Sword and board should rely on active block and counter play. It makes no sense to make sword and board defensive. I've played a lot of sword and board tanks because the weapons were locked to class. In such a circumstance sword and board enabled the defensive skills of the tank.
Not required in Ashes due to the base class skill set. There are already ample methods of defense for the tank. You can build a control tank, evasion tank or protection tank. What we have seen isn't even the true tank. Its a shell of what the tank will become.
When any class can build defensive due to armour, stats and disposition there is less need for tanks to be so rigid in the disposition. The reason tanks get ignored is due to ttk and respawn times. Lack of counter damage and little counter play in design. The tank should act like the Severance Character more than a Guardian for Age of Conan.
Sword and board has a rich history. The choice of knights, the choice of kings, the choice of highlanders. There is no need to make the sword and board defensive skill based. Block, counter play and damage will make the use interesting and more viable.
Sword and board should rely on active block and counter play. It makes no sense to make sword and board defensive.
I'm not sure how you could say that it should rely on active block, but makes no sense to be defensive.
Active block is a defensive action.
If you are saying the above, I have to assume you dont believe that active blocking is defensive in nature. I am somewhat curious as to how this could be something you believe to be true.
Not required in Ashes due to the base class skill set. There are already ample methods of defense for the tank. You can build a control tank, evasion tank or protection tank. What we have seen isn't even the true tank. Its a shell of what the tank will become.
And unless there is a parafigm shift, all variants of tanks will be ignored.
CC is the only real possibility of a way to make a tank work as a tank. The thing is, that is what the taunt suggestion is - a way to make a tank viable, using control as the vehicle for the paradigm shift to make players want to attack tanks first, but in a way where tanks are not encroaching on CC types that should be the primary domain of support classes.
Again, this is the only way to make a tank viable in PvP as an actual tank. Adding DPS doesn't make a tank a tank, it makes it a character doing less DPS than a DPS class but that takes longer to kill and so will be ignored still.
When any class can build defensive due to armour, stats and disposition there is less need for tanks to be so rigid in the disposition.
Having come from Archeage where this system is pulled straight from, it won't work this way.
If you like I can go in to some detail of how it was in Archeage and why it can't be too much different in any other somewhat similar game (a little different, sure, but not too much), but that is getting somewhat tangential to this discussion. The CliffsNotes version of it is that people building a character for DPS will look at the DPS gear provides first, with survivability second, or not at all.
I meant Active Block should be utilised by Sword and Shield rather than a Class Skill being placed on Sword and Shield for block/defense. I also believe Shield Bash should be removed from Tank and put onto Sword and Board. Shield bash isn't a defensive skill per say. Active Block is defensive but its not a class skill. Any class can use active block and it would make sense for active block to be better with a shield for any class. Hence why the focus was on active block, counterplay and attack for sword and board.
I don't presume that the majority will build defensively but some will build defensively. Tank is a secondary class for a start. I'm not sure what Augments Tank will provide though. The discussion gets a bit murky when we touch on augments and secondary classes. I'm not sure what the soft caps will be for damage but you could possibly max damage with damage on all pieces of gear followed by defence for the rest of the stat slots. Not even sure how many stat slots will be available on a legendary piece of gear though.
The difference is the difference between a glass cannon and a balanced class. Same goes for the tank being a defensive bulk and a balanced class. It makes sense for the weapons to be offensive. All weapons are offensive by nature. They are designed to let you kill better. In terms of shields some shields are more defensive like tower shields or less defensive like fencing shields. I wouldn't go too complex into the defensive nature of shields in particular, i'd just boost active block overall with any shield.
I meant Active Block should be utilised by Sword and Shield rather than a Class Skill being placed on Sword and Shield for block/defense. I also believe Shield Bash should be removed from Tank and put onto Sword and Board. Shield bash isn't a defensive skill per say. Active Block is defensive but its not a class skill. Any class can use active block and it would make sense for active block to be better with a shield for any class. Hence why the focus was on active block, counterplay and attack for sword and board.
I agree that both block and shield bash should be abilities granted to a character when equipping a shield - and only then. In fact, that is kind of what I expect to see by the time the game launches.
However, that isn't going to do anything to make a tank viable as a tank in PvP.
