I assume this is how fast it'll go when you have 100% uptime on your opponent? How about dodging/blocking/kiting/LoSing? Surely that prolongs the fight. This isn't L2 where you're glued to your opponent or locked in and can never miss at range... right?
4
Options
TryolMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 11
Big dislike, same with the 6s PvE normal mob TTK.
I think both needs to be doubled, but I guess we'll see once we test it..
With ttk this low I really doubt Summoners can be good. but hey maybe their ai will mysteriously massively improve to make quick intelligent decisions and it'll be op. But having to rotary phone every skill through another entity really makes this ttk just not work out especially when one of the classes has a smartphone in comparison.
Maybe the summons will have a higher TTK.
I'd like the summons to keep fighting even if the character is down, as a nearby cleric can resurrect him.
After listening to the AMA, the 10-15s isn’t the real issue, it’s the insistence that lowering the TTK will act as a balancing ploy versus zerging.
The mantra he said a few times is that a skilled smaller group that can communicate and organize will always beat a disorganized larger force.
A couple points to think about:
1. This IS true, but only for short periods of time. Asymmetric warfare uses guerilla tactics to wear a larger force down, but in the long run larger numbers will prevail in an extended conflict.
2. What happens when the larger force IS the more organized, skilled, and communicate more effectively? You’re either in the gang or subject to it
3. I’m extrapolating here, but this will basically eliminate solo/small group players going red and INCREASE players in organized guilds going red - resulting in the exact opposite intent of player corruption.
I assume this is how fast it'll go when you have 100% uptime on your opponent? How about dodging/blocking/kiting/LoSing? Surely that prolongs the fight. This isn't L2 where you're glued to your opponent or locked in and can never miss at range... right?
Well with TTK my understanding is this is the time it takes to kill player in real fight, not attacking afk player.
and 15 sec is way too low.
No one can predict the time yet, not even Intrepid, this is due to the fact that we don't even know the skills and gear there will be in the future, people in higher levels will probably have a lot of sustain and a fight will take over a minute
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
After listening to the AMA, the 10-15s isn’t the real issue, it’s the insistence that lowering the TTK will act as a balancing ploy versus zerging.
The mantra he said a few times is that a skilled smaller group that can communicate and organize will always beat a disorganized larger force.
A couple points to think about:
1. This IS true, but only for short periods of time. Asymmetric warfare uses guerilla tactics to wear a larger force down, but in the long run larger numbers will prevail in an extended conflict.
2. What happens when the larger force IS the more organized, skilled, and communicate more effectively? You’re either in the gang or subject to it
3. I’m extrapolating here, but this will basically eliminate solo/small group players going red and INCREASE players in organized guilds going red - resulting in the exact opposite intent of player corruption.
Curious to see how players react while testing the TTK, rather than the devs.
Especially new testers.
No one can predict the time yet, not even Intrepid, this is due to the fact that we don't even know the skills and gear there will be in the future, people in higher levels will probably have a lot of sustain and a fight will take over a minute
Well in WOW Wotlk (since the pvp there was best, from wow expansions), the average 1v1 ttk was like 40-60 sec, ofc there were a lot variables and if you outplay the opponent the ttk can even be 6-7 sec. And with this in a group content you could see players die for 3-4 sec when focused.
If AOC ttk is low on 1v1 scale, in group content you wont have time to react before you get oneshotted
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
More importantly, there should be enough time to see what groupmates are doing and attempt to adjust and synergize attacks or defenses on the fly.
After listening to the AMA, the 10-15s isn’t the real issue, it’s the insistence that lowering the TTK will act as a balancing ploy versus zerging.
The mantra he said a few times is that a skilled smaller group that can communicate and organize will always beat a disorganized larger force.
A couple points to think about:
1. This IS true, but only for short periods of time. Asymmetric warfare uses guerilla tactics to wear a larger force down, but in the long run larger numbers will prevail in an extended conflict.
