Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Combat and visuals ... and some other stuff
arsnn
Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Preface
So... i´ll try to make it really short.
I just got through the second tank showcase video and decided to give some additional feedback.
I think the fact that the combat showcases have not been a big marketing boost like the other showcases this year, speaks volumes.
I think its a fair assesement that he combat product can not stand on it´s own feet to generate interest from the broader mmo audience, which according to Steven is the treshhold for showcases and the general quality bar.
Intrepid´s philosophy of bringing together the best aspects of many mmos maybe works for system design, whereas the same approach for the combat currently fails. Personally i see too many components thrown into the mix and the way the this mix of mechanics is communicated visually is done in a rather unfavorouble manner.
What do i mean by this?
Let me go into the 2 areas, where i think there is room for improvement.
TLDR:
Visual clarity:
Especially when it comes to the vfx it feels like the assets are just there to communicate something happened, rather than the exact dimensions of what has happened.
It´s mostly hard to identify...
...how big is the ability?
-What are the physical dimensions of it? Its length, width, height?
-how far is the reach of ability? Can i stand here to not get hit by the ability?
... what are the time sequences of ability?
-When has the ability started? When does it take place? When does it end?
1.You should be able to tell which ability is comming at me, once you saw the beginning animation
2.tell the direction and behaviour once the core middle animaiton is under its way
3.and tell when the ability did end consicely.
...who casted the ability?
For me it feels a bit like we have 4 mages with 4 different roles and slightly different color palette for vfx... sometimes.
The style of vfx hardly differ from archetype to archetype, the vfx style homogenity makes it really hard to identify anything.
If i would have seen the vfx seperately, i would have a really hard time to guess which vfx belongs to which archetype. Especially because the style within the archetype seems to be changing a lot as well.
The augment system will make this even worse... the more important it is to have a good baseline regarding that issue.
....Identify vfx from the visual background/environment art.
For the recent combat iteraton intrepid chose to not conform with the design principle of highlighting the player´s actions in contrast to the static environment.
My gripe is that some vfx seem to have the same color code/pallete and visual language of the environment. This becomes especially evident when you look at the rangers jump, the vines at the bottom become borderline invisible.
Spoiler
I think this really adds to the issue of not beeing able to identify a lot, as the player actions sort of blend together with the background.
Maybe this aspect got lost due to the engine switch. The vfx shown may have been done with UE4 visual guidelines and we are just witnessing a transition artifact? At least for me A1 was decent in that regard.
Bringing those together
Imo this is where high production value games set themselves apart the most.
When you play a well crafted game ,you can identify from the first frames of the beginning animation, which ability is casted, the reach and area of the ability and what are the implications of that.
In the current iteration its hard to even tell what ability was initiated and after that you can hardly identify when it has ended, since the enemy/mob is perma flash banged and residual sparkles are blown up their ass even seconds after the ability is over.
Identifying the dimensions of the ability is also hard, as both animations and vfx are not even build to communicate them. It seems the direction intrepid is more movie-esque with focus on visuals, rather than a gamified direction with focus on information density and clarity.
Funny random screenshots
Can you find the arrow on this one? Hint: the vfx starts at the bottom left
Combat Mechanics:
Regarding mechanics there is also lot of areas i could touch, but let me briefly mention 2 of them.
Active blocking:
I do think the current iteration of combat does not have the prerequisites for this kind of blocking system. The intensity of attacks are immense, the tanks need to generate threat and the general high mobility movement dynamic in AoC doesnt fit.
When it comes to attack intensity for instance, the dark souls/valheim blocking (which AoC seems to imitate) operates in the context of 1-2 incoming attacks in a second . Whereas i Ashes has around 10 incoming attacks in a second and we havent seen large scale combat or even party combat yet.
It´s even more baffling to here about perfect blocking, a mechanic that is even more conflicted with the components of AoC´s combat.
Tab and action:
The feel of the current action combat components are probably, as close to feeling like tab as it gets. Its mostly frontal cones of weapon swings...no skillshots, no area templates.
You bonk enemies with the entire make-up of a tab targeting system, but fail to implement the advantages of tab targeting which is the deep rotation gameplay.
It feels it is leaning towards having the worst of both worlds-> no aiming/placing of templates combined with shallow rotations.
I think that also might be why every encounter looks like a 1 dimensional tank and spank.
Do you share some of the concerns? Something to add?
Do you think it would be worth it to go a bit deeper into the topic?
So... i´ll try to make it really short.
I just got through the second tank showcase video and decided to give some additional feedback.
I think the fact that the combat showcases have not been a big marketing boost like the other showcases this year, speaks volumes.
I think its a fair assesement that he combat product can not stand on it´s own feet to generate interest from the broader mmo audience, which according to Steven is the treshhold for showcases and the general quality bar.