And I agree, there is no point in assuming anything specific about Ashes - this is why for the most part I have been talking about (or trying to talk about) tanks in general in PvP games in general. The issue is the broken paradigm of having one class whose strength is in being hard to kill, yet due to that very fact makes them not worth the time to kill.
The only real fix is - again - making it so players want to kill that player for some reason, without having to resort to making that class a psuedo DPS or healing class.
I mean, we know that Intrepids plan for tanks in PvP in Ashes is battlefield control anyway. Taunts affecting players seems like the absolute logical fit for that.
If you put the same energy into writing these post, and looked for flaws on having skills that control people to different degrees and elements. Would you'd understand the issue and realize its not viable lol.
If you put the same energy into writing these post, and looked for flaws on having skills that control people to different degrees and elements. Would you'd understand the issue and realize its not viable lol.
We've already thought about how it'll influence the players. We just came to a different conclusion from yours
If you put the same energy into writing these post, and looked for flaws on having skills that control people to different degrees and elements. Would you'd understand the issue and realize its not viable lol.
We've already thought about how it'll influence the players. We just came to a different conclusion from yours
Tab is A solution. Moving in a way to keep your preferred target between you and the tank is another one, and an action one. I mentioned build-based stat solution before as well. And potentially a buff-based one, so that your party matters (cause the buff would come from a support or maybe your own tank).
The game could have all 4 of those and you'd have yourself a huge range of solutions, from a purely skill-based to a "rely on others to save you" one. All w/o making tanks super OP, while keeping them with their unique playstyle that works in both pve and pvp.
Tab is A solution. Moving in a way to keep your preferred target between you and the tank is another one, and an action one. I mentioned build-based stat solution before as well. And potentially a buff-based one, so that your party matters (cause the buff would come from a support or maybe your own tank).
The game could have all 4 of those and you'd have yourself a huge range of solutions, from a purely skill-based to a "rely on others to save you" one. All w/o making tanks super OP, while keeping them with their unique playstyle that works in both pve and pvp.
The thing is you are saying you thought about how it influences on other players and want to add a new feature where your solution is don't use action camera and start swapping back and forth.
The thing is you are saying you thought about how it influences on other players and want to add a new feature where your solution is don't use action camera and start swapping back and forth.
Do you still not see the issue?
Mag, I just wrote 3 other solutions that would work for my suggestion.
And when I say "we've thought about it", I mean that we realize what the gameplay impact of the suggestion would be. And iirc Azherae said she'd probably not even want that type of thing in the game.
And as I said before, I'm fine with camera pan because I've already experienced it in Genshin and was fine with it there. And it seems completely fine to me as I imagine it working in my head. You keep saying that everyone would hate it, but we can't know that for sure until there's either a discussion about that kind of mechanic from Intrepid or until they, for some reason, implement it in the alpha and we get our hands on it directly.
The thing is you are saying you thought about how it influences on other players and want to add a new feature where your solution is don't use action camera and start swapping back and forth.
Do you still not see the issue?
Mag, I just wrote 3 other solutions that would work for my suggestion.
And when I say "we've thought about it", I mean that we realize what the gameplay impact of the suggestion would be. And iirc Azherae said she'd probably not even want that type of thing in the game.
And as I said before, I'm fine with camera pan because I've already experienced it in Genshin and was fine with it there. And it seems completely fine to me as I imagine it working in my head. You keep saying that everyone would hate it, but we can't know that for sure until there's either a discussion about that kind of mechanic from Intrepid or until they, for some reason, implement it in the alpha and we get our hands on it directly.
So by buff based you mean stats instead of camera being effected? Genshin impact is a mobile game and also doesn't have pvp.
And ya i don't see them implementing players being able to have control over others camera. I guess I was just wondering how serious some of these takes were because I'm surprised by the disconnect.
Yeah the impact of a camera zoomed out all the way would be minimal compared to a camera zoomed all the way in.
