You aren't testing out your damage reduction having some person attack you for a few seconds.
I'm just highlightling this portion of your post to point out how nonsensical the post is.
You get to this point in most discussions after a while.
You don't get it which is the sad part. Getting hit a few times means nothing to a tank. A bruiser and dps could both run the same thing as well and it be just as effective taking a few hits in order to do their rotation on a target that cant get away.
There is no reason to use archaic methods do better with ideas, have some creativity in them. Regardless of me thinking this is clunky there is plenty of reasons why this idea doesn't make sense. Taunt is a basic and clunky cc that ruins another players experience.
You aren't testing out your damage reduction having some person attack you for a few seconds. Taunt will not work the same as pve where the mob is attacking you the entire time. Think about it seriously it doesn't work with pvp it just makes clunky gameplay.
It worked quite nice in an mmo that had exactly the big fights that Ashes wants to have in the almost exact pvp Ashes wants to have.
The action camera movement could be changed for "your attacks don't do shit unless they're aimed at the taunter", which would make people pay attention to their targeting and overall surroundings. The taunt would still force your target onto the tank, but it just wouldn't move your camera.
As for the "omg there's 20 fucking tanks taunting me", as one of the local "I've been in hundreds vs hundreds pvps" people - that is pretty much never a situation. You're never special enough to be aggroed by over 2-3 tanks (usually not even 2). This is mainly the case because in party-based mmos a single player is not as powerful as in smth like BDO, where it's a bunch of special guys running in a ball of people (correct me if I'm wrong here).
I've played on both sides of the interaction and usually the classes with aggro would concentrate on healers to prevent them from making targeted heals or on high dps dudes to, obviously, tank the dmg. Each party would usually have 1-2 healers and 3 dpsers, while only having ~2 (maaaybe 3) classes with aggro. So, if you're even a bit good with math you can see that even in a party vs party situation you don't have enough aggroers to taunt all the valuable targets.
As for the aoe aggro stuff. Iirc L2's aoe aggro didn't work on players, so it was just a pve skill. But even if Ashes decided to make it pvx - you can just have differing ranges between the pvp and the pve effects. In pvp it could be a super small aoe, which would make people pay even more attention to their surroundings (to avoid the tank), while also making the aoe taunt weaker in effect because any non-ranged class would be able to hit both the tank and their preferred target (and those attacks could be unmitigated to make the aoe taunt even weaker if needed).
In other words, there are ways to keep the tank a TANK and not make him a fucking warrior in a can. If I wanted just to be a warrior - I'd play a fighter, but I want to be a tank. And tank got to be able to do those 3 things Azherae mentioned. Slowing people down in an aura or limiting their movement with a few icicles is not really tanking. What Axe does is tanking though. And you know what he does? A fucking taunt that MAKES the enemies attack you
Goal of a tank is to take a lot of dmg, using a taunt on a enemy will not equal a lot of dmg it is equal to a very terrible feeling root that also takes control of your character and your camera.
Only way for taunt to be effective in actually taking "advantage" of the dmg reduction for large enough hits is aoe level taunts that linger for a longer period of time. Which is effective upping the effectiveness to be game ruining levels of experience.
The issue is you refuse to see and understand the other side. The taunt you want is literally a glorified root with terrible player control mechanics. Arguing over that as a defining way that is going to make tanks feel great with their taunt is honestly beyond me.
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
How about you instead read what has been suggested?
It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.
Goal of a tank is to take a lot of dmg, using a taunt on a enemy will not equal a lot of dmg it is equal to a very terrible feeling root that also takes control of your character and your camera.
Only way for taunt to be effective in actually taking "advantage" of the dmg reduction for large enough hits is aoe level taunts that linger for a longer period of time. Which is effective upping the effectiveness to be game ruining levels of experience.
The issue is you refuse to see and understand the other side. The taunt you want is literally a glorified root with terrible player control mechanics. Arguing over that as a defining way that is going to make tanks feel great with their taunt is honestly beyond me.
Will Ashes not have stuns? Especially aoe ones? Or any alternatives to stuns (L2 had the magical alternative in the form of an Anchor). Do we not have sleep? Aoe too btw.
