Ground Targeted AOEs are not skillshots.

You don't shoot Divine Flare, you place it on the ground.

Skills shots, require that you shoot them.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae wrote: »

Beyond that, I generally play Action type games, that's the issue with asking me, and why I answered with the link. I believe therefore is that 'it's the same' in my experience, draw distance is tab-target distance, but ability ranges are shorter than that, as listed.

It's just that in older games draw distance was probably way shorter than what Ashes will most likely have. L2 already had a huge draw distance and that was fairly op in some situations.

But yeah, I get you and thx for the context.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games.

Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre.

TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs.

That’s why I wasn’t ragging on GTAoEs level of difficulty to pull off.

And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.

Ludullu

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games.

I'm doing just fine in action games, I just don't want shooters in my mmos, otherwise I'd just play mmo shooters. Though I did play Planetside and like it quite a bit as well.

Solvryn wrote: »

Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre.

TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs.

I tried TERA. I did not grab me, but I'll probably try it again later on just to get a better feel for it. I also tried it w/o ground indicators for enemy abilities, so it was needlessly more difficult than it should've been

And if you say that TERA was close to a hybrid, but wasn't also a complete free aim game, then do you have any ideas that might be useful to Intrepid for trying to make a proper hybrid system?

Or do you just want them to not call their abilities skillshots and that's the entirety of your feedback?

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

So instead of being proper with definitions we should base them solely on player insecur

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games.

nah train sc1 splitting. so much better for aim, precision and hand-eye coordination xd

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

So instead of being proper with definitions we should base them solely on player insecur

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.

mechanical skill has nothing to do with combat depth. strategy does. look at chess and go, they are more complex and deep than any action combat game you've ever played and they require 0 mechanical skill

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

So instead of being proper with definitions we should base them solely on player insecur

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.

mechanical skill has nothing to do with combat depth. strategy does. look at chess and go, they are more complex and deep than any action combat game you've ever played and they require 0 mechanical skill

Chess is wholly deterministic without any form of output randomness. Action combat games are way more deterministic then tab games ever will be and can be without output randomness.

I don't think you know what strategy is in actuality.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

So instead of being proper with definitions we should base them solely on player insecur

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.

mechanical skill has nothing to do with combat depth. strategy does. look at chess and go, they are more complex and deep than any action combat game you've ever played and they require 0 mechanical skill

Chess is wholly deterministic without any form of output randomness. Action combat games are way more deterministic then tab games ever will be and can be without output randomness.

I don't think you know what strategy is in actuality.

pokemon and final fantasy (single playe rgames) have more strategy (specially ff tactics) than action mmorpg xD at least b4 u become ultra strong

tactics can make a combat system deep...so can execution skills

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

So instead of being proper with definitions we should base them solely on player insecur

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat.

and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it.

It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.

Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument.

And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system.

p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.

And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.

mechanical skill has nothing to do with combat depth. strategy does. look at chess and go, they are more complex and deep than any action combat game you've ever played and they require 0 mechanical skill

Chess is wholly deterministic without any form of output randomness. Action combat games are way more deterministic then tab games ever will be and can be without output randomness.

I don't think you know what strategy is in actuality.

pokemon and final fantasy (single playe rgames) have more strategy (specially ff tactics) than action mmorpg xD at least b4 u become ultra strong

tactics can make a combat system deep...so can execution skills

Output Randomness doesn't give depth to a combat system, it detracts from it. Determinism is why Chess is a high tier strategy game, because it limits your choices...

Action will always be more deterministic than a tab game, thus will always require more strategy and tactics.

The only thing anyone can say about action is that a highly deterministic game is boring to them.

Depraved

im not talking about output randomness...

also not all tab games rely on randomness when it comes to combat. randomness isnt a requirement. and u can have randomness in action combat. it all depends how you make the game.

you can remove all randomness from strategy and have more depth than an action game without randomness.

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

im not talking about output randomness...

also not all tab games rely on randomness when it comes to combat. randomness isnt a requirement. and u can have randomness in action combat. it all depends how you make the game.

you can remove all randomness from strategy and have more depth than an action game without randomness.