The way they are talking a bout it will have big impacts even zoomed out. Including 180 spins, and being able to change the camera (unless you hold alt and/or ctrl) but that doesn't effect the direction your looking in and movement will be around that direction. Akin to survival games or pubg when you hold alt and look around if that is even a feature in the game which I'm guessing won't be you should would swap to tab camera)
The camera should be aligned to the toon at all times. I don't mind a toon being turned with the camera but I do not want a disconnect between toon and camera because movement keys will be completely fucked like an unwanted mini game in the middle of battle.
The camera should be aligned to the toon at all times. I don't mind a toon being turned with the camera but I do not want a disconnect between toon and camera because movement keys will be completely fucked like an unwanted mini game in the middle of battle.
Ya they don't understand, it doesn't help the bias of them being tab focused and most likely will avoid using action camera to begin with.
So by buff based you mean stats instead of camera being effected?
Stats and buffs are two separate solutions. The can overlap and would potentially boost each other, but they are still separate (or at least I'm suggesting them as separate).
Genshin impact is a mobile game and also doesn't have pvp.
A mobile game that I've been playing purely on my pc for almost 3 years now. The camera is a bit further back than in BDO. And it forcefully shifts in some situations. And I'm completely fine with that mechanic. The only change that would happen in Ashes is the frequency, except in Genshin the camera pan can be sudden sometimes, while in Ashes it'd be predictable (because you'd see a tank on the battlefield) - at which point the mechanic is just a skill check.
The way they are talking a bout it will have big impacts even zoomed out. Including 180 spins, and being able to change the camera (unless you hold alt and/or ctrl) but that doesn't effect the direction your looking in and movement will be around that direction. Akin to survival games or pubg when you hold alt and look around if that is even a feature in the game which I'm guessing won't be you should would swap to tab camera)
How I see it working is that the camera would only pan in action mode, because in tab its already disconnected character's movements and the direction its facing (example at 4:15 here you can see Steven run "towards the camera" and then later on he strafes around a tabbed mob while the camera is pointing to the side). And I think that at 22:30 of that vid is the "alt" thing Mag is talking about, where "in action mode" Steven could spin the camera almost 360° while the character didn't even turn around.
In tab I think the char would just turn towards the tank (and obviously your tab target would switch too).
The camera should be aligned to the toon at all times. I don't mind a toon being turned with the camera but I do not want a disconnect between toon and camera because movement keys will be completely fucked like an unwanted mini game in the middle of battle.
That ranger showcase showed that our movement controls will be all over the place already (unless they change the whole damn system once again). Across the whole system: we can run with the camera; against the camera; strafe around a target - all of those will require you to shift your direction of movement if you switch from one situation to the other.
Ya they don't understand, it doesn't help the bias of them being tab focused and most likely will avoid using action camera to begin with.
I want the game to force me not to be in tab 100% of the time, just as I want it to force people not to be in action 100% of the time. Otherwise, what's the point of it being hybrid.
I want the game to force me not to be in tab 100% of the time, just as I want it to force people not to be in action 100% of the time. Otherwise, what's the point of it being hybrid.
Its not about using one or the other. Hybrid is about the evolution from tab more towards action, it is one step at a time that has been taken over the many years. Being at hybrid now shows how far we have gone from the old days of click to move and full tab target. Though there are things that need to be figured out still until the norm leans even more strongly on action.
As far as controls are concerned you could be right on things are already somewhat a mess, hard to judge without playing it though. This I'm sure will be part of them gaining fed back once people are playing.
The whole purpose is to make sure things don't feel clunky (see the pattern). No one likes clunky feeling games, by default if combat / gameplay feels clunky it will be the first thing people talk about especially in relation to how it will feel in combat. This is why I keep saying its a landmine they wont step on. I promise ya if this game felt clunky you are going to see forum post, reaction, etc for days. And most likely will be somewhat clunky in alpha at the same time and im sure they will improve on it.
Wayfinder recently had people complaining about it and i felt pretty good to me, and devs are working to address that feeling. But i suppose the only way to fully understand how strong it matters is to see it first hand. People are going to be far more critical when it comes to alpha 2.
Wayfinder recently had people complaining about it and i felt pretty good to me, and devs are working to address that feeling. But i suppose the only way to fully understand how strong it matters is to see it first hand. People are going to be far more critical when it comes to alpha 2.