2. What happens when the larger force IS the more organized, skilled, and communicate more effectively? You’re either in the gang or subject to it
3. I’m extrapolating here, but this will basically eliminate solo/small group players going red and INCREASE players in organized guilds going red - resulting in the exact opposite intent of player corruption.
Reducing solo heavy some some of small group pvp would be the point of corruption. As that reducing the general chaos of someone acting ont heir own to go corrupt. This leans more towards a benefit for pve players. And how i felt the goal of corruption was always meant to be.
Though it doesn't increase group pvp suddenly that doesn't really change, it technically by your point will only lower other kinds of pvp. Group pvp has its own risk, even more so if DPS people kill most the people and stack corruption (which has big negative effects and makes them targets)
bruh... don't tell me you never had macros of the enemies doombringer sand the whole command channel of dozens if not hundreds of people wouldn't target the same dude to kill him during barakiel or epic bosses fight.
Yes, we did, but like I said raid situations were way rarer than group vs group situations. So hearing Steven say "when it comes to groups..." - I think about group pvp, not raid pvp.
party vs party not so much. think about it logically, the game is made so that 1 healer can keep a party alive. if party vs party you get one shotted, then whats the point of healer? all you gonna do is revive then?
warrior and dagger are coming, you have time to react to that, use shields, aggression, etc, etc. one person gets targetted by all 4 dps? well that's 4 skills in a second, you can heal. maybe you wont be able to perma heal that but will extend that players life and hopefully your team will cc the enemies or whatever.
Rogue has full stealth and warrior jumps a god damn mile and potentially from a higher point as well.
So just as you asked me about the name macros, I gotta ask you: don't tell me your party never had a dagger who'd try to backstab a bishop out of stealth before the fight even started
I assume this is how fast it'll go when you have 100% uptime on your opponent? How about dodging/blocking/kiting/LoSing? Surely that prolongs the fight. This isn't L2 where you're glued to your opponent or locked in and can never miss at range... right?
well aoc is tab targetted but we will also have active blocks and dodges. so yeah not exactly like l2. l2 could get a bit unfair sometimes because of the target system.
I think both needs to be doubled, but I guess we'll see once we test it..
I love short ttk on mobs. it also makes sense for a game with owpvp and where you have to compete for farming spots. if killing a mob takes too long (beside it being boring) then that decreases the competition between players, because everybody will always shave one mob (or then the are agets too crowded and no one pvp).
After listening to the AMA, the 10-15s isn’t the real issue, it’s the insistence that lowering the TTK will act as a balancing ploy versus zerging.
The mantra he said a few times is that a skilled smaller group that can communicate and organize will always beat a disorganized larger force.
A couple points to think about:
1. This IS true, but only for short periods of time. Asymmetric warfare uses guerilla tactics to wear a larger force down, but in the long run larger numbers will prevail in an extended conflict.
2. What happens when the larger force IS the more organized, skilled, and communicate more effectively? You’re either in the gang or subject to it
3. I’m extrapolating here, but this will basically eliminate solo/small group players going red and INCREASE players in organized guilds going red - resulting in the exact opposite intent of player corruption.
true but don't you think the large organize group deserves the victory? why would the small disorganized group deserves it?
what about 2 lrge groups, lets say 250 vs 250. one is very organized and one isn't. who should win?
bruh... don't tell me you never had macros of the enemies doombringer sand the whole command channel of dozens if not hundreds of people wouldn't target the same dude to kill him during barakiel or epic bosses fight.
Yes, we did, but like I said raid situations were way rarer than group vs group situations. So hearing Steven say "when it comes to groups..." - I think about group pvp, not raid pvp.
party vs party not so much. think about it logically, the game is made so that 1 healer can keep a party alive. if party vs party you get one shotted, then whats the point of healer? all you gonna do is revive then?
warrior and dagger are coming, you have time to react to that, use shields, aggression, etc, etc. one person gets targetted by all 4 dps? well that's 4 skills in a second, you can heal. maybe you wont be able to perma heal that but will extend that players life and hopefully your team will cc the enemies or whatever.
Rogue has full stealth and warrior jumps a god damn mile and potentially from a higher point as well.