Intrepid´s philosophy of bringing together the best aspects of many mmos maybe works for system design, whereas the same approach for the combat currently fails. Personally i see too many components thrown into the mix and the way the this mix of mechanics is communicated visually is done in a rather unfavorouble manner.
What do i mean by this?
Let me go into the 2 areas, where i think there is room for improvement.
TLDR:
When intrepid design it´s abilities, they should put a bigger emphasize on these questions:
Can the player easily identify the ability ?
Can the player easily tell how big the ability is?
Can the player anticipate what is going the happen?
Can the player easily identify his action from the static background?
Is it a good idea to mix combat mechanics from areas with entirely different prerequisites and requirements?
Can the player easily identify the ability ?
Can the player easily tell how big the ability is?
Can the player anticipate what is going the happen?
Can the player easily identify his action from the static background?
Is it a good idea to mix combat mechanics from areas with entirely different prerequisites and requirements?
Visual clarity:
Especially when it comes to the vfx it feels like the assets are just there to communicate something happened, rather than the exact dimensions of what has happened.
It´s mostly hard to identify...
...how big is the ability?
-What are the physical dimensions of it? Its length, width, height?
-how far is the reach of ability? Can i stand here to not get hit by the ability?
On the bottom there is a good outline that shows you where the ability starts, but on the right left and top the player has to guess and as such cant really use the mechanic properly 
Like it or not the OW shielding at least was really well communicated
Another game that communicates dimensions very well is smite
Like it or not the OW shielding at least was really well communicated
Another game that communicates dimensions very well is smite... what are the time sequences of ability?
-When has the ability started? When does it take place? When does it end?
1.You should be able to tell which ability is comming at me, once you saw the beginning animation
2.tell the direction and behaviour once the core middle animaiton is under its way
3.and tell when the ability did end consicely.
...who casted the ability?
For me it feels a bit like we have 4 mages with 4 different roles and slightly different color palette for vfx... sometimes.
The style of vfx hardly differ from archetype to archetype, the vfx style homogenity makes it really hard to identify anything.
If i would have seen the vfx seperately, i would have a really hard time to guess which vfx belongs to which archetype. Especially because the style within the archetype seems to be changing a lot as well.
The augment system will make this even worse... the more important it is to have a good baseline regarding that issue.
....Identify vfx from the visual background/environment art.
For the recent combat iteraton intrepid chose to not conform with the design principle of highlighting the player´s actions in contrast to the static environment.
My gripe is that some vfx seem to have the same color code/pallete and visual language of the environment. This becomes especially evident when you look at the rangers jump, the vines at the bottom become borderline invisible.
Spoiler
The roots of the ability look really good. Almost too good and similar to the environment. A player could not navigate through bigger fights with this approach. 
I think this really adds to the issue of not beeing able to identify a lot, as the player actions sort of blend together with the background.
Maybe this aspect got lost due to the engine switch. The vfx shown may have been done with UE4 visual guidelines and we are just witnessing a transition artifact? At least for me A1 was decent in that regard.
Bringing those together
Imo this is where high production value games set themselves apart the most.
When you play a well crafted game ,you can identify from the first frames of the beginning animation, which ability is casted, the reach and area of the ability and what are the implications of that.
In the current iteration its hard to even tell what ability was initiated and after that you can hardly identify when it has ended, since the enemy/mob is perma flash banged and residual sparkles are blown up their ass even seconds after the ability is over.
Identifying the dimensions of the ability is also hard, as both animations and vfx are not even build to communicate them. It seems the direction intrepid is more movie-esque with focus on visuals, rather than a gamified direction with focus on information density and clarity.
Funny random screenshots
Can you find the arrow on this one? Hint: the vfx starts at the bottom left
Combat Mechanics:
Regarding mechanics there is also lot of areas i could touch, but let me briefly mention 2 of them.
Active blocking:
I do think the current iteration of combat does not have the prerequisites for this kind of blocking system. The intensity of attacks are immense, the tanks need to generate threat and the general high mobility movement dynamic in AoC doesnt fit.
When it comes to attack intensity for instance, the dark souls/valheim blocking (which AoC seems to imitate) operates in the context of 1-2 incoming attacks in a second . Whereas i Ashes has around 10 incoming attacks in a second and we havent seen large scale combat or even party combat yet.
It´s even more baffling to here about perfect blocking, a mechanic that is even more conflicted with the components of AoC´s combat.
Tab and action:
The feel of the current action combat components are probably, as close to feeling like tab as it gets. Its mostly frontal cones of weapon swings...no skillshots, no area templates.
You bonk enemies with the entire make-up of a tab targeting system, but fail to implement the advantages of tab targeting which is the deep rotation gameplay.