And we will never move out of it, cause no one approach will satisfy everyone. And unless Intrepid figure out what THEY want - they'll keep "fixing" stuff forever. We're already several years behind every past promise because we've gone through several iterations of combat and people still say that it looks weird/bad/clunky/unrealistc/etc, and that's w/o even trying it out themselves.
This is why I said that majority of current gamers will not like Ashes, even outside of any edge mechanics that we discuss on the forums. Which is why, considering that any preference is subjective, the only opinion that matters is Steven's. I just hope that others at Intrepid help him stay on one chosen opinion sooner rather than later. He's a tab player who mouse clicks his abilities, I'm sure that his definition of "clunky" is waaaay different from yours or other action combatants'.
So by buff based you mean stats instead of camera being effected?
Stats and buffs are two separate solutions. The can overlap and would potentially boost each other, but they are still separate (or at least I'm suggesting them as separate).
Genshin impact is a mobile game and also doesn't have pvp.
A mobile game that I've been playing purely on my pc for almost 3 years now. The camera is a bit further back than in BDO. And it forcefully shifts in some situations. And I'm completely fine with that mechanic. The only change that would happen in Ashes is the frequency, except in Genshin the camera pan can be sudden sometimes, while in Ashes it'd be predictable (because you'd see a tank on the battlefield) - at which point the mechanic is just a skill check.
The way they are talking a bout it will have big impacts even zoomed out. Including 180 spins, and being able to change the camera (unless you hold alt and/or ctrl) but that doesn't effect the direction your looking in and movement will be around that direction. Akin to survival games or pubg when you hold alt and look around if that is even a feature in the game which I'm guessing won't be you should would swap to tab camera)
How I see it working is that the camera would only pan in action mode, because in tab its already disconnected character's movements and the direction its facing (example at 4:15 here you can see Steven run "towards the camera" and then later on he strafes around a tabbed mob while the camera is pointing to the side). And I think that at 22:30 of that vid is the "alt" thing Mag is talking about, where "in action mode" Steven could spin the camera almost 360° while the character didn't even turn around.
In tab I think the char would just turn towards the tank (and obviously your tab target would switch too).
The camera should be aligned to the toon at all times. I don't mind a toon being turned with the camera but I do not want a disconnect between toon and camera because movement keys will be completely fucked like an unwanted mini game in the middle of battle.
That ranger showcase showed that our movement controls will be all over the place already (unless they change the whole damn system once again). Across the whole system: we can run with the camera; against the camera; strafe around a target - all of those will require you to shift your direction of movement if you switch from one situation to the other.
Ya they don't understand, it doesn't help the bias of them being tab focused and most likely will avoid using action camera to begin with.
I want the game to force me not to be in tab 100% of the time, just as I want it to force people not to be in action 100% of the time. Otherwise, what's the point of it being hybrid.
The camera is the same in any mmo but you can right mouse button and aligned the camera with the toon. I would hope ashes does the same and I do not want said function to be split from the toon. Nothing is worse than losing seconds at a time realigning the camera either in tab or action. In fact, it's worse in tab because you have to face a target to activate a skill.
Hybrid is about the evolution from tab more towards action, it is one step at a time that has been taken over the many years.
Intrepid isn't interested in being a part of any slow movement of the status quo.
A company like NCsoft may be interested in something like this, but not a first time developer.
Any game developer has aims to make their game better you are missing the nuisance when i said steps. By default the desire to create a good product with good combat will further lead to more evolutions.
You think other wise is suggesting they will copy things as they were and make 0 changes or improvements on anything even if it doesn't work with their current gameplay plan. Which would make 0 sense.
So I'm unsure where you are getting this take from, or if you are just coming for conflict just cause.
The camera is the same in any mmo but you can right mouse button and aligned the camera with the toon. I would hope ashes does the same and I do not want said function to be split from the toon. Nothing is worse than losing seconds at a time realigning the camera either in tab or action.
Yeah, I'd imagine there's a "center camera" function (if that's what you're talking about).
In fact, it's worse in tab because you have to face a target to activate a skill.
We'll be able to tab to them though, right? So you won't have to spin your camera if you're trying to target someone who's behind it. And if it's someone super far away, then you'd probably have to adjust the camera a bit either way.