So just as you asked me about the name macros, I gotta ask you: don't tell me your party never had a dagger who'd try to backstab a bishop out of stealth before the fight even started
1- mi amor, a group is 2 or more people. he didn't say party. a half party is a group. a full party is a group. a raid is a group. a command channel is a group.
2- true
3- yes ofc. but you have anti stealth...you can also see the warrior jumping and prepare
and yeah duh if we were gonna pk, the dagger would pk the bishop but we weren't always pking or getting pked. sometimes dagger would just get in position and this is only in small pvp...remember u also have an elder heal spamming the bishop. in mass pvp, daggers couldn't do that very well...mass pvp is mages and archers and gladi to an extent.
if u mean outta hide (old chronicles didn't have hide), we had to wait for them to flag...hide is only 30 seconds. if you know he is hidden, don't flag and wait...(did that all the time) or put ur back to a wall xd
3- yes ofc. but you have anti stealth...you can also see the warrior jumping and prepare
and yeah duh if we were gonna pk, the dagger would pk the bishop but we weren't always pking or getting pked. sometimes dagger would just get in position and this is only in small pvp...remember u also have an elder heal spamming the bishop. in mass pvp, daggers couldn't do that very well...mass pvp is mages and archers and gladi to an extent.
if u mean outta hide (old chronicles didn't have hide), we had to wait for them to flag...hide is only 30 seconds. if you know he is hidden, don't flag and wait...(did that all the time) or put ur back to a wall xd
I'm talking about war/siege situations, cause PKing situations are a whole different thing.
We don't know what kind of anti-stealth AoC will have yet. L2 only really had it on Archers and even then they had to spam it constantly to protect their healers. Spamming aoes on mages would've burned through their mana needlessly.
Also, we obviously don't know if Rogues will even benefit from backstabbing or hits from stealth. I assume they will, cause that's just logical for a rogue, but it's still not a 100% feature.
And like I said, if I'm wrong - cool, great, I hope I am. But right now I don't really see that being the case, judging by all the things Steven has said.
true but don't you think the large organize group deserves the victory? why would the small disorganized group deserves it?
what about 2 lrge groups, lets say 250 vs 250. one is very organized and one isn't. who should win?
No, you have to earn wins whether you're organized or not. I don't think this mindset gives much room for folks to make headway against a larger, moderately coordinated team.
In a 250 v 250 game, there are a lot more variables than premade v. pug that determine the outcome. I don't think 'deserve' or 'should' has a place in competition. You 'earn' wins via skill & execution.
bruh... don't tell me you never had macros of the enemies doombringer sand the whole command channel of dozens if not hundreds of people wouldn't target the same dude to kill him during barakiel or epic bosses fight.
Yes, we did, but like I said raid situations were way rarer than group vs group situations. So hearing Steven say "when it comes to groups..." - I think about group pvp, not raid pvp.
party vs party not so much. think about it logically, the game is made so that 1 healer can keep a party alive. if party vs party you get one shotted, then whats the point of healer? all you gonna do is revive then?
warrior and dagger are coming, you have time to react to that, use shields, aggression, etc, etc. one person gets targetted by all 4 dps? well that's 4 skills in a second, you can heal. maybe you wont be able to perma heal that but will extend that players life and hopefully your team will cc the enemies or whatever.
Rogue has full stealth and warrior jumps a god damn mile and potentially from a higher point as well.
So just as you asked me about the name macros, I gotta ask you: don't tell me your party never had a dagger who'd try to backstab a bishop out of stealth before the fight even started
This brings up a question since L2 is apparently our basis...
Is Backstab a guaranteed hit in L2? All quicksearches indicate that it can just miss, but as always I ask the veterans.
Is Backstab a guaranteed hit in L2? All quicksearches indicate that it can just miss, but as always I ask the veterans.
If you're hitting in the back - it's 100% (unless the target has a buff that dodges any phys ability or reflects it back). If it's to the side - there's a chance to miss iirc. If it's to the front - it doesn't work.