All of those are (would be) abilities that completely remove your control of your character. Taunt does not. It just forces you to pay attention to what you're doing. The tank would just force your target, so if you don't look at who you're hitting - the tank succeeded in his goal of preventing dmg to their party. If you did pay attention - you're now not doing any dmg - so yet again tank succeeded. You were not rooted, you were not forced to attack, you weren't forced to do shit really. You were redirected really, either in your attack vector or the movement one.
Taunt would only force you to attack the tank if Ashes had auto-attacking. But, lucky you, Ashes doesn't have that. L2 did have auto-attacks, which is why your char would be forced to move towards the tank (cause the system had a forced "I want to attack this target" input).
The action camera movement could be changed for "your attacks don't do shit unless they're aimed at the taunter", which would make people pay attention to their targeting and overall surroundings. The taunt would still force your target onto the tank, but it just wouldn't move your camera.
Damn, now that I think about it, I'd even want this for pve as well. The mob/boss can still attack others with their action attacks, but the dmg is hella mitigated. And ideally the AI would instead try to do non-damaging abilities and/or just move around if they had some special auras or similar effects. Add some taunt-resistant design to mobs (especially humanoid ones) and you have yourself pve that's close to pvp, all while the tank has the exact same role throughout the pvx gameplay.
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
How about you instead read what has been suggested?
It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.
You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.
So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.
And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.
Goal of a tank is to take a lot of dmg, using a taunt on a enemy will not equal a lot of dmg it is equal to a very terrible feeling root that also takes control of your character and your camera.
Only way for taunt to be effective in actually taking "advantage" of the dmg reduction for large enough hits is aoe level taunts that linger for a longer period of time. Which is effective upping the effectiveness to be game ruining levels of experience.
The issue is you refuse to see and understand the other side. The taunt you want is literally a glorified root with terrible player control mechanics. Arguing over that as a defining way that is going to make tanks feel great with their taunt is honestly beyond me.
Will Ashes not have stuns? Especially aoe ones? Or any alternatives to stuns (L2 had the magical alternative in the form of an Anchor). Do we not have sleep? Aoe too btw.
All of those are (would be) abilities that completely remove your control of your character. Taunt does not. It just forces you to pay attention to what you're doing. The tank would just force your target, so if you don't look at who you're hitting - the tank succeeded in his goal of preventing dmg to their party. If you did pay attention - you're now not doing any dmg - so yet again tank succeeded. You were not rooted, you were not forced to attack, you weren't forced to do shit really. You were redirected really, either in your attack vector or the movement one.
Taunt would only force you to attack the tank if Ashes had auto-attacking. But, lucky you, Ashes doesn't have that. L2 did have auto-attacks, which is why your char would be forced to move towards the tank (cause the system had a forced "I want to attack this target" input).
If any skill in action combat forces you to move towards a direction it is controlling your camera and going to feel clunky, this is a bigger issues in larger wars. I can see the issue with this plain as day. If you played a action game where something forced this on you and it was constant you would understand what i mean. But games like that don't really exist because the fun element would be hugely impacted.
A cc stunning you, and a skill that physically moves your character and camera are pretty big differences. I shouldn't even need to explain it lol.
If this ability does not move your character, or force them to manually attack a target. Than i have no issue, the point i raised before is since i saw words of camera being moved etc and felt that is what people were getting at.
If it is a debuff and that is what people want in a taunt that nerfs you unless you attack one target. By all means that is what people want out of a taunt and id find that boring. But that is just imo, would just be a basic skill like in other mmorpgs.
If any skill in action combat forces you to move towards a direction it is controlling your camera and going to feel clunky, this is a bigger issues in larger wars. I can see the issue with this plain as day. If you played a action game where something forced this on you and it was constant you would understand what i mean. But games like that don't really exist because the fun element would be hugely impacted.
A cc stunning you, and a skill that physically moves your character and camera are pretty big differences. I shouldn't even need to explain it lol.