In 500vs 500 there will be a lot of camera movement without adding more camera movement. It might well suit a tab game but the reticle for action would be thrown into chaos.
Wayfinder recently had people complaining about it and i felt pretty good to me, and devs are working to address that feeling. But i suppose the only way to fully understand how strong it matters is to see it first hand. People are going to be far more critical when it comes to alpha 2.
And we will never move out of it, cause no one approach will satisfy everyone. And unless Intrepid figure out what THEY want - they'll keep "fixing" stuff forever. We're already several years behind every past promise because we've gone through several iterations of combat and people still say that it looks weird/bad/clunky/unrealistc/etc, and that's w/o even trying it out themselves.
This is why I said that majority of current gamers will not like Ashes, even outside of any edge mechanics that we discuss on the forums. Which is why, considering that any preference is subjective, the only opinion that matters is Steven's. I just hope that others at Intrepid help him stay on one chosen opinion sooner rather than later. He's a tab player who mouse clicks his abilities, I'm sure that his definition of "clunky" is waaaay different from yours or other action combatants'.
This is just development, nothing is new here. Their plans and goals are are not going to match what the consumer wants in terms of expected release date. At the end of the day it was a estimate, and they are sticking to releasing it when it is ready as they say atm.
People tried the combat in Alpha 1 so it is fair for them to judge it, though alpha 2 will see people judge it much more harshly. Atm the will be comparing it to throne and liberty as well and trying to see how closely it will feel to it as well as the general feel of the actual combat. People naturally will be looking for reason to say it isn't good and up to the devs to set expectations as they have been doing showing the game and create a game that will be received well at its current state.
But ya that is development, things get re-worked all the time, most consumers can't deal with this kind of stuff and get attached before owning anything.
I honestly think a lot of current mmorpgs gamers will enjoy the game with their systems, as long as combat is good and things don't feel clunky. They are taking an approach to capture a good audience and reduce pvp griefing and making it meaningful. Imo they have done a lot of things right in their goals, and they know how to market and connect. When we get towards the release point eventually in some years I have a feeling they will be doing big things, but that is just my feeling. They may not be coming to make the next WoW but they are definitely playing this to win.
In 500vs 500 there will be a lot of camera movement without adding more camera movement. It might well suit a tab game but the reticle for action would be thrown into chaos.
I truly hope they have a lot of objectives around and reason to hold and defend them. 250v250 doesn't need to be a zerg fest a lot of chances to have strategy int he gameplay and make it meaningful. But it will be a challenge making it for sure.
Don't take this as a sign I've converted to the concept, just me trying to put forth a constructive proposition.
Effect of taunt on the target
- Single target taunt skill. Everyone* but the tank becomes invisible and un-tab-targetable to the target of the taunt. The tank is thus the only obvious target. Any other action is done by aiming at random with the reticle. The target is as in a blinding rage if you will.
- AoE taunt/multiple target taunt. Everyone* but the tank become blurry, as if stealthed, and un-tab-targetable to the target of the taunt. Actions can be performed with a better guess than under a "full" taunt.
The camera doesn't need to move. The target knows exactly who's the taunter. Actions (spells, weapon swings, etc) still work, but unreliably if not on the tank. AoE are still possible too.
There are many side effects though. A tank can shot down an enemy healer with a taunt. The taunt can also be used as a powerful distraction, allowing things to happens while the target is "blinded".
Would it be an interesting implementation of a taunt?
* and by everyone I mean everyone: friends and foes.
Would it be an interesting implementation of a taunt?
I mean, I could maybe see this working as some "once in 5 minutes and only for <10s" skill, but definitely not a frequently repeatable thing. Not seeing or being able to target anyone else is insanely OP and even if healers just switch to aoe heals and running around, w/o seeing where their teammates are the team (and/or healer) will die real quick.
Also, this would most likely lead to window tanks that just cast this shit on super high value people. We had that kind of thing in L2 with a class that could steal 7 (out of 36) buffs on a semi-short cd. It was annoying as hell, but at least it wasn't p2w there. In Ashes it would be.
I'm going to state that as an idea, it is not the worst in this thread (by a long shot).