There's the explicit ability "Backstab", but all dagger (it was a class type) ability have a higher chance of hitting the target if you hit them to their back.
And then different classes had different chances on their frontal/side hits, counterbalanced by other stats.
We've been debating this for a while. I'm totally for it. SWTOR (as a current real world example) has 30 to 40 second TTK and it's awful. After the second time through a rotation it feels like a wet noodle contest.
Plus with some people pushing for 30 to 40, or sometimes 60 (Jesus) second ttks it easier to start at 12 and compromise up to 20 if it's too fast.
We've been debating this for a while. I'm totally for it. SWTOR (as a current real world example) has 30 to 40 second TTK and it's awful. After the second time through a rotation it feels like a wet noodle contest.
Plus with some people pushing for 30 to 40, or sometimes 60 (Jesus) second ttks it easier to start at 12 and compromise up to 20 if it's too fast.
12 sec ttk means you wont be able to use all your skills, let alone the basic auto attacks that you put so much effort to put skill points into the weapon. To me it makes no sense the fight to be a spam of who uses all his spells first, you need some cooldown management.
I don't see 1 second happening unless certain things were together. Group has full DPS and no heals and people are standing still. If there is a moment where the gameplay has no defensive capabilities and you can't react to anything in the game they will change it until its where they want.
I can only say that there are many reasonable designs in which TTK of 10s between two averagely balanced parties (i.e. only 1 or 2 duplicates of Primary Archetype in the party) does not lead to anyone getting actually burst down in under 5s.
The question to both of you would be this then: do you count ttk from the start of the attackers' animation or from the existence of any enemy effect on the target?
Cause we saw in the caravan showcase that a few rangers using snipe together just wiped a dude. Snipe is a long cast, so one might say it was a non-1-second ttk, but to me I don't care what my enemy does for howeverlong before he hits me, but if I die within a 1sec of a hit - imo that's a 1s ttk.
Defensive buffs would presumably get counterbalanced by offensive ones, unless Intrepid go out of their way to add long-lasting strong def buffs that MAKE the ttk last longer.
In any other case, a well-prepped group with a rogue that has full stealth can wipe an enemy cleric in under a second. I'll be glad if I'm wrong, but right now I'm not seeing a way where I could be wrong tbh.
TTK for me would from the moment they begin casting spells/abilities.
I think the caravan example you give is an illistration of good group coordination. They scouted the opponent, got in position, were patient as they approached, called their target and executed an ambush. They created an advatage for themselves, one opponent down is their reward.
Given the amount of time, effort and coordination that went into that initial strike, the TTK was far longer than the 6 seconds they spent using their abilities.
Caravans that want to avoid that, need better scouting. Good tactics are neutralized by better tactics.
Given the amount of time, effort and coordination that went into that initial strike, the TTK was far longer than the 6 seconds they spent using their abilities.
Then any kill I do in the future will be a 225h+++ ttk, cause I was training my character his entire life for that kill
Caravans that want to avoid that, need better scouting. Good tactics are neutralized by better tactics.
Considering how big the world will be, I don't really see how the defenders are supposed to scout all of it in hopes of finding a needle in a haystack.
We've been debating this for a while. I'm totally for it. SWTOR (as a current real world example) has 30 to 40 second TTK and it's awful. After the second time through a rotation it feels like a wet noodle contest.
Was SWTOR a solo mmo or did it heavily rely on party gameplay?
Cause my desire for a longer ttk comes directly from Ashes claiming to be a party game. If the ttk is super short even in 1v1 - party gameplay will be utter trash, because it's gonna be way easier to wipe your enemy (or for them to wipe you), and that's not even considering even a slightest advantage in character/build power.
I understand when people dislike long 1v1s (though I still think it's a fault of the combat design, rather than the ttk itself), but I'm gonna be reaaaal curious to watch people die in mere seconds in a group vs group encounter and then complain that they couldn't even get off a single skill of theirs.
I'm against it. Will force everyone into zerg trains to survive longer. That is not fun and requires 0 skill.