Ok, I'm gonna say this so you can see it properly
TAUNT DOES NOT MOVE YOUR CHARACTER
Literally the only thing it does is change your tab target to the tank. That is it. Ffs, Mag.
Also, like I've said already I played a game that did move you (ASHES WOULD NOT BTW), and it was fine. I know you'll say that "it was an old game, and ashes is a new one" BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ASHES WOULDN'T BE MOVING YOU.
If any skill in action combat forces you to move towards a direction it is controlling your camera and going to feel clunky, this is a bigger issues in larger wars. I can see the issue with this plain as day. If you played a action game where something forced this on you and it was constant you would understand what i mean. But games like that don't really exist because the fun element would be hugely impacted.
A cc stunning you, and a skill that physically moves your character and camera are pretty big differences. I shouldn't even need to explain it lol.
Ok, I'm gonna say this so you can see it properly
TAUNT DOES NOT MOVE YOUR CHARACTER
Literally the only thing it does is change your tab target to the tank. That is it. Ffs, Mag.
Also, like I've said already I played a game that did move you (ASHES WOULD NOT BTW), and it was fine. I know you'll say that "it was an old game, and ashes is a new one" BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ASHES WOULDN'T BE MOVING YOU.
Than why am i being quoted when clearly I'm talking about that... If while you are in action combat your camera not being forced to look at anything does not happen and you aren't being moved i shouldn't be quoted since that is what I'm talking about. Could have just ignored that part of my post, and i purposely didn't quote anyone in it lmao.
Than why am i being quoted when clearly I'm talking about that... If you aren't in action combat your camera not being forced to look at anything does not happen and you aren't being moved i shouldn't be quoted since that is what I'm talking about. Could have just ignored that part of my post, and i purposely didn't quote anyone in it lmao.
Unless I completely misread everyone else, I don't think anyone else is talking about action camera (or your character) moving. So I'm almost sure that, once again, the arguments in this thread came from a misunderstanding between you and others.
Ashes won't be an action game. We have a tab target and we can move our camera freely if we want. And from what I've seen everyone was talking about taunt changing your tab target.
I just double checked and the only mention of the action camera moving came from one Noaani message where it was a general suggestion for what could be done. The other close one was RazThemun, but they used "focus" on and then talked about targeting, so I don't think they were talking about your camera actually moving.
But instead of quoting that one comment, you addressed people in general, suggesting that several posters implied that your camera would be moved. And I'd assume that Azherae's response came from the part of your comment that said people would dislike forced targeting, while that was the case in other games and people were fine with it. Then it classically derailed to some random shit, so that's whatever.
As for Noaani's idea itself, I'd have to see it in action to decide whether I dislike it in terms of gameplay application, but right now as I imagine it I'd be ok with it and see it, as Noaani put it, "being tanked".
As for why I quoted you. I quoted your response to me. And what I said in the comment you responded to still stands. I don't remember if we've seen whether we can move your action camera while stunned/slept/anchored/etc. Because if we can completely redirect our character while fully disabled, that brings its own balancing issues (or at least difficulties) to the game. And if we can't - it's the same as someone controlling our camera.
Than why am i being quoted when clearly I'm talking about that... If you aren't in action combat your camera not being forced to look at anything does not happen and you aren't being moved i shouldn't be quoted since that is what I'm talking about. Could have just ignored that part of my post, and i purposely didn't quote anyone in it lmao.
Unless I completely misread everyone else, I don't think anyone else is talking about action camera (or your character) moving. So I'm almost sure that, once again, the arguments in this thread came from a misunderstanding between you and others.
Ashes won't be an action game. We have a tab target and we can move our camera freely if we want. And from what I've seen everyone was talking about taunt changing your tab target.
I just double checked and the only mention of the action camera moving came from one Noaani message where it was a general suggestion for what could be done. The other close one was RazThemun, but they used "focus" on and then talked about targeting, so I don't think they were talking about your camera actually moving.
But instead of quoting that one comment, you addressed people in general, suggesting that several posters implied that your camera would be moved. And I'd assume that Azherae's response came from the part of your comment that said people would dislike forced targeting, while that was the case in other games and people were fine with it. Then it classically derailed to some random shit, so that's whatever.