However, what it will result in is me telling my tanks that their role in PvP is not to get attacked, but to debuff as many players as they can. It would take the tank class from also having the tank role, to it having a support role instead.
That does mean tanks would at least have a role in PvP, but I am of the opinion that every class should have the same role in PvP as they have in PvE.
You are welcome to disagree with that notion of you like.
The fact that they debuff a single target (and sometimes AoE, depending) while dealing damage, slowing the target, just being hell to the target they are attacking, might make them actually become a target, which is kind of the point of the idea.
It's not forced, but it at least makes a Tank almost *act* like a tank in that it wants enemies to target him over others.
Beyond that, you could almost do this same thing by just ignoring any PvP taunt ability and just give enough dps and debuffs from their attacks to achieve this.
I didn't read all this because I value myself too much. But forced taunting is another form of lockdown that can additionally tie into a tanks mechanics. Axe in dota is a primary example of this. He "calls"every enemy around him, has a % chance to deal damage in an aoe around him every time he's hit and gains tons of physical damage reduction. This is flavorful, tank oriented, and gives areas for customization.
The fact that they debuff a single target (and sometimes AoE, depending) while dealing damage, slowing the target, just being hell to the target they are attacking, might make them actually become a target, which is kind of the point of the idea.
It's not forced, but it at least makes a Tank almost *act* like a tank in that it wants enemies to target him over others.
By that definition, any support class with even just a few debuffs "acts" like a tank. This is exactly why we've been saying that tank should feel more unique.
Comments
Not required in Ashes due to the base class skill set. There are already ample methods of defense for the tank. You can build a control tank, evasion tank or protection tank. What we have seen isn't even the true tank. Its a shell of what the tank will become.
When any class can build defensive due to armour, stats and disposition there is less need for tanks to be so rigid in the disposition. The reason tanks get ignored is due to ttk and respawn times. Lack of counter damage and little counter play in design. The tank should act like the Severance Character more than a Guardian for Age of Conan.
Sword and board has a rich history. The choice of knights, the choice of kings, the choice of highlanders. There is no need to make the sword and board defensive skill based. Block, counter play and damage will make the use interesting and more viable.
Active block is a defensive action.
If you are saying the above, I have to assume you dont believe that active blocking is defensive in nature. I am somewhat curious as to how this could be something you believe to be true.
And unless there is a parafigm shift, all variants of tanks will be ignored.
CC is the only real possibility of a way to make a tank work as a tank. The thing is, that is what the taunt suggestion is - a way to make a tank viable, using control as the vehicle for the paradigm shift to make players want to attack tanks first, but in a way where tanks are not encroaching on CC types that should be the primary domain of support classes.
Again, this is the only way to make a tank viable in PvP as an actual tank. Adding DPS doesn't make a tank a tank, it makes it a character doing less DPS than a DPS class but that takes longer to kill and so will be ignored still.
Having come from Archeage where this system is pulled straight from, it won't work this way.
If you like I can go in to some detail of how it was in Archeage and why it can't be too much different in any other somewhat similar game (a little different, sure, but not too much), but that is getting somewhat tangential to this discussion. The CliffsNotes version of it is that people building a character for DPS will look at the DPS gear provides first, with survivability second, or not at all.
I don't presume that the majority will build defensively but some will build defensively. Tank is a secondary class for a start. I'm not sure what Augments Tank will provide though. The discussion gets a bit murky when we touch on augments and secondary classes. I'm not sure what the soft caps will be for damage but you could possibly max damage with damage on all pieces of gear followed by defence for the rest of the stat slots. Not even sure how many stat slots will be available on a legendary piece of gear though.
The difference is the difference between a glass cannon and a balanced class. Same goes for the tank being a defensive bulk and a balanced class. It makes sense for the weapons to be offensive. All weapons are offensive by nature. They are designed to let you kill better. In terms of shields some shields are more defensive like tower shields or less defensive like fencing shields. I wouldn't go too complex into the defensive nature of shields in particular, i'd just boost active block overall with any shield.
However, that isn't going to do anything to make a tank viable as a tank in PvP.
And I agree, there is no point in assuming anything specific about Ashes - this is why for the most part I have been talking about (or trying to talk about) tanks in general in PvP games in general. The issue is the broken paradigm of having one class whose strength is in being hard to kill, yet due to that very fact makes them not worth the time to kill.