It feels it is leaning towards having the worst of both worlds-> no aiming/placing of templates combined with shallow rotations.
I think that also might be why every encounter looks like a 1 dimensional tank and spank.
Do you share some of the concerns? Something to add?
Do you think it would be worth it to go a bit deeper into the topic?
14
Comments
However, generally, don't feel as if it would be worth it to go deeper into the topic, for many reasons.
The simplest, though, is that we all come to the same conclusions as you when looking at it. Which implies, at least a bit, that Intrepid can see this too, but somehow don't seem to be 'worried' yet about it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume one of two broad sweeping things:
a) It's all intentional, they want this, and therefore for some people the game's combat is a lost cause already.
b) They really are keeping so much 'close to the chest' that they've already resolved most of these concerns in a build type we haven't seen yet (for example, the autodynamic VFX slider, or having much more complex gameplay at higher levels that they don't want to show yet)
For me personally, I'll lean toward the second, since it would just be strange to have open development, a specific intention to iterate the combat system based on feedback, and yet 'be in a state where they don't know what to do yet pose no related community questions'.
On the other side, I end up doubting that sometimes because "Should we use stamina for blocking? We haven't decided yet."
Modernised tab-targeting, with fair mobility gapclosers and openers or action combat.
Both of them are fine for an mmo. Mmo isnt all about combat, there is so much more. But they need to choose one and focus on it. There are 0 benefits for the mixed system. Just problems.
For a long time we have learned about dynamic systems that impact multiple aspects of gameplay, such as the weather, fauna migration, node development and nearby dungeons.
We have heard about many crafting/gathering professions.
Some of those ideas need to be less complex in order to have development time for basic gameplay designs, such as combat, classes and weapons.
Some ideas may need scrapping.
Unless they feel extremelly comfortable with the strength of every concept they create. If there is no time presure then let them create it all.
But I dont share your concern that some systems could end up being not solid.
My main concern is the class and the weapon system as well as their animations.
I hope things like surveying, animal migration and other such designs that mimic real life dont get in the way of making a videogame.
I too ask myself, what's the point of revealing combat in its current state, and it's probably to see if they are staying on the tracks, while siphoning ideas.
I think there is a lot of more options and of course a blend of these options.
c)Intrepid as a start up has problems to define what their end product exactly is supposed to look like (+ some lack of vision) , and this combined with some technical and resource constraints, is leading them to this excruciating long "see what sticks approach". Essentially pumping out a lot of iterations that are bad-> identify the bad-> do something different->loop.
And thats why i think feedback is actually invaluable for the Intrepid atm.
Though i think forum feedback is just the easiest way for a decent insights, its not the best way.
I´d hope they build a feedback framework, where feedback reaches them faster in their agile dev cycles and it´s done in a more "precise" manner.
What do i mean by more "precise". In these forum feedback threads people basically cram all their thoughts into 1 post and that´s mostly it.
But does it allow for people or the devs to follow up and go deeper into the branches of arguments?
Does it facilitate quantitative data collection that backs the qualitative arguments?
Any surveying or reports? A/B testing of animations and vfx? Why not?
I also have a few doubts, it seems either they are still in a very very early combat design process, or some of their design process is just really off, when i here statements like
" we are considering a perfect blocking mechanic"
"There seems to be.. um idk.. a bit of a misperception about the difference between action mode and tab mode.
Really those are just two like targeting and input schemes and the underlying abilities dont actually change that much."
and "tHeRes g0NnA bE SlIDeRs".
These tutorials, blue prints or similar premade UE5 combat system, are put together with sticks and glue.
Intrepid´s product has really high requirements especially when it comes to performance, thus they have go with a costum solution, which is far more complex to pull off
Maybe so, but as I remember it, you've been around since before Alpha One, when the forum posters actually went fairly deep into detail on things and discussions and were actually able to discuss multiple theoreticals, even back when we got the A/B test for Split Body vs Root Motion.
This is probably my arrogance since I 'was involved', but I feel like we as a community did a decent job of feedback and clarifications then, technically 'before they really asked for it', and honestly, from parsing, we're still doing so (for two other topics, since we basically got conditioned not to go too specific about Combat for now).
Intrepid says that they usually ask for feedback and are glad to learn that they're mostly already doing what people say, in which case it's fine, if a bit frustrating for us, for them to continue as they are.
Did they gimp themselves? I don't know what performance requirements you refer to.
Would they not want their custom solution to be quick and easy to use? Once it's in place, it remains ridiculously complex, so making anything combat related is painfully slow, forever? In order to show us what they have shown us, I would assume it would have to be in place. If then it's difficult to work with, then that's not a good thing
I talk about Guild Wars 2 all the time but that's because the combat system there was executed so well it has ruined most other games for me. In that game, I can tell what skill is being casted by the hand motions at the very start of the animation. Even without experience, the ranges of skills are clearly telegraphed. But with experience, I can decide whether to eat the attack, interrupt it, space it, or will have to use a defensive. Even projectiles from bows and guns are easily visible in the largest of fights.