Steven mentioned that the pve risk reward philosophy to zergs was finite loot. Surely there should be a solid zerg disincentive too. Siege weapons with large area splash damage?
I would like a siege weapons called the zerg buster that drops a chain lightning bomb. It zaps 'n' people in radius and each zap bounces 'n' times. Tune the base damage amount to insta-kill groups larger than what the content is designed for (raid size)? But completely ineffective against a standard party of 8. Reward: mindless safety in numbers, trivialise content. Risk: so much death, if opposing team can co-ordinate.
Cause my desire for a longer ttk comes directly from Ashes claiming to be a party game. If the ttk is super short even in 1v1 - party gameplay will be utter trash, because it's gonna be way easier to wipe your enemy (or for them to wipe you), and that's not even considering even a slightest advantage in character/build power.
I understand when people dislike long 1v1s (though I still think it's a fault of the combat design, rather than the ttk itself), but I'm gonna be reaaaal curious to watch people die in mere seconds in a group vs group encounter and then complain that they couldn't even get off a single skill of theirs.
Totally agree with you, If the ttk in 1v1 is low, then the ttk in group content will be ridiculous, People just getting oneshot.
You need large 1v1 ttk, to make group content good. And even it the 1v1 combat is bit boring coz the ttk is too long, Wont matter that much coz ashes will be focused on the group content
Cause my desire for a longer ttk comes directly from Ashes claiming to be a party game. If the ttk is super short even in 1v1 - party gameplay will be utter trash, because it's gonna be way easier to wipe your enemy (or for them to wipe you), and that's not even considering even a slightest advantage in character/build power.
I understand when people dislike long 1v1s (though I still think it's a fault of the combat design, rather than the ttk itself), but I'm gonna be reaaaal curious to watch people die in mere seconds in a group vs group encounter and then complain that they couldn't even get off a single skill of theirs.
Totally agree with you, If the ttk in 1v1 is low, then the ttk in group content will be ridiculous, People just getting oneshot.
You need large 1v1 ttk, to make group content good. And even it the 1v1 combat is bit boring coz the ttk is too long, Wont matter that much coz ashes will be focused on the group content
Yeah this is the part that makes me question some of the reasonings people give.
If it is supposed to be a party game, we would want it balanced around parties.
And even if we then considered 'well it would make 1v1 long and drawn out', if your 1v1 arena is 80% 'waiting for the next round to start' and 20% 'actual fighting, is this better? Who exactly is 'getting bored' watching a longer 1v1 Arena duel, that bothered to watch in the first place?
I don't care as much about the TTK part of this yet, but I don't feel 'this should be fast or 1v1 will be a slog' is a particularly 'fitting' argument for what this game is claimed to be.
Given the amount of time, effort and coordination that went into that initial strike, the TTK was far longer than the 6 seconds they spent using their abilities.
Then any kill I do in the future will be a 225h+++ ttk, cause I was training my character his entire life for that kill
Caravans that want to avoid that, need better scouting. Good tactics are neutralized by better tactics.
Considering how big the world will be, I don't really see how the defenders are supposed to scout all of it in hopes of finding a needle in a haystack.
We've been debating this for a while. I'm totally for it. SWTOR (as a current real world example) has 30 to 40 second TTK and it's awful. After the second time through a rotation it feels like a wet noodle contest.
Was SWTOR a solo mmo or did it heavily rely on party gameplay?
Cause my desire for a longer ttk comes directly from Ashes claiming to be a party game. If the ttk is super short even in 1v1 - party gameplay will be utter trash, because it's gonna be way easier to wipe your enemy (or for them to wipe you), and that's not even considering even a slightest advantage in character/build power.
I understand when people dislike long 1v1s (though I still think it's a fault of the combat design, rather than the ttk itself), but I'm gonna be reaaaal curious to watch people die in mere seconds in a group vs group encounter and then complain that they couldn't even get off a single skill of theirs.
