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.

Skill Animations Are Extremely Fast

2»

Comments

  • StalwartStalwart Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 2023
    (sorry accidental double post)
  • E_N_Y_OE_N_Y_O Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited January 2023
    Melee combat has improved since the last showing which was great to see.

    That being said, I agree with the combat effects are far too flashy and look rigid.

    Please make the attacks more meaningful and something about the attacks feel really rigid, in New World when I attack it feels much less awkward, I think it's to do with the body movement when attacking.
  • Attack animations slow down the combat and make it clunky... It looked fine for this stage of development. There is literally no point in making giant judgements for level 15 content. I'm sure they will adjust it as the development goes.
  • I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Blindside wrote: »
    I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.

    Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.

    There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.

    I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.

    Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Global cooldowns are definitely from the dawn of the Internet and we should be able to not have a gcd these days. Though, gcd helps those players without a local server who are forced to compete with those locals on a local server so the lag issue remains and thus, gcd should probably remain.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • BlindsideBlindside Member
    edited January 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.

    Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.

    There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.

    I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.

    Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.

    Yeah I've been following AoC since it was out on Kickstarter. I just find it strange that the hybrid tab-action combat AoC is using has taken so much inspiration from GW2 yet they implement a global CD system which removes the fluidity that system provides.

    Is it not boring when the flow of all of the unique classes offered is just (eg.) 1 action per second simply because the game itself artificially limits how many skills you can cast regardless of the actual animation times of the abilities themselves?

    GCDs and animation locks (with the exception of specific skills like movement abilities) are relics of the past when it comes to combat design. The graphics are significantly better on the new engines but the gameplay feels the same as a game that came out in the early 2000s. WoW did a lot of things well that has contributed to its longevity (sunk-cost fallacy aside), but there have been many innovations and improvements to combat systems since then and it would be a shame if they weren't considered or at least partially adopted.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Blindside wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.

    Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.

    There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.

    I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.

    Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.

    Yeah I've been following AoC since it was out on Kickstarter. I just find it strange that the hybrid tab-action combat AoC is using has taken so much inspiration from GW2 yet they implement a global CD system which removes the fluidity that system provides.

    Is it not boring when the flow of all of the unique classes offered is just (eg.) 1 action per second simply because the game itself artificially limits how many skills you can cast regardless of the actual animation times of the abilities themselves?

    GCDs and animation locks (with the exception of specific skills like movement abilities) are relics of the past when it comes to combat design. The graphics are significantly better on the new engines but the gameplay feels the same as a game that came out in the early 2000s. WoW did a lot of things well, but there have been many innovations and improvements to combat systems since then and it would be a shame if they weren't considered or at least partially adopted.

    The thing is, are those things universally considered innovations or improvements?

    My data collection (on this forum) indicates no. It's around 50-50 with a slight edge toward what they made now. So, basically, they took the feedback, they considered what the slight majority wanted, probably 'what their Devs liked and think will be good', and very intentionally and explicitly made that change.

    The fact that you or I or similar people think 'this isn't the future' means nothing to the other half of MMO gamers who hate our 'idea of the future'.

    I'm not saying we will get a GCD, but probably the 'philosophical concept behind combat' would be in the same area as a GCD-based game.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • BlindsideBlindside Member
    edited January 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.

    Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.

    There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.

    I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.

    Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.

    Yeah I've been following AoC since it was out on Kickstarter. I just find it strange that the hybrid tab-action combat AoC is using has taken so much inspiration from GW2 yet they implement a global CD system which removes the fluidity that system provides.

    Is it not boring when the flow of all of the unique classes offered is just (eg.) 1 action per second simply because the game itself artificially limits how many skills you can cast regardless of the actual animation times of the abilities themselves?

    GCDs and animation locks (with the exception of specific skills like movement abilities) are relics of the past when it comes to combat design. The graphics are significantly better on the new engines but the gameplay feels the same as a game that came out in the early 2000s. WoW did a lot of things well, but there have been many innovations and improvements to combat systems since then and it would be a shame if they weren't considered or at least partially adopted.

    The thing is, are those things universally considered innovations or improvements?