As for Noaani's idea itself, I'd have to see it in action to decide whether I dislike it in terms of gameplay application, but right now as I imagine it I'd be ok with it and see it, as Noaani put it, "being tanked".
As for why I quoted you. I quoted your response to me. And what I said in the comment you responded to still stands. I don't remember if we've seen whether we can move your action camera while stunned/slept/anchored/etc. Because if we can completely redirect our character while fully disabled, that brings its own balancing issues (or at least difficulties) to the game. And if we can't - it's the same as someone controlling our camera.
I'm not talking about you quoting me but my general point was about 2 things and that was quoted on. If it isn't' relevant then there was no reason for it to be mentioned as it was a general statement since I've seen it brought up before not just relating tot his thread.
Yes Ashes isn't action or tab it is hybrid. Which means it leans on games of both types of functions with tab and action so anything can be used as an example as it is relevant.
There is no reason to not be able to move your action camera while stunned, that would be clunky to lose control and feel extremely bad and be akin to heavy input lag. Moving your camera shouldn't "technically" change the direction of your character until after you move. So you look where you want to go and when you move your character will now be facing that direction after the cc is done.
Not being able to move your camera when stunned, mini stunned sleep, best way i can reference that again is if someone paused your controls every second it would feel very bad. Things like this should be avoided.
Back to the taunt thing i really don't care what affects a tab target at the end of the day, as long as that doesn't impact action camera controls. My view point still stands taunt is a boring concept though and why i originally said to make the core of the kit that is fun, more effective against taunted players.
As for the aoe aggro stuff. Iirc L2's aoe aggro didn't work on players.
Aura of Hate actually did work on players, it was just hella weaker than the single target Aggression.
Pitful small radius, limited number of effected targets,
a very short duration(even tho both are supposed to last 3 seconds) and unnecessarily long cooldown.
Aura of Hate actually did work on players, it was just hella weaker than the single target Aggression.
Pitful small radius, limited number of effected targets,
a very short duration(even tho both are supposed to last 3 seconds) and unnecessarily long cooldown.
Then it just goes to show how weak it was, cause I don't even remember using it in pvp
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
How about you instead read what has been suggested?
It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.
You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.
So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.
And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.
The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).
Even then, in action combat your camera being spun does not move your character. You will be able to move independently of the direction your camera is facing.
Literally no one has suggested anything to do with character movement.
As an aside - if all you are willing to do is skim read a post, perhaps dont suggest other people refuse to see and understand the other side.
You skim reading posts is literally you not trying to even comprehend what the other side is.
You do this exact same thing in far too many threads. You are tiring to deal with, honestly.
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
How about you instead read what has been suggested?
It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.
You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.
So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.
And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.
The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).
Even then, in action combat your camera being spun does not move your character. You will be able to move independently of the direction your camera is facing.
Literally no one has suggested anything to do with character movement.
As an aside - if all you are willing to do is skim read a post, perhaps dont suggest other people refuse to see and understand the other side.
You skim reading posts is literally you not trying to even comprehend what the other side is.
You do this exact same thing in far too many threads. You are tiring to deal with, honestly.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
YEs i didn't quote anyone i skimmed and said my view point and you wanted to go against it and then try to argue with me. You literrialy just said
The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).
This is exactly what I'm saying will be bad. The taunt doesn't move your character to them that is good, still doesn't change the issue that you are suggesting for game play which is camera flipping during fights.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.
So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.
You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.
Forced Target acquisition is definitely the best taunt functionality for mainly Tab Target PvP MMORPGs like L2.
I dislike the idea of locking/spinning the camera(in the tanks direction) as a taunt fuctionality against Action skills as it doesn't necessarily deter the player from still damaging your allies with properly positioned AoEs.
In a game like Ashes where we will theorically be able to either go 75% tab skill or 75% action skills, i see the necessity of including a damage reduction debuff(general or excluding the taunt user) in the taunt alongside the forced target acquisition like it is present in ArcheAge even tho classes in ArcheAge would have around ~50% action skills.