- 225h - come on, not a genuine responce
- The defenders need to scout their route for sure. Not the entire planet 😎
- SWTOR is solo PVE, group PVP
The issue is with how repetitive things get. You go through your rotation, then go through it again. It's such a long time scale that it's always the same. It gets lame after a while and you get tired of your class far sooner.
With shorter 1v1 engagements you have to make choices. If its a group fight you have to decide what to use on what enemy.
Comments
I think both needs to be doubled, but I guess we'll see once we test it..
Maybe the summons will have a higher TTK.
I'd like the summons to keep fighting even if the character is down, as a nearby cleric can resurrect him.
The mantra he said a few times is that a skilled smaller group that can communicate and organize will always beat a disorganized larger force.
A couple points to think about:
1. This IS true, but only for short periods of time. Asymmetric warfare uses guerilla tactics to wear a larger force down, but in the long run larger numbers will prevail in an extended conflict.
2. What happens when the larger force IS the more organized, skilled, and communicate more effectively? You’re either in the gang or subject to it
3. I’m extrapolating here, but this will basically eliminate solo/small group players going red and INCREASE players in organized guilds going red - resulting in the exact opposite intent of player corruption.
Well with TTK my understanding is this is the time it takes to kill player in real fight, not attacking afk player.
and 15 sec is way too low.
Especially new testers.
Well in WOW Wotlk (since the pvp there was best, from wow expansions), the average 1v1 ttk was like 40-60 sec, ofc there were a lot variables and if you outplay the opponent the ttk can even be 6-7 sec. And with this in a group content you could see players die for 3-4 sec when focused.
If AOC ttk is low on 1v1 scale, in group content you wont have time to react before you get oneshotted
Reducing solo heavy some some of small group pvp would be the point of corruption. As that reducing the general chaos of someone acting ont heir own to go corrupt. This leans more towards a benefit for pve players. And how i felt the goal of corruption was always meant to be.
Though it doesn't increase group pvp suddenly that doesn't really change, it technically by your point will only lower other kinds of pvp. Group pvp has its own risk, even more so if DPS people kill most the people and stack corruption (which has big negative effects and makes them targets)
Well, "revive is cheaper than a heal"
Rogue has full stealth and warrior jumps a god damn mile and potentially from a higher point as well.
So just as you asked me about the name macros, I gotta ask you: don't tell me your party never had a dagger who'd try to backstab a bishop out of stealth before the fight even started
well aoc is tab targetted but we will also have active blocks and dodges. so yeah not exactly like l2. l2 could get a bit unfair sometimes because of the target system.
I love short ttk on mobs. it also makes sense for a game with owpvp and where you have to compete for farming spots. if killing a mob takes too long (beside it being boring) then that decreases the competition between players, because everybody will always shave one mob (or then the are agets too crowded and no one pvp).
true but don't you think the large organize group deserves the victory? why would the small disorganized group deserves it?
what about 2 lrge groups, lets say 250 vs 250. one is very organized and one isn't. who should win?
1- mi amor, a group is 2 or more people. he didn't say party. a half party is a group. a full party is a group. a raid is a group. a command channel is a group.
2- true
3- yes ofc. but you have anti stealth...you can also see the warrior jumping and prepare
and yeah duh if we were gonna pk, the dagger would pk the bishop but we weren't always pking or getting pked. sometimes dagger would just get in position and this is only in small pvp...remember u also have an elder heal spamming the bishop. in mass pvp, daggers couldn't do that very well...mass pvp is mages and archers and gladi to an extent.
if u mean outta hide (old chronicles didn't have hide), we had to wait for them to flag...hide is only 30 seconds. if you know he is hidden, don't flag and wait...(did that all the time) or put ur back to a wall xd
We don't know what kind of anti-stealth AoC will have yet. L2 only really had it on Archers and even then they had to spam it constantly to protect their healers. Spamming aoes on mages would've burned through their mana needlessly.
Also, we obviously don't know if Rogues will even benefit from backstabbing or hits from stealth. I assume they will, cause that's just logical for a rogue, but it's still not a 100% feature.
And like I said, if I'm wrong - cool, great, I hope I am. But right now I don't really see that being the case, judging by all the things Steven has said.