    My data collection (on this forum) indicates no. It's around 50-50 with a slight edge toward what they made now. So, basically, they took the feedback, they considered what the slight majority wanted, probably 'what their Devs liked and think will be good', and very intentionally and explicitly made that change.

    The fact that you or I or similar people think 'this isn't the future' means nothing to the other half of MMO gamers who hate our 'idea of the future'.

    I'm not saying we will get a GCD, but probably the 'philosophical concept behind combat' would be in the same area as a GCD-based game.

    I mention innovations and improvements from the standpoint that industries and their respective features and generations of products tend to get better over time as data is compiled and iterated upon. While people may prefer older systems, I would question whether those those systems or inconveniences were a result of limitations of older engines or if they were intentionally designed that way. Then, comparing those older systems to newer ones to figure out the aspects that work and feel good vs. the ones that don't is also a crucial part of the design process. This is especially beneficial in competitive industries like gaming where new releases are competing for the attention and loyalty of the same groups of players.

    For example, I enjoy the skill-based and fluid combat in GW2. But, if Ashes doesn't execute the aspects of the game that I care about better than GW2, I would mostly play it for the novelty before returning to my 'roots.' Obviously this example is subjective but look what happens with a new MMO like New World. Everyone tries it at release because they hope it's the next best thing and then they realize what they want already exists or is better found elsewhere. The longevity and relevance of the games released in the past few years have been quite low. Sticking to old ways of doing things for the sake of nostalgia doesn't seem like the right way to go for me.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Blindside wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Blindside wrote: »
    I dislike games with global cooldowns.

    The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.

    You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.

    Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.

    Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.

    There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.

    I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.

    Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.

    Yeah I've been following AoC since it was out on Kickstarter. I just find it strange that the hybrid tab-action combat AoC is using has taken so much inspiration from GW2 yet they implement a global CD system which removes the fluidity that system provides.

    Is it not boring when the flow of all of the unique classes offered is just (eg.) 1 action per second simply because the game itself artificially limits how many skills you can cast regardless of the actual animation times of the abilities themselves?

    GCDs and animation locks (with the exception of specific skills like movement abilities) are relics of the past when it comes to combat design. The graphics are significantly better on the new engines but the gameplay feels the same as a game that came out in the early 2000s. WoW did a lot of things well, but there have been many innovations and improvements to combat systems since then and it would be a shame if they weren't considered or at least partially adopted.

    The thing is, are those things universally considered innovations or improvements?

    My data collection (on this forum) indicates no. It's around 50-50 with a slight edge toward what they made now. So, basically, they took the feedback, they considered what the slight majority wanted, probably 'what their Devs liked and think will be good', and very intentionally and explicitly made that change.

    The fact that you or I or similar people think 'this isn't the future' means nothing to the other half of MMO gamers who hate our 'idea of the future'.

    I'm not saying we will get a GCD, but probably the 'philosophical concept behind combat' would be in the same area as a GCD-based game.

    I mention innovations and improvements from the standpoint that industries and their respective features and generations of products tend to get better over time as data is compiled and iterated upon. While people may prefer older systems, I would question whether those those systems or inconveniences were a result of limitations of older engines or if they were intentionally designed that way. Then, comparing those older systems to newer ones to figure out the aspects that work and feel good vs. the ones that don't is also a crucial part of the design process. This is especially beneficial in competitive industries like gaming where new releases are competing for the attention and loyalty of the same groups of players.

    For example, I enjoy the skill-based and fluid combat in GW2. But, if Ashes doesn't execute the aspects of the game that I care about better than GW2, I would mostly play it for the novelty before returning to my 'roots.' Obviously this example is subjective but look what happens with a new MMO like New World. Everyone tries it at release because they hope it's the next best thing and then they realize what they want already exists or is better found elsewhere. The longevity and relevance of the games released in the past few years have been quite low. Sticking to old ways of doing things for the sake of nostalgia doesn't seem like the right way to go for me.

    Maybe so, but as long as there are enough people who like the old ways, as long as there is a market for this type of combat (and there is, just read the feedback thread), it will work.

    And honestly, is Ashes competing for the attention and loyalty of the same groups? I'd wager that there are three groups, and the only game really appealing to 'Group 2' right now is WoW. Ashes would be taking the baton from there, not from things like GW2 ('Group 1', I guess), combat wise, no matter how similar they end up looking.