Here are the taunts present in ArcheAge as examples:
Both forcing target acquisition for 4 seconds(Provoke) and having a debuff that helps tanking(Shaken/Distressed) with a separate duration on top of it.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.
So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.
You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.
Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
I've read every word you have written in this thread (I'm sure my IQ is lower as a result).
The problem is, you often make no sense. Any time I attmpt to try and get clarification as to what it is you are saying, instead of just clarifying, you start up some tangent about some random thing.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.
So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.
You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.
Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
Clarity isn't something YOU get to unilaterally decide about your posts. Your readers decide if you're being clear and then they tell you if you're not. And then you get to decide whether it's worth it for you to try and be clear, or whether you are capable. Which it seems you've decided you're not.
For whatever it's worth, you're not clear to me either.
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
I've read every word you have written in this thread (I'm sure my IQ is lower as a result).
The problem is, you often make no sense. Any time I attmpt to try and get clarification as to what it is you are saying, instead of just clarifying, you start up some tangent about some random thing.
You should be the one clarifying (also making me lose IQ) You are the one responding to my post so you should be well aware of what I'm talking about or should further ask more questions so you can understand. Though the pattern is you don't really ask questions you make assumptions.
Instantly your first response talking about camera movement should have made it clear what I'm against.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
If you had havebeen following the conversation, you would know that the forced camera direction was a very late potential means to solve a minor issue. It wasn't part of the actual core suggestion, it was a "maybe that would work" that was added to the end.
So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.
You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.
Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
Clarity isn't something YOU get to unilaterally decide about your posts. Your readers decide if you're being clear and then they tell you if you're not. And then you get to decide whether it's worth it for you to try and be clear, or whether you are capable. Which it seems you've decided you're not.
For whatever it's worth, you're not clear to me either.
What is not clear about this post with what I'm saying.
No one wants to play a game having their camera spun around every second from aoes taunts everywhere. If you are one of the few that are fine having someone affect you camera direction every second do not assume that is the majority
Comments
I'm just highlightling this portion of your post to point out how nonsensical the post is.
You get to this point in most discussions after a while.
You don't get it which is the sad part. Getting hit a few times means nothing to a tank. A bruiser and dps could both run the same thing as well and it be just as effective taking a few hits in order to do their rotation on a target that cant get away.
The action camera movement could be changed for "your attacks don't do shit unless they're aimed at the taunter", which would make people pay attention to their targeting and overall surroundings. The taunt would still force your target onto the tank, but it just wouldn't move your camera.
As for the "omg there's 20 fucking tanks taunting me", as one of the local "I've been in hundreds vs hundreds pvps" people - that is pretty much never a situation. You're never special enough to be aggroed by over 2-3 tanks (usually not even 2). This is mainly the case because in party-based mmos a single player is not as powerful as in smth like BDO, where it's a bunch of special guys running in a ball of people (correct me if I'm wrong here).
I've played on both sides of the interaction and usually the classes with aggro would concentrate on healers to prevent them from making targeted heals or on high dps dudes to, obviously, tank the dmg. Each party would usually have 1-2 healers and 3 dpsers, while only having ~2 (maaaybe 3) classes with aggro. So, if you're even a bit good with math you can see that even in a party vs party situation you don't have enough aggroers to taunt all the valuable targets.
As for the aoe aggro stuff. Iirc L2's aoe aggro didn't work on players, so it was just a pve skill. But even if Ashes decided to make it pvx - you can just have differing ranges between the pvp and the pve effects. In pvp it could be a super small aoe, which would make people pay even more attention to their surroundings (to avoid the tank), while also making the aoe taunt weaker in effect because any non-ranged class would be able to hit both the tank and their preferred target (and those attacks could be unmitigated to make the aoe taunt even weaker if needed).
In other words, there are ways to keep the tank a TANK and not make him a fucking warrior in a can. If I wanted just to be a warrior - I'd play a fighter, but I want to be a tank. And tank got to be able to do those 3 things Azherae mentioned. Slowing people down in an aura or limiting their movement with a few icicles is not really tanking. What Axe does is tanking though. And you know what he does? A fucking taunt that MAKES the enemies attack you
Only way for taunt to be effective in actually taking "advantage" of the dmg reduction for large enough hits is aoe level taunts that linger for a longer period of time. Which is effective upping the effectiveness to be game ruining levels of experience.