You made a comparison to chess - chess is deterministic. Action combat is fundamentally more deterministic than tab combat.

Action combat will be fundamentally more strategical and tactical than tab combat.

That does not mean it will be fun, however.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

im not talking about output randomness...

also not all tab games rely on randomness when it comes to combat. randomness isnt a requirement. and u can have randomness in action combat. it all depends how you make the game.

you can remove all randomness from strategy and have more depth than an action game without randomness.

Action combat will be fundamentally more strategical and tactical than tab combat.

not necessarily. it depends how you design and code the combat...

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

im not talking about output randomness...

also not all tab games rely on randomness when it comes to combat. randomness isnt a requirement. and u can have randomness in action combat. it all depends how you make the game.

you can remove all randomness from strategy and have more depth than an action game without randomness.

Action combat will be fundamentally more strategical and tactical than tab combat.

not necessarily. it depends how you design and code the combat...

That's why I said fundamentally, dudeanator.

Depraved

not even fundamentally. T__T

ok define combat depth T_T or what elements make combat deep. tip: they have nothing to do with the game being action or tab

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games.

I'm doing just fine in action games, I just don't want shooters in my mmos, otherwise I'd just play mmo shooters. Though I did play Planetside and like it quite a bit as well.

Solvryn wrote: »

Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre.

TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs.

I tried TERA. I did not grab me, but I'll probably try it again later on just to get a better feel for it. I also tried it w/o ground indicators for enemy abilities, so it was needlessly more difficult than it should've been

And if you say that TERA was close to a hybrid, but wasn't also a complete free aim game, then do you have any ideas that might be useful to Intrepid for trying to make a proper hybrid system?

Or do you just want them to not call their abilities skillshots and that's the entirety of your feedback?

Man I had a whole thing written in my phone.

Try Archer! You’ll experience the bloom on the reticle and the arrow physics. Also, combos are very important.

That’d actually help me in our conversation once you get a feel for it. Mage is another one too.

I don’t like how sloppy Ranger looks, it’s bothersome. But TERAs archer is a decent compromise.

And the reason I prefer they have more concise wording is because they can accurately set expectations and not mislead people.

I set this entire thread up and it demonstrates that by my very intent and design.

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

not even fundamentally. T__T

ok define combat depth T_T or what elements make combat deep. tip: they have nothing to do with the game being action or tab

“Combat depth has nothing to do with combat systems.” Is just what you effectively said.

When we start out with jargon like combat “depth”, instead of how the games coded in 3D space it already doesn’t give me the confidence that you’re able to have the discussion.

Aiming adds more mechanics to the game and opens the game up to more interact points of data. It also allows the devs to create new skills they otherwise can’t in a tab target system.

What I think you’re trying to get it and this is a stretch that tab has more complex forms of data, which isn’t true.

Ludullu

Solvryn wrote: »

Try Archer! You’ll experience the bloom on the reticle and the arrow physics. Also, combos are very important.

I'm sure that its archer is great and all, but I don't really care about that class. Me playing it wouldn't really give me any knew revelations about this discussion, because I've played archers in other action games already.

At this point I'm sure we won't get anywhere. You just want shooter mechanics in Ashes and I just want some action abilities that can be blocked. Our interests cross paths, but you're just much more of stickler for semantics of said mechanics and for very particular features that I have no interest in.

We'll see what Intrepid decide to do with their rangers. Initial plan was always to fall back on full tab, if hybrid doesn't work out, so I wouldn't be surprised that they change course down the line if they hear a ton of negative feedback about the action part of the game.

Well, I at least hope they will, because otherwise we'd be looking at yet another 5 years of "subjects to change" and "we're still deciding what to do".

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Try Archer! You’ll experience the bloom on the reticle and the arrow physics. Also, combos are very important.

I'm sure that its archer is great and all, but I don't really care about that class. Me playing it wouldn't really give me any knew revelations about this discussion, because I've played archers in other action games already.

At this point I'm sure we won't get anywhere. You just want shooter mechanics in Ashes and I just want some action abilities that can be blocked. Our interests cross paths, but you're just much more of stickler for semantics of said mechanics and for very particular features that I have no interest in.