    But I guess my analysis of GW2 is probably lacking, so I defer to yours.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • pyrealpyreal Member, Warrior of Old, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Blindside wrote: »
    Try muting the video and playing it in .75 speed. I actually feel like it makes the combat look better.

    It's still kind of janky like this, but the animation speeds aren't as egregiously fast as in normal speed. Guess it could be a good example of what the combat could be if it had better readability.


    I just tried the video at .75 speed and WOW, what a difference. Looks a lot better!

    The hammer movements were not good though. Way to 'light' for such a large hammer. Was just flinging that thing around.
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    problem is here is they might be fast to make gameplay feel better/responsive making gameplay feel better but we cant see that from video so i cant comment on combat until alpha 2 where i can get access to combat myself so i can see how it feels
  • Ace1234Ace1234 Member
    edited February 2023
    There needs to be unreactable attacks- if everything is reactable, its the same thing as players retreating to get into a position where players can just react at that spot- except that playing based on reaction alone inherently promotes very passive/wait-then-respond gameplay, and discourages proacrively making plays and engaging enemies. The unreactable nature encourages players to engage because the defending enemy cannot simply wait and counter your action. The solution to maintain a skill-based nature and avoid frustrating rng interactions, is to provide players will tools to prepare and counter potential options for different situations they might find themselves in- this requires planning and strategy and is healthy for the combat, and rewards you for taking initiative and actually engaging the enemy.

    Really the only thing that needs to be "reactable" are the situations themselves- the player should have the ability to react and respond to the situation at hand, not necessarily the attacks themselves.
  • MybroViajeroMybroViajero Member, Alpha Two
    From my experience playing video games and not only MMORPGS I think the most important thing is not how fast the attack is but that the game gives you options and possibilities to react to those attacks.

    It doesn't matter if the attacks are too frenetic and fast, if the combat system gives you the possibility to have a reaction to that attack then there is a balance in that system and therefore that combat is viable.

    Now it all depends on tastes, there are people who like a slower and more strategic combat, there are others who like a more frenetic and reactive combat, I personally think that with the hybrid combat Intrepid could try to reach a middle ground, a balance between fast and slow, between frenetic and strategic.

    EDym4eg.png
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    From my experience playing video games and not only MMORPGS I think the most important thing is not how fast the attack is but that the game gives you options and possibilities to react to those attacks.

    It doesn't matter if the attacks are too frenetic and fast, if the combat system gives you the possibility to have a reaction to that attack then there is a balance in that system and therefore that combat is viable.

    Now it all depends on tastes, there are people who like a slower and more strategic combat, there are others who like a more frenetic and reactive combat, I personally think that with the hybrid combat Intrepid could try to reach a middle ground, a balance between fast and slow, between frenetic and strategic.

    ^
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    edited February 2023
    they probably havent balanced the stats yet. skills look fast because the characters have a high cast/attack speed that isn't final.

    also, the tank charge being so fast means as an opposing player, you don't want to be in his range. you most likely want to be behind your tank. you know, spacing and all that.

    sidenote: projecties or hit scans don't have anything to do with the speed of the arrow, or whether it can pass through terrain or not
  • GarrtokGarrtok Member, Alpha Two
    I agree, much too fast
  • Mayors should have a policy to slow down the time flow on their ZoI. !!
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • WeGboredWeGbored Member, Alpha Two
    Please don't ever slow down combat or add in ungodly long animation locks for no reason.
    5bnfc1w9rri4.png
  • Ace1234 wrote: »
    There needs to be unreactable attacks- if everything is reactable, its the same thing as players retreating to get into a position where players can just react at that spot- except that playing based on reaction alone inherently promotes very passive/wait-then-respond gameplay, and discourages proacrively making plays and engaging enemies. The unreactable nature encourages players to engage because the defending enemy cannot simply wait and counter your action. The solution to maintain a skill-based nature and avoid frustrating rng interactions, is to provide players will tools to prepare and counter potential options for different situations they might find themselves in- this requires planning and strategy and is healthy for the combat, and rewards you for taking initiative and actually engaging the enemy.