The issue is you refuse to see and understand the other side. The taunt you want is literally a glorified root with terrible player control mechanics. Arguing over that as a defining way that is going to make tanks feel great with their taunt is honestly beyond me.
A taunt
Taunts wouldn't stop you getting away at all.
As I said, you have made some assumptions here.
Then explain how a taunt that is suppose to work the same as pve suddenly allows players to move away from their target and not attack the target that taunted them.
How about you instead read what has been suggested?
It's funny, you said the issue is that I refuse to see and understand the other sidfe - you literally can't even repeat what it is I have been telling you.
All of those are (would be) abilities that completely remove your control of your character. Taunt does not. It just forces you to pay attention to what you're doing. The tank would just force your target, so if you don't look at who you're hitting - the tank succeeded in his goal of preventing dmg to their party. If you did pay attention - you're now not doing any dmg - so yet again tank succeeded. You were not rooted, you were not forced to attack, you weren't forced to do shit really. You were redirected really, either in your attack vector or the movement one.
Taunt would only force you to attack the tank if Ashes had auto-attacking. But, lucky you, Ashes doesn't have that. L2 did have auto-attacks, which is why your char would be forced to move towards the tank (cause the system had a forced "I want to attack this target" input).
You are the one the quoted me but i didn't read the entire post I'm skimming through things and looking at things through action combat and how it affects it which is why I'm talking about camera being moved within it as you are taunted.
So if it relates to you than you would be quoting me for a reason.
And what you have told me is about a camera being forcefully moved, which again is terrible.
If any skill in action combat forces you to move towards a direction it is controlling your camera and going to feel clunky, this is a bigger issues in larger wars. I can see the issue with this plain as day. If you played a action game where something forced this on you and it was constant you would understand what i mean. But games like that don't really exist because the fun element would be hugely impacted.
A cc stunning you, and a skill that physically moves your character and camera are pretty big differences. I shouldn't even need to explain it lol.
If it is a debuff and that is what people want in a taunt that nerfs you unless you attack one target. By all means that is what people want out of a taunt and id find that boring. But that is just imo, would just be a basic skill like in other mmorpgs.
TAUNT DOES NOT MOVE YOUR CHARACTER
Literally the only thing it does is change your tab target to the tank. That is it. Ffs, Mag.
Also, like I've said already I played a game that did move you (ASHES WOULD NOT BTW), and it was fine. I know you'll say that "it was an old game, and ashes is a new one" BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ASHES WOULDN'T BE MOVING YOU.
Than why am i being quoted when clearly I'm talking about that... If while you are in action combat your camera not being forced to look at anything does not happen and you aren't being moved i shouldn't be quoted since that is what I'm talking about. Could have just ignored that part of my post, and i purposely didn't quote anyone in it lmao.
Ashes won't be an action game. We have a tab target and we can move our camera freely if we want. And from what I've seen everyone was talking about taunt changing your tab target.
I just double checked and the only mention of the action camera moving came from one Noaani message where it was a general suggestion for what could be done. The other close one was RazThemun, but they used "focus" on and then talked about targeting, so I don't think they were talking about your camera actually moving.
But instead of quoting that one comment, you addressed people in general, suggesting that several posters implied that your camera would be moved. And I'd assume that Azherae's response came from the part of your comment that said people would dislike forced targeting, while that was the case in other games and people were fine with it. Then it classically derailed to some random shit, so that's whatever.
As for Noaani's idea itself, I'd have to see it in action to decide whether I dislike it in terms of gameplay application, but right now as I imagine it I'd be ok with it and see it, as Noaani put it, "being tanked".
As for why I quoted you. I quoted your response to me. And what I said in the comment you responded to still stands. I don't remember if we've seen whether we can move your action camera while stunned/slept/anchored/etc. Because if we can completely redirect our character while fully disabled, that brings its own balancing issues (or at least difficulties) to the game. And if we can't - it's the same as someone controlling our camera.