The only real fix is - again - making it so players want to kill that player for some reason, without having to resort to making that class a psuedo DPS or healing class.
I mean, we know that Intrepids plan for tanks in PvP in Ashes is battlefield control anyway. Taunts affecting players seems like the absolute logical fit for that.
But you also said tab is a solution xD
The game could have all 4 of those and you'd have yourself a huge range of solutions, from a purely skill-based to a "rely on others to save you" one. All w/o making tanks super OP, while keeping them with their unique playstyle that works in both pve and pvp.
The thing is you are saying you thought about how it influences on other players and want to add a new feature where your solution is don't use action camera and start swapping back and forth.
Do you still not see the issue?
And when I say "we've thought about it", I mean that we realize what the gameplay impact of the suggestion would be. And iirc Azherae said she'd probably not even want that type of thing in the game.
And as I said before, I'm fine with camera pan because I've already experienced it in Genshin and was fine with it there. And it seems completely fine to me as I imagine it working in my head. You keep saying that everyone would hate it, but we can't know that for sure until there's either a discussion about that kind of mechanic from Intrepid or until they, for some reason, implement it in the alpha and we get our hands on it directly.
So by buff based you mean stats instead of camera being effected? Genshin impact is a mobile game and also doesn't have pvp.
And ya i don't see them implementing players being able to have control over others camera. I guess I was just wondering how serious some of these takes were because I'm surprised by the disconnect.
The way they are talking a bout it will have big impacts even zoomed out. Including 180 spins, and being able to change the camera (unless you hold alt and/or ctrl) but that doesn't effect the direction your looking in and movement will be around that direction. Akin to survival games or pubg when you hold alt and look around if that is even a feature in the game which I'm guessing won't be you should would swap to tab camera)
Ya they don't understand, it doesn't help the bias of them being tab focused and most likely will avoid using action camera to begin with.
A mobile game that I've been playing purely on my pc for almost 3 years now. The camera is a bit further back than in BDO. And it forcefully shifts in some situations. And I'm completely fine with that mechanic. The only change that would happen in Ashes is the frequency, except in Genshin the camera pan can be sudden sometimes, while in Ashes it'd be predictable (because you'd see a tank on the battlefield) - at which point the mechanic is just a skill check.
How I see it working is that the camera would only pan in action mode, because in tab its already disconnected character's movements and the direction its facing (example at 4:15 here you can see Steven run "towards the camera" and then later on he strafes around a tabbed mob while the camera is pointing to the side). And I think that at 22:30 of that vid is the "alt" thing Mag is talking about, where "in action mode" Steven could spin the camera almost 360° while the character didn't even turn around.
In tab I think the char would just turn towards the tank (and obviously your tab target would switch too).
That ranger showcase showed that our movement controls will be all over the place already (unless they change the whole damn system once again). Across the whole system: we can run with the camera; against the camera; strafe around a target - all of those will require you to shift your direction of movement if you switch from one situation to the other.
I want the game to force me not to be in tab 100% of the time, just as I want it to force people not to be in action 100% of the time. Otherwise, what's the point of it being hybrid.
Its not about using one or the other. Hybrid is about the evolution from tab more towards action, it is one step at a time that has been taken over the many years. Being at hybrid now shows how far we have gone from the old days of click to move and full tab target. Though there are things that need to be figured out still until the norm leans even more strongly on action.
As far as controls are concerned you could be right on things are already somewhat a mess, hard to judge without playing it though. This I'm sure will be part of them gaining fed back once people are playing.
The whole purpose is to make sure things don't feel clunky (see the pattern). No one likes clunky feeling games, by default if combat / gameplay feels clunky it will be the first thing people talk about especially in relation to how it will feel in combat. This is why I keep saying its a landmine they wont step on. I promise ya if this game felt clunky you are going to see forum post, reaction, etc for days. And most likely will be somewhat clunky in alpha at the same time and im sure they will improve on it.
Wayfinder recently had people complaining about it and i felt pretty good to me, and devs are working to address that feeling. But i suppose the only way to fully understand how strong it matters is to see it first hand. People are going to be far more critical when it comes to alpha 2.