No, you have to earn wins whether you're organized or not. I don't think this mindset gives much room for folks to make headway against a larger, moderately coordinated team.
In a 250 v 250 game, there are a lot more variables than premade v. pug that determine the outcome. I don't think 'deserve' or 'should' has a place in competition. You 'earn' wins via skill & execution.
This brings up a question since L2 is apparently our basis...
Is Backstab a guaranteed hit in L2? All quicksearches indicate that it can just miss, but as always I ask the veterans.
There's the explicit ability "Backstab", but all dagger (it was a class type) ability have a higher chance of hitting the target if you hit them to their back.
And then different classes had different chances on their frontal/side hits, counterbalanced by other stats.
Plus with some people pushing for 30 to 40, or sometimes 60 (Jesus) second ttks it easier to start at 12 and compromise up to 20 if it's too fast.
12 sec ttk means you wont be able to use all your skills, let alone the basic auto attacks that you put so much effort to put skill points into the weapon. To me it makes no sense the fight to be a spam of who uses all his spells first, you need some cooldown management.
TTK for me would from the moment they begin casting spells/abilities.
I think the caravan example you give is an illistration of good group coordination. They scouted the opponent, got in position, were patient as they approached, called their target and executed an ambush. They created an advatage for themselves, one opponent down is their reward.
Given the amount of time, effort and coordination that went into that initial strike, the TTK was far longer than the 6 seconds they spent using their abilities.
Caravans that want to avoid that, need better scouting. Good tactics are neutralized by better tactics.
Considering how big the world will be, I don't really see how the defenders are supposed to scout all of it in hopes of finding a needle in a haystack.
Was SWTOR a solo mmo or did it heavily rely on party gameplay?
Cause my desire for a longer ttk comes directly from Ashes claiming to be a party game. If the ttk is super short even in 1v1 - party gameplay will be utter trash, because it's gonna be way easier to wipe your enemy (or for them to wipe you), and that's not even considering even a slightest advantage in character/build power.
I understand when people dislike long 1v1s (though I still think it's a fault of the combat design, rather than the ttk itself), but I'm gonna be reaaaal curious to watch people die in mere seconds in a group vs group encounter and then complain that they couldn't even get off a single skill of theirs.
Steven mentioned that the pve risk reward philosophy to zergs was finite loot. Surely there should be a solid zerg disincentive too. Siege weapons with large area splash damage?
I would like a siege weapons called the zerg buster that drops a chain lightning bomb. It zaps 'n' people in radius and each zap bounces 'n' times. Tune the base damage amount to insta-kill groups larger than what the content is designed for (raid size)? But completely ineffective against a standard party of 8. Reward: mindless safety in numbers, trivialise content. Risk: so much death, if opposing team can co-ordinate.
Totally agree with you, If the ttk in 1v1 is low, then the ttk in group content will be ridiculous, People just getting oneshot.
You need large 1v1 ttk, to make group content good. And even it the 1v1 combat is bit boring coz the ttk is too long, Wont matter that much coz ashes will be focused on the group content
Yeah this is the part that makes me question some of the reasonings people give.
If it is supposed to be a party game, we would want it balanced around parties.
And even if we then considered 'well it would make 1v1 long and drawn out', if your 1v1 arena is 80% 'waiting for the next round to start' and 20% 'actual fighting, is this better? Who exactly is 'getting bored' watching a longer 1v1 Arena duel, that bothered to watch in the first place?
I don't care as much about the TTK part of this yet, but I don't feel 'this should be fast or 1v1 will be a slog' is a particularly 'fitting' argument for what this game is claimed to be.
- 225h - come on, not a genuine responce
- The defenders need to scout their route for sure. Not the entire planet 😎
- SWTOR is solo PVE, group PVP
The issue is with how repetitive things get. You go through your rotation, then go through it again. It's such a long time scale that it's always the same. It gets lame after a while and you get tired of your class far sooner.
With shorter 1v1 engagements you have to make choices. If its a group fight you have to decide what to use on what enemy.