I'm not talking about you quoting me but my general point was about 2 things and that was quoted on. If it isn't' relevant then there was no reason for it to be mentioned as it was a general statement since I've seen it brought up before not just relating tot his thread.
Yes Ashes isn't action or tab it is hybrid. Which means it leans on games of both types of functions with tab and action so anything can be used as an example as it is relevant.
There is no reason to not be able to move your action camera while stunned, that would be clunky to lose control and feel extremely bad and be akin to heavy input lag. Moving your camera shouldn't "technically" change the direction of your character until after you move. So you look where you want to go and when you move your character will now be facing that direction after the cc is done.
Not being able to move your camera when stunned, mini stunned sleep, best way i can reference that again is if someone paused your controls every second it would feel very bad. Things like this should be avoided.
Back to the taunt thing i really don't care what affects a tab target at the end of the day, as long as that doesn't impact action camera controls. My view point still stands taunt is a boring concept though and why i originally said to make the core of the kit that is fun, more effective against taunted players.
Aura of Hate actually did work on players, it was just hella weaker than the single target Aggression.
Pitful small radius, limited number of effected targets,
a very short duration(even tho both are supposed to last 3 seconds) and unnecessarily long cooldown.
Aren't we all sinners?
The only camera movement that has been suggested as a possiblity is camera spin in action combat (as a possibility).
Even then, in action combat your camera being spun does not move your character. You will be able to move independently of the direction your camera is facing.
Literally no one has suggested anything to do with character movement.
As an aside - if all you are willing to do is skim read a post, perhaps dont suggest other people refuse to see and understand the other side.
You skim reading posts is literally you not trying to even comprehend what the other side is.
You do this exact same thing in far too many threads. You are tiring to deal with, honestly.
So you again say spin action camera, so my entire point stands. Trying to pass it off like it is a maybe thing. I don't care about the maybe i care about how it feels in gameplay that is bad.
YEs i didn't quote anyone i skimmed and said my view point and you wanted to go against it and then try to argue with me. You literrialy just said
This is exactly what I'm saying will be bad. The taunt doesn't move your character to them that is good, still doesn't change the issue that you are suggesting for game play which is camera flipping during fights.
So far, you have not actually explained why you think that can't work.
You say camera flipping - but you have yet to explain what you think this is, and why you think this is bad. All you have done is used those words.
I dislike the idea of locking/spinning the camera(in the tanks direction) as a taunt fuctionality against Action skills as it doesn't necessarily deter the player from still damaging your allies with properly positioned AoEs.
In a game like Ashes where we will theorically be able to either go 75% tab skill or 75% action skills, i see the necessity of including a damage reduction debuff(general or excluding the taunt user) in the taunt alongside the forced target acquisition like it is present in ArcheAge even tho classes in ArcheAge would have around ~50% action skills.
Here are the taunts present in ArcheAge as examples:
Both forcing target acquisition for 4 seconds(Provoke) and having a debuff that helps tanking(Shaken/Distressed) with a separate duration on top of it.
Aren't we all sinners?
Doesn't matter what the core was, that is the type of stuff my comment is related to be it coming up or not. And clearly it did. If you read my damn response that you have been arguing with me over, like legit basic reading I'm not repeating myself again. My points and stance is clear.
I've read every word you have written in this thread (I'm sure my IQ is lower as a result).
The problem is, you often make no sense. Any time I attmpt to try and get clarification as to what it is you are saying, instead of just clarifying, you start up some tangent about some random thing.
Clarity isn't something YOU get to unilaterally decide about your posts. Your readers decide if you're being clear and then they tell you if you're not. And then you get to decide whether it's worth it for you to try and be clear, or whether you are capable. Which it seems you've decided you're not.
For whatever it's worth, you're not clear to me either.
You should be the one clarifying (also making me lose IQ) You are the one responding to my post so you should be well aware of what I'm talking about or should further ask more questions so you can understand. Though the pattern is you don't really ask questions you make assumptions.
Instantly your first response talking about camera movement should have made it clear what I'm against.
What is not clear about this post with what I'm saying.