all classes including the tank.
E) team protection
I would like to see both protection for
1. only defending yourself and allies while relying on them to attack (something like Reinhardt's shield from Overwatch), and for
2. defending youself and allies while you are able to attack (something like Sigma's shield from Overwatch)
- this way you can choose to focus solely on defending allies while relying on your team to do damage, or you can choose to contribute to the fight yourself, while still providing good protection for you and your teammates.
It would also be cool to have team-shield abilities that encourage/discourage specific formations/positoning such as a shield dome that encourages player to group together and focus on short range attacks within the dome, or maybe being able to form a ring of large spikes that act as a barrier that protects your teammates from melee users getting inside, but can be shot through at range.
One thing thats very important to consider for "team protection" abilities, is that they need to account for how players position themselves. Sometimes players position themselves spread out to where a small area of protection is kind of useless for protecting the team, because it would be more of a disadvantage to position in that manner, and the benefit isn't worth it. As long as these types of abilities are situationally useful, then its fine if its not worth it "all the time". So, as long as there are cases where it is better to change postioning to get the benefit of the ability then it could work well. This could also be an opportunity to add other types of team-protection abilities that instead of encouraging a specific position, it adpats to the player's positioning, which can be useful when positioning is more spread out.
F) tank threat management
If its here to stay, I would like threat generation tied to active skill-based skills as a reward and for it to just simply affect target priority- and definitely not apply any kind of long-term CC lockdown effect
8. Individual Skills:
TLDR:
aegis is cool in concept, it might need to be tuned to ensure it has a practical use based on team positioning, and it needs to better communicate what it does through its animation due to coming acrossed as a direct team shield ability focused on where the tank is facing, rather than more of a life-link ability that is more about what is behind the tank. If you really want to encourage specific positioning, it needs to be worth giving up other positions.
Grit is awesome visually, I love the idea of layering passive abilities with active ones.
tremoring bellow is a good direction, the effects are great, hopefully there is a large variety of different kinds of CC abilities like this
shield assault is cool as a close range initiation tool, I think it is neccesary to make sure there are some movement skills that allow you to go through/around the enemy (to encourage spacial awareness/positioning), and also movement skills that allow you to create space in addition to closing gaps.
Grapple is cool in concept- I hate the rng though, and the animation is clunky, not very responsive especially in terms of the delay between its contact and actually pulling enemies.
Inciting stikes is cool- I love having a mixture of cleave and single target attacks, hopefully there are ones available at varying ranges.
I love the direction of a team-protection ability like this, and I love the overall concept of strategic formations and positionings based on roles- however it needs to fit into the context of the overall flow of combat, and reward actions that would naturally occur in the combat environment rather and not be too forced/impractical to be used. This may or may not require iteration for this ability as it depends on the context within the rest of the combat design. If you really want to encourage specific positioning, it needs to be worth giving up other positions.
visually- I have an issue with how the ability is communicated. it comes accrossed as more of a "shield" like ability, but to my understanding it is actually more of a "life-link" type ability. In which case the visual design makes it seem like you have to be fscing the enemy with the shield while your teammates are behind you in order to benefit from it- when in reality as long as the teammates are behind you it doesn't really matter whether you face the enemy with the shield part or not. Based on this I think it might be better to have more of an "area of effect" animation rather than a "shield" animation, that possible has a "link"-like effect, between players that are within its active area of effect. I think it would be better to have this kind of visual feedback to avoid confusion, and maybe save the current animation/visual design for an actually "team shield" ability that requires you to face the enemy.
B- grit-
I thought the idea of grit/courage was a pretty neat idea when it was shown. I love the aesthetic it is sooo good.
I really like the idea of having loads of active abilties to engage with in combat, but I also like the idea of layering passive abilities, like this one, into the kit as well, really cool idea.
C) tremoring bellow-
-Seems like a good starting point, a basic close range skill with cc effect, pretty cool.
-very neat effects, especially with the grass, extremely immersive and awesome.
I would like to see direct CC or CC related effects tied to a variety of tank skills such as blocks/dodges/ranged-attacks and not just direct short-ranged skills
D) shield assault-
very cool, I like the idea that since its a close range engagement tool, and thus you can use it within that close range without worrying about "overshooting" it past the enemy.