This post is the best I've seen discussing this topic.
The community indeed did a decent job.
I was rather pointing towards intrepid.
So instead of burrying the community efforts in threads, wouldnt it be good if intrepid gathers information through actual surveying tools like "antidote.gg" or non gaming specific tools?
Forums are a diverse tool, but it´s like using a jet engine for a scooter.
It does the job, but is not designed for it and its certainly not elegant.
No they did not. Sticking with my anologies on wheels... they are working on a speed record breaking race car (performance requirement) , for which you have to redesign, rebuild and costumize a lot.
Things like aerodynamics are suddenly important, weight needs to be cut off, materials have to withstand different forces.
Whereas the standard UE5 tutorial takes the fastest route down a hill, for which a board with 3 wheels is enough.
You can make a game with those frameworks, but you will be highly limited on what kind of game its gonna be.
Thank you
I can't really say I like the way Intrepid gathers feedback or the prompts they use to do so. It feels too much like it leads to people not being able to be specific or engage properly and just ranting about all the 'possible vectors of the question' as you (implicitly?) said.
I hope to see this aspect of their development improve as we move toward Alpha-2. Hopefully the 'slowdown' of feedback and engagement does not continue with its current trend and we still have a healthy community of the type that gives proper feedback, by then.
Not much to say about the VFX, I've been harping on them since the Weapon Master reveal. Fancy doesn't make good or impactful combat. Sometimes simple is better.
In regards to active blocking, I can only hope they actually adapt more of Valheim blocking into their system. It'll allow them some unique button pressing and award to their current basic blank template. There's more to Valheim then perfect block for parry.
As far as tab and action gets,
At ten buttons, there was never going to be an in-depth rotation, but if they expand their basic attacks we can get a bit of an in-depth combo system. Plenty of games to look at in that regard.
As far as action goes, I'll definitely be playing melee over ranged, the ranged parameters are not tight enough and look a bit loose.
Plus I hate turreting it shouldn't be in any MMO, it's immersion destroying.
Note that the 'ten buttons' thing might be a misunderstanding.
Holding CTRL changed the bar to a second one, holding ALT would probably do the same if they wanted, as is (I thought?) standard for this type of game.
They probably don't expect people to have all 30 slots filled with actual abilities, e.g. in Alpha 1 I think my Mount and Potion hotkeys were on the CTRL-bar, but I don't think we should necessarily be expecting 10 except from minimalist players.
Do you know what they're missing? Any specifics, without the analogy to race cars?
Let me clarify, when I say ten buttons I mean strictly relating to classes.
I mean yeah its lacking atm
My point it´s not that easy
It doesn't make sense to be difficult the entire way through, does it? Nobody in their right mind would design something where you have to continually start from scratch each time, so I don't buy this.
Fingers crossed.
My current thoughts on all this are as follows: seems to me they're aiming for a consistent style while trying to balance what they call 'threat assessment'. Seems like a wholistic approach to it, from the distinct sounds of bows, to the bright arc of a greatsword vs. the windy waves of the daggers, to the bright blasts of magic from the cleric, and the subtle magical abilities of the ranger. They're all designed to be more or less flashy based on the character archetype and weapon choice. I expect polearms to be even more flashy than the greatsword.
I like it in it's current state tbh. I'm excited to see how dramatic mage magic looks when all but the cleric have less flashy abilities. How much of a target will they paint on their back when they light up the battlefield?
I agree that there's refinement to be done. It seems reasonable to me that will be done as more abilities/classes are fleshed out. How much more dramatic will a ranger's arrows be if they're ranger/mage? Will they be quieter if they're ranger/rogue?
My main concern is how important good communication will be on large scale battlefields where there's a dozen fireballs on screen at once. Or, tight communication like a volleyball court in small team pvp.
As much as I'd like to lean into the second of those options as well, I don't think it's the case after seeing the updated idle stance given to the warrior in the Carphin showcase. Why would they bother to update the current preview showcase with something as insignificant as a new idle stance if they had other, more important things improved already?
That being said, I'm confident we'll see significant further improvement with every class before A2. If they release a new class showcase (out of the remaining three) every other month, we'll have seen the UE5-era iteration of every archetype by the end of the summer. With A2 now predicted to come at some point between Q4 2023 - Q2 2024 from most people's interpretations of Steven's commentary last weekend, I think that gives the team plenty of time to give every class a second pass on these issues. And then there's the entire duration of A2 for further development.
Hopefully, the spot testing taking place later this year will give the devs more specific feedback for improvements to make before A2.