A company like NCsoft may be interested in something like this, but not a first time developer.
This is why I said that majority of current gamers will not like Ashes, even outside of any edge mechanics that we discuss on the forums. Which is why, considering that any preference is subjective, the only opinion that matters is Steven's. I just hope that others at Intrepid help him stay on one chosen opinion sooner rather than later. He's a tab player who mouse clicks his abilities, I'm sure that his definition of "clunky" is waaaay different from yours or other action combatants'.
The camera is the same in any mmo but you can right mouse button and aligned the camera with the toon. I would hope ashes does the same and I do not want said function to be split from the toon. Nothing is worse than losing seconds at a time realigning the camera either in tab or action. In fact, it's worse in tab because you have to face a target to activate a skill.
Any game developer has aims to make their game better you are missing the nuisance when i said steps. By default the desire to create a good product with good combat will further lead to more evolutions.
You think other wise is suggesting they will copy things as they were and make 0 changes or improvements on anything even if it doesn't work with their current gameplay plan. Which would make 0 sense.
So I'm unsure where you are getting this take from, or if you are just coming for conflict just cause.
We'll be able to tab to them though, right? So you won't have to spin your camera if you're trying to target someone who's behind it. And if it's someone super far away, then you'd probably have to adjust the camera a bit either way.
This is just development, nothing is new here. Their plans and goals are are not going to match what the consumer wants in terms of expected release date. At the end of the day it was a estimate, and they are sticking to releasing it when it is ready as they say atm.
People tried the combat in Alpha 1 so it is fair for them to judge it, though alpha 2 will see people judge it much more harshly. Atm the will be comparing it to throne and liberty as well and trying to see how closely it will feel to it as well as the general feel of the actual combat. People naturally will be looking for reason to say it isn't good and up to the devs to set expectations as they have been doing showing the game and create a game that will be received well at its current state.
But ya that is development, things get re-worked all the time, most consumers can't deal with this kind of stuff and get attached before owning anything.
I honestly think a lot of current mmorpgs gamers will enjoy the game with their systems, as long as combat is good and things don't feel clunky. They are taking an approach to capture a good audience and reduce pvp griefing and making it meaningful. Imo they have done a lot of things right in their goals, and they know how to market and connect. When we get towards the release point eventually in some years I have a feeling they will be doing big things, but that is just my feeling. They may not be coming to make the next WoW but they are definitely playing this to win.
I truly hope they have a lot of objectives around and reason to hold and defend them. 250v250 doesn't need to be a zerg fest a lot of chances to have strategy int he gameplay and make it meaningful. But it will be a challenge making it for sure.
Effect of taunt on the target
- Single target taunt skill. Everyone* but the tank becomes invisible and un-tab-targetable to the target of the taunt. The tank is thus the only obvious target. Any other action is done by aiming at random with the reticle. The target is as in a blinding rage if you will.
- AoE taunt/multiple target taunt. Everyone* but the tank become blurry, as if stealthed, and un-tab-targetable to the target of the taunt. Actions can be performed with a better guess than under a "full" taunt.
The camera doesn't need to move. The target knows exactly who's the taunter. Actions (spells, weapon swings, etc) still work, but unreliably if not on the tank. AoE are still possible too.
There are many side effects though. A tank can shot down an enemy healer with a taunt. The taunt can also be used as a powerful distraction, allowing things to happens while the target is "blinded".
Would it be an interesting implementation of a taunt?
* and by everyone I mean everyone: friends and foes.
Also, this would most likely lead to window tanks that just cast this shit on super high value people. We had that kind of thing in L2 with a class that could steal 7 (out of 36) buffs on a semi-short cd. It was annoying as hell, but at least it wasn't p2w there. In Ashes it would be.
The fact that they debuff a single target (and sometimes AoE, depending) while dealing damage, slowing the target, just being hell to the target they are attacking, might make them actually become a target, which is kind of the point of the idea.
It's not forced, but it at least makes a Tank almost *act* like a tank in that it wants enemies to target him over others.
Beyond that, you could almost do this same thing by just ignoring any PvP taunt ability and just give enough dps and debuffs from their attacks to achieve this.
Regardless...