I do think there should be some movement skills that can "overshoot" the target, in order to force the player to consider the positioning/timing when using it. Maybe skills that are meant more for gap closing can be "overshot" past the ememy to make it more skill-based, or maybe there are attacks that actually benefit from "overshooting" by forcing the enemy to have to turn around/reposition to engage you since you are now behind them.
E) grapple-
-cool ability in concept
- it seemed like it wasn't very responsive though during the showcase, due to the massive delay between its use and its effect
-I hate the rng that I noticed with this ability though.
F) Inciting Strikes-
I love the idea of having certain single-target focused and certain "cleaving" multi-target based skills. I also like that (if threat generation remains a thing) threat generation is tied to active skills that require some skill to pull off, such as getting up close to land these inciting strikes.
9. melee combos:
TLDR:
players will minimize risk, meaning if something is impractical/doesn't really have a defined situational use then it won't be used.
Melee combos need to be practical, but also without requiring the enemy to be locked down extended periods of time in order to be useful. This will be tough to do seeing as how you kind of need to be locked down for so long in order to cycle through the combo (relative to an enemy who is not cycling though a combo and has free movement). I don't want a "mashy" feeling of melee attacks, without much thought into attacking/defending/movement while performing melee strikes. I do like how quick/responsive the animations are though.
1. Be very impractical, because it is too risky to cycle through your combo in the same position, in order to get the specific hit/effect you want
2. Since they require being somewhat stationary (in comparison to an enemy who is not cycling through a combo and is free to dash around) for a long period of time to cycle through the different hits- that the combat will be designed around this in order to keep combatants in static positions for long periods of time "mashing" their attacks, which I don't like the idea of
I actually loved the fast and responsive speed of attacks, and overall hope for a fast combat pacing
- I hope they will be designed to be practical, useful, and quick/responsive while also being viable in pvp where players try to minimize risk/vulnerability.
-In terms of the specific weapons and animations, there has been noticable improvement.
-I don't agree with players who think that everything should be reactable, but for the things that are designed to be reacted too- those attacks should have distinctive visual cues that aid players with doing so.
10. UI:
maybe im just blind but I didn't notice any health/threat level displayed for enemies. if its not supposed to be displayed thats one thing, but if it is then it didn't really stick out to me.
Looking forward to the next update,
Thanks for reading!
We were introduced to a 1-handed+shield and great-sword perspective on tanking, which is pretty standard. On this, I am going to assume that the tank archetype is going to be able use a variety of weapon type/playstyles to fill it's role.
Shield Assault
Like most games, skill naming conventions were a little specific and don't always align with what the player is actually doing. This might be a little nit-picky, but correcting it and expanding on that correction will allow for a great deal more growth within the system.
For example, Shield Assault. The current iteration has essentially 2 functions: gap close and engagement. It was said on stream that it would require a shield to use this ability, effectively making it unusable by those wielding a great sword (or other non-shield users). By simply renaming the skill 'Shoulder Rush' or 'Heroic Engagement' or anything more generic - it will allow the skill to thematically be useable by non-shield users. Why strip a mechanic away from someone wanting to play a great-sword wielding tank?
'Well, we want to tie a Shield-like attack to go with tank.' I can completely understand that. I won't lie, I pally tanked in Warcraft many moons ago and I dropped everything in-game to level a paladin once I saw that shield-oriented game play - and I never looked back.
Add "Shield Assault" in as a secondary attack type. However, code it as a separate attack ability that changes it's name upon what weapon the player is using. "Shield Assault" for shield-users, "Mighty Hackening" for great-sword wielders, for tanks that dual-wield 1-handed weapons "Eviscerate", and for staff/spear users "Sudden Spin". Each doing the same damage, triggering the same CC effect, just changing the skill name and message based on the weapon wielded.
Different Tank Types and Archetypes
'Dual-wield and staff/spear users?' Why not? Give tanks the ability to use a parrying blade instead of a shield. Imagine how cool later mystic archetypes would be specializing with a staff instead of a sword.
Knight - shield or great-sword tanking
Guardian - any combination of weapons/ styles
Nightshield - shield or dual-wield tanking
Warden - great-sword or dual-wield tanking
Spellshield - shield or staff tanking
Keeper - great-sword or staff tanking
Paladin - shield or great-sword tanking
Argent - shield or dual-wield tanking
It opens up a wide realm of new and interesting game play.