    Really the only thing that needs to be "reactable" are the situations themselves- the player should have the ability to react and respond to the situation at hand, not necessarily the attacks themselves.

    For visual stimuli, any attack with an animation of .25s or less is generally difficult for the majority of the population to react to.

    In terms of skill design, abilities designed to interrupt should be have animation times of .25s or less. On the other hand, any skill that does larger amounts of damage or crowd controls for extended periods of time should have longer animations around .5 to 1s.

    Basic attacks on weapons can be faster (ie. .25, .25, .5 for a 3 part basic attack chain on a dagger) because wasting defensive cooldowns to avoid basic attacks (that don't have cooldowns) is generally a waste anyways.

    Your point regarding passive play also reinforces the need for skill canceling in AoC. Skill canceling enables offense with the goal of baiting defensives out of the way. For example, I can engage with a high damage ability to force the enemy to react, but cancel my ability to put it on a shorter cooldown. Thus, I was the aggressor but still won the trade as the enemy wasted a defensive ability on nothing.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Blindside wrote: »
    Ace1234 wrote: »
    There needs to be unreactable attacks- if everything is reactable, its the same thing as players retreating to get into a position where players can just react at that spot- except that playing based on reaction alone inherently promotes very passive/wait-then-respond gameplay, and discourages proacrively making plays and engaging enemies. The unreactable nature encourages players to engage because the defending enemy cannot simply wait and counter your action. The solution to maintain a skill-based nature and avoid frustrating rng interactions, is to provide players will tools to prepare and counter potential options for different situations they might find themselves in- this requires planning and strategy and is healthy for the combat, and rewards you for taking initiative and actually engaging the enemy.

    Really the only thing that needs to be "reactable" are the situations themselves- the player should have the ability to react and respond to the situation at hand, not necessarily the attacks themselves.

    For visual stimuli, any attack with an animation of .25s or less is generally difficult for the majority of the population to react to.

    In terms of skill design, abilities designed to interrupt should be have animation times of .25s or less. On the other hand, any skill that does larger amounts of damage or crowd controls for extended periods of time should have longer animations around .5 to 1s.

    Basic attacks on weapons can be faster (ie. .25, .25, .5 for a 3 part basic attack chain on a dagger) because wasting defensive cooldowns to avoid basic attacks (that don't have cooldowns) is generally a waste anyways.

    Your point regarding passive play also reinforces the need for skill canceling in AoC. Skill canceling enables offense with the goal of baiting defensives out of the way. For example, I can engage with a high damage ability to force the enemy to react, but cancel my ability to put it on a shorter cooldown. Thus, I was the aggressor but still won the trade as the enemy wasted a defensive ability on nothing.

    This is technically, again a thing that 'people had discussions about', then 'people were mostly split on', then 'Intrepid decided to go one of the two ways'.

    Obviously I am not 'telling you what to do', but I definitely suggest that you don't put a lot of hope into this game, because it's also true that in this case, Intrepid had the option to go the other way, got a specific set of feedback, and then chose not to do that because a subset of the community was meaningfully against it.

    If we assume that by now they have their core combat loop decided (mainly because if we don't assume that we'll be expecting a very far out release) none of what you're mentioning is very likely to happen, even if we get skill canceling, it most likely would be implemented in the other way and not actually force the trades.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • playerEraplayerEra Member, Alpha Two
    From what I've seen so far I would tend to agree, the animation does seem abit fast, I'm struggling to see how this would work in PvP as without a clear animation how will people know what attacks are incoming and when to interrupt.

    I think as a whole it needs to be slowed down otherwise Zergh v Zerg PvP will just be flashing lights and number pops
  • NiKr wrote: »
    Liniker wrote: »
    I completely disagree, I would dislike a slow combat, it looks good the way it is
    But don't forget that we're seeing lvl15 (allegedly) content. Now imagine all the atk. speed and cast speed buffs of a lvl50 char. Then add gear with those stats. Then add several abilities on top of super fast basic attacks. And all of that happening with 500 people in roughly the same place.

    It's gonna be an unbelievable mess. While I do agree that slow combat probably wouldn't quite work, I do think that earlier lvls should be slower than what we saw, so that they could ramp up to a good fast pace at top lvls with top gear and buffs.

