Blocking - Passive or Active?

As most tanks know blocking currently right now is a passive ability. With the idea of action combat being talked about I wonder if Jeffrey Bard has considered changing blocking to an active ability instead.

Would you prefer active blocking and evading or passive?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Leiloni

leonerdo wrote: »

TERA managed to make to make decent active-defense combat systems years ago. I don't see why Intrepid couldn't do the same... Which isn't to say that they want to do that. The BR gave some evidence that they are willing to make more modern, quick-reaction-based system. But we'll have to see how it gets integrated in the alphas. (Hybrid-combat is slated for Alpha 2, isn't it?)

The reason why that worked is because they had a lot of passive defenses, too. It was effectively a hybrid system. So it wasn't like GW2 where you had paper armor and would die unless everything was evaded/mitigated. In TERA you could take a decent amount of hits and your dodge/block was used for bigger boss moves, or to avoid getting CC'd in PvP, etc. I would be ok with a system more akin to TERA. GW2's take on it was a big reason why I didn't like the game.

This is also why TERA could get away with true trinity class roles and GW2 still has to water them down. Important point to remember since I know a lot of people here are looking forward to playing healers and tanks (or support!).

Leiloni

Caeryl wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

veyrah wrote: »

Blocking could deplete a resource, either by keeping it up so the shorter window you use the better, or make it unlimited and only deplete when you block something. The latter would be more easily to implement with tab target style, as they would autoblock always but it would deplete the resource more quickly than actively controling the block

But this would leave the game with only action combat style defense.

If the game is going to suit both action and tab target players, that needs to apply to defense as well as attack.

That’s not “action style” it’s just active, as in “not automated”. Passive defenses should be restricted to armor defensive stats and whatever buffs you have active.

It’d be extremely unhealthy to allow a player to have a huge amount of damage negation without at least requiring a bit of thoughtful timing and situational awareness. And yes, that means you may (god forbid) have to use a dodge roll or the block key and face the direction of the damage you’re attempting to block.

See, I completely disagree.

First of all, you give no reasoning behind why it would be unhealthy - you simply make the claim.

It is my opinion that it would be unhealthy for the game to have defensive potential not tied to character equipment - having defense be primarily active as you suggest would do exactly that. This would make gear progression a complete farce, as damage output would progress at a higher rate than damage prevention.

In order to keep the game healthy in terms of balance, the increase in damage possible from gear alone needs to be balanced by an equal increase in protection from gear alone.

Right, I've provided the reasoning behind my assertion, now give me the reason behind the one you made.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around your claim that players should have NO defensive options outside of stat checks. That’s just so absurd really I don’t know where to start.

Combat without any option for active defense is a stat game where the winner and loser are decided before the fight even starts. In your scenario, player skill doesn’t determine who wins, it’s just the gear they’ve grinded.

Out of nowhere you claimed damage output would be sky high if defense was active, so I’ll be ignoring that tangent.

If tab target abilities can never be dodged, bodyblocked (which is already confirmed), or evaded, then tab is undisputedly overpowered in comparison to any manual aimed ability. That’s not healthy because action combat should be a viable PvP option. Everything should be avoidable if you manage your resources and cooldowns well. It should not all be up to gear checks. I’d go play DND if that’s how I wanted it to play.

Edit: To clarify even more, I find it is far, far more frustrating to get a “Dodged” message every other hit on a Rogue who sunk all their gear stats into Evasion while they can continuous hit me without taking any active steps to defend themselves, than when I get outplayed by someone who has well timed dodges and who pauses their offensive actions to reduce my larger bursts damage.

I feel like you haven't played a tab target game recently because even those have ways to prevent or mitigate damage. For example Holy Pally in WoW has something like 5 cooldown-based abilities that directly mitigate or prevent damage on themselves in addition to a stun that can prevent damage. They get even more choices in PvP. This type of damage mitigation is exactly what you get with active blocking in most games that have that - damage mitigation upon a button press. Other classes have other ways of avoiding or mitigating damage as well.

I don't think any game works purely on stats. There's always some degree of player skill involved. It's just a question of how you want that to look. In both tab target and action combat you're going to have to decide when to take damage and when you want to "avoid" - in whatever manner - taking full or any damage from a hit.

Realistically the larger difference is going to be between how offense feels in tab vs action combat.

Caeryl wrote: »

Everything should be avoidable if you manage your resources and cooldowns well. It should not all be up to gear checks.

Realistically this is never going to happen. Even the kings of action combat, TERA and BDO, don't do this. They're both heavily reliant on gear but all things being equal, skill still wins at the end of the day (this is even more true for TERA). And even other games with arguably quality action combat systems like Neverwinter and ESO don't do that and work similarly to TERA and BDO.

In all those games, active defenses play a vital role in success in high end combat, PvP especially. But you can't avoid everything and have CDs, resources, or other limiting factors forcing you to choose. The rest is determined by things like CC, gear, healing, etc. The only games I can think of that let you avoid almost everything are GW2 and Vindictus, and they suffer for that by making real healers non existent to avoid making skilled players too overpowered. But this means that not only do those who enjoy healing or support suffer, but the average player no longer has gear and fellow players to rely on to help them fill the skill gap. That's just bad from a business point of view and before you argue that GW2 is popular - let's remember that the vast majority of it