Active Block
I like the notion of the Active Block, I think it's a key aesthetic to the tank role and it shouldn't be limited to shield-users. An animation of the tank bracing for a parry can be an easy adjustment for great-sword (or other) wielders.
However, I don't like the notion of it costing a resource just to activate it. If there is a resource cost it should come with each successive blow that is blocked.
Given that Tanks are a defensive role, someone engaging a tank should really weigh whether or not the energy they are about to put forth can overwhelm the tank's defense. If squaring off against an opponent, Active Block should be a deterrent to the opponent attacking. Allowing an aggressor to just wait for the tank's resource to deplete before they attack seems counter-intuitive to how a fight should work. If the opponent was battering away on the tank as they were Active Blocking, that would seem a much more realistic endurance/ resource drain.
As many other people have commented, when the tank is just Active Blocking, they are not doing anything else. There is no retaliatory damage, there is no threat accumulation, there is only mitigation. In non-PVP combat it is essential for a tank to gather threat, so no properly played Tank will allow themselves to sit on their Active Block.
Also, it should cost Endurance - Mana is for spell-casters.
Timed Activated Block
I think this is something Intrepid should really consider for the Tank role and all it's branching Archetypes. Often, tanking in PVE comes down to "what is my best rotation of attack cooldowns", and can get a little mind-numbing. In PVP, tanks can feel a little underwhelming since their kits aren't usually suited for an aggressive game play.
People that enjoy playing tanks tend be more... tactical? in their mindset. One of the most enjoyable mechanics I've played in games is the timed Counter Attack. Jubei from Samurai Shodown, Beidou in Genshin Impact, the entire counter system in Dead or Alive 3 - these types of gameplay really emphasized you understood your opponent's kit -and- their playstyle. They were high risk and also high reward.
This would tie in perfectly with the Active Block system. Timing their opponent's attack, the tank raises their Active Block within .5 seconds of the blow, immediately deflecting it. Successfully timing that window, the incoming damage is greatly mitigated and it procs (or resets the cd of) the Shield Assault/Great Hackening/Eviscerate/Sudden Spin attack.
Something like that would be a really enjoyable playstyle enhancement, without being a player skill-level required for PVE content.
Aegis
I love this ability. I've always appreciated group- damage mitigation abilities, especially those that pose a threat to the tank if used incorrectly.
Grit/ Courage
A very nice synergy of cd usage. It was said that Courage also offered some minor damage mitigation, I'm hoping to see it add some minor damage-dealing buff as well.
Grapple
The animation wasn't complete, but I'd love to see this incorporate the player's wielded weapon attached the chain. A standardized hook-and-chain just wouldn't be as gratifying to see.
---
Those are my thoughts. Really appreciate all the hard work you guys have put in the game. It's coming along amazing.
-Moving in the right direction
-Tanks needs better aggro management tweaking. The first video looked like the tank could not tank at all in the traditional sense of holding mobs. The second video was much better but still looked to be a major challenge.
-A taunt rescue would be nice that puts you to the top of the aggro list when mobs pull off the tank.
- Double slash spell animation needs to be slowed down by 5-15% so it does not go so fast you often miss seeing the blades in the animation.
- Grapple was perfect – Love the ability to grab a mob and quickly reposition it. Please allow us to spend points into it to be able to grapple multiple mobs and pull them as the tank so you can grab mobs the wander into the fight or pull off so you can quickly get them back into melee range to build aggro.
- CC knock down combo looks great.
- I would like to have the shield charge gap closer enhancable with spending modification points as you level to have it get to where it was in Alpha one. I like to have mobility as a tank to quickly get to mobs or shed mobs off Range DPS or ads.
What are your thoughts regarding the Tank abilities shown in the January livestream?
- Aegis spell looked too dangerous to use without getting killed when an AOE from a mob hit and absorb the hit form the rest of the team it would destroy the tanks health and got Steven kill many times. This is just a tweak, gear or % issue. I understand that you need to use the damage reduction ability with it, but it was doing what was intended but gets you killed extreemly fast.
-Make Aegis customizable where you can spend points to where it can be laid down in a specific spot as a temp shield for the group and the tank can move mobs away from it or keep frontals turned away from the group. Having the mobs face the tank and group while Ageis is up to keep the group behind the shield is not something I would like to be doing as a tank and is not worth the risk if the MOB has a nasty frontal attacks.
What are your thoughts regarding the Warhammer & shield, and 2H sword shown in the January livestream?
- Active shield blocking is very nice – Just add the diminishing returns so perm blocking without a cost does not become the norm. The stamina bar or % of melee damage still gets through etc.
- Warhammer animations looked good.
- 2H sword looks good but spin attack animation not sure yet if it is too fast.
Is there anything you’re excited or concerned about regarding what was shown with the Tank updates?
- Aggro management of the tank. I hate to have to constantly chase mobs down to pull them off Healers and DPS especially if they are ranged. If the issue is a gear discrepancy or level issue between DPS and healers I can understand that and those classes need to play to the ability of the tank.
- Not waiting for tank to gather up mobs before dpsing is on the DPSer to play to the tank’s ability.
- I would like to have a taunt or rescue ability in my base kit to be able to get mobs back.
- For example, EQ2 Berserker had great AoE mob taunt and aggro management. Guardian was great as single target aggro management but had issues with holding multiple mobs which was fine because they tanked differently due to class and abilities.
So far it is moving in the right direction just need some tweaks.
Is Ashes of Creation going to have offensive and defensive target like Vanguard Saga of Heroes? That opens up so many interesting mechanics I haven't seen since that game. Tank can pull treat from mobs targeting his defensive target. Tank could shield defensive target.
Gets even more interesting for casting classes. Blood mage can damage offensive target, transferring the health to the defensive target. I won't belabor the point.
I assume this won't be in the game since it hasn't been publicized, but if there is still time in the development cycle, this is the single most attractive MMORPG feature for me. I sometimes hear people say it makes the game too complex to play. But you could easily make certain classes mostly interacting with one or the other, and some classes interact with both.
Thanks.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/6401/having-both-an-offensive-and-defensive-target-at-the-same-time
I liked the Aegis ability, however, I think the players had to stand too close to the tank. Might I suggest that either you make it more like an aura where there is a blue circle under the tank's feet which protects party members 30 feet away like a paladin aura like in world of warcraft. Perhaps on a longer timer. Realistically, on the tank should be taking damage if he has the threat unless it is an AOE ability. Alternatively, I like how Final Fantasy 14 does the paladin Aegis ability with the cone and it is an immunity which negates all damage for one attack.
A couple of suggestions I would make for the interface based on the video. Put a threat meter under the enemy nameplate. A simple number with the percentage wouldn't be hard to do. Second, make it so we can change the color of the nameplates. It was hard to tell who the party and enemy were. I realize we also have colorblind people with red and green. I would say red is fine for enemies, blue for party members, green for guildmates. Make it so colorblind people can use white or whatever other colors best stand out for them. Lastly, fix the aggro. You shouldn't have to wait for 5 sunders before you dps. In world of warcraft the tank does like 6 to 10 times the threat of other players so the only way to pull threat is to not target what the tank is targeting. The tank needs to use defensives, position mobs, grab adds, and look good in armor. Damage dealers are not going to wait for the tank to grab agrro and that simply is not fun. I think the stamina system of New World might be good for active blocking of a shield. I would also like to tank with a 2 hand weapon and would like to parry as a tank from a RP perspective. I think other tanks may agree that it should not just be a sword and shield for tanking. The shield charge and tripping the enemy were cool.
My biggest concern would be that all the abilities showcased were action combat, and more and more that seems to be the way the game is headed. With the game supposed to be Hybid combat I'd like to know how the tab-style is going to feature moving forward.
If you're going full action-combat then you need to be honest with your audience, and if you're sticking with hybrid then you need to showcase the tab-aspects.
I love mmos and RPGS Tabletop games. I have been playing wow for 12 years, and Elder Scrolls online for 4 years, and just gave Everquest a chance with a group of guys from my wow guild who all loved EverQuest back in the day. I'm very passionate about having a solid new MMO to play all the time and in my opinion, for MMos to succeed they need 5 things: Solid PVP, Difficult end game raids/dungeons, a fast-paced combat system, depth to classes & their abilities, and finally awesome looking gear.
I agree with all that you said that is why i have action combat and think that tab target is the best for mmos
I agree!
And Highsword to Buttersheep.