    It's important to note that the team hasn't done proper balancing quite yet, so there is a chance that level 15 gameplay looks and feels differently by the time Beta 1/2 are released. :)
    community_management.gif
  • @Blindside
    For visual stimuli, any attack with an animation of .25s or less is generally difficult for the majority of the population to react to.

    In terms of skill design, abilities designed to interrupt should be have animation times of .25s or less. On the other hand, any skill that does larger amounts of damage or crowd controls for extended periods of time should have longer animations around .5 to 1s.

    Basic attacks on weapons can be faster (ie. .25, .25, .5 for a 3 part basic attack chain on a dagger) because wasting defensive cooldowns to avoid basic attacks (that don't have cooldowns) is generally a waste anyways.

    Your point regarding passive play also reinforces the need for skill canceling in AoC. Skill canceling enables offense with the goal of baiting defensives out of the way. For example, I can engage with a high damage ability to force the enemy to react, but cancel my ability to put it on a shorter cooldown. Thus, I was the aggressor but still won the trade as the enemy wasted a defensive ability on nothing.

    Yeah I get you, but even defensive skills don't always have to be used reactively in order to be effective- it goes back to my point about having tools for the situation at hand to counter incoming threats. This means if you are trying to close a gap in order to apply your own offensive pressure, that you should have defensive tools to do so, as long as you use them in the correct manner for the situation at hand, which wouldn't necessarily require reactive use to a given attack, but more of a strategic planning and situational response kind of approach during combat. So even non-basic attacks could be unreactable and it would be fine, it really is just dependant on the overall kit each combatant has available, you don't want to overload an encounter with too many unreactable options within a given situation, rather than spreading them out acrossed their kit to be used in different circumstances, which is more manageable for the opponent.


    As for the animation canceling, I totally agree and suggested that myself on the past to be used for the same purpose you described, but as long as movement is snappy enough to allow you feint with your movement itself (super smash bros style) then that should be sufficient as a tool to mix up your timing to avoid becoming to predictable/counterable when trying to initiate an interaction.
  • Ace1234 wrote: »
    @Blindside
    For visual stimuli, any attack with an animation of .25s or less is generally difficult for the majority of the population to react to.

    In terms of skill design, abilities designed to interrupt should be have animation times of .25s or less. On the other hand, any skill that does larger amounts of damage or crowd controls for extended periods of time should have longer animations around .5 to 1s.

    Basic attacks on weapons can be faster (ie. .25, .25, .5 for a 3 part basic attack chain on a dagger) because wasting defensive cooldowns to avoid basic attacks (that don't have cooldowns) is generally a waste anyways.

    Your point regarding passive play also reinforces the need for skill canceling in AoC. Skill canceling enables offense with the goal of baiting defensives out of the way. For example, I can engage with a high damage ability to force the enemy to react, but cancel my ability to put it on a shorter cooldown. Thus, I was the aggressor but still won the trade as the enemy wasted a defensive ability on nothing.

    Yeah I get you, but even defensive skills don't always have to be used reactively in order to be effective- it goes back to my point about having tools for the situation at hand to counter incoming threats. This means if you are trying to close a gap in order to apply your own offensive pressure, that you should have defensive tools to do so, as long as you use them in the correct manner for the situation at hand, which wouldn't necessarily require reactive use to a given attack, but more of a strategic planning and situational response kind of approach during combat. So even non-basic attacks could be unreactable and it would be fine, it really is just dependant on the overall kit each combatant has available, you don't want to overload an encounter with too many unreactable options within a given situation, rather than spreading them out acrossed their kit to be used in different circumstances, which is more manageable for the opponent.


    As for the animation canceling, I totally agree and suggested that myself on the past to be used for the same purpose you described, but as long as movement is snappy enough to allow you feint with your movement itself (super smash bros style) then that should be sufficient as a tool to mix up your timing to avoid becoming to predictable/counterable when trying to initiate an interaction.

    Yeah I agree. Duration based damage reduction buffs or channeled defensive skills (ie. 3s duration block) are examples of this. Animation canceling would be very nice for both sides on this fight.

    The defender could end their defensive early to counterattack and the attacker could cancel their attack to not waste it into a defensive used too early.
Sign In or Register to comment.