We'll see what Intrepid decide to do with their rangers. Initial plan was always to fall back on full tab, if hybrid doesn't work out, so I wouldn't be surprised that they change course down the line if they hear a ton of negative feedback about the action part of the game.

Well, I at least hope they will, because otherwise we'd be looking at yet another 5 years of "subjects to change" and "we're still deciding what to do".

I don’t think any tab version of this game will be superior to what they started in Apoc. Apoc is one of the things that gave me confidence that they’d make great combat.

I don’t see that same level of combat in the tab system.

You’re being a bit hyperbolic with shooter mechanics, as the games I’ve posted above and shooters aren’t the same.

Im a stickler for concise wording because that’s the best way to temper reasonable expectations.

Ludullu

Solvryn wrote: »

I don’t think any tab version of this game will be superior to what they started in Apoc. Apoc is one of the things that gave me confidence that they’d make great combat.

I don’t see that same level of combat in the tab system.

I think I've already said this before. Apoc existed to test their action combat backend. They learned that it's kinda shit. It delayed the game a few years and made them reassess their whole combat system. But the plan from the start was "hybrid, and if that doesn't work - full tab". If you can't live with the potential of the game being tab - the game is probably not for you.

Solvryn wrote: »

You’re being a bit hyperbolic with shooter mechanics, as the games I’ve posted above and shooters aren’t the same

You only value the shootery mechanic of the action combat. You still haven't directly said if you consider free-aim melee to be action combat, which is why I assume that you don't.

And I don't remember if I've posted the wiki link before, but Intrepid will also not have headshots, so even the base level of "skillshots" is way lower than majority of other action combat (i.e. shooters) games. And I HIGHLY doubt we'll ever get headshots, even if I would prefer to have them because I want an mmo that respects verticality in its combat (preferably 3 sections of it).

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

I don’t think any tab version of this game will be superior to what they started in Apoc. Apoc is one of the things that gave me confidence that they’d make great combat.

I don’t see that same level of combat in the tab system.

I think I've already said this before. Apoc existed to test their action combat backend. They learned that it's kinda shit. It delayed the game a few years and made them reassess their whole combat system. But the plan from the start was "hybrid, and if that doesn't work - full tab". If you can't live with the potential of the game being tab - the game is probably not for you.

Solvryn wrote: »

You’re being a bit hyperbolic with shooter mechanics, as the games I’ve posted above and shooters aren’t the same

You only value the shootery mechanic of the action combat. You still haven't directly said if you consider free-aim melee to be action combat, which is why I assume that you don't.

And I don't remember if I've posted the wiki link before, but Intrepid will also not have headshots, so even the base level of "skillshots" is way lower than majority of other action combat (i.e. shooters) games. And I HIGHLY doubt we'll ever get headshots, even if I would prefer to have them because I want an mmo that respects verticality in its combat (preferably 3 sections of it).

Free-aim with a melee weapon? Am I throwing it?

New World has action melee, thought I don’t like the auto-snapping. Gives players a false impression they’re good.

Conq Blade is all action melee.

Darkfall, Darkfall Unholy Wars is action combat, all of it.

Valheim is action.

Souls games are action.

I’ve known Intrepid will not have head shots and they will be normalized. I would like them to succeed in their hybrid combat but I have my doubts when all we have is some basic tab game.

Ludullu

Solvryn wrote: »

Free-aim with a melee weapon? Am I throwing it?

New World has action melee, thought I don’t like the auto-snapping. Gives players a false impression they’re good.

Conq Blade is all action melee.

Darkfall, Darkfall Unholy Wars is action combat, all of it.

Valheim is action.

Souls games are action.

So Ashes has action combat as well, so it's a proper hybrid.

Solvryn wrote: »

I’ve known Intrepid will not have head shots and they will be normalized. I would like them to succeed in their hybrid combat but I have my doubts when all we have is some basic tab game

A basic tab game would not let you do any attack w/o a tab target present. I've played that kind of game for 12 years so I would know.

This is why I say that Ashes is a good hybrid, while you say that it's not even a hybrid game, because you're used to (or at least want) shooter mechanics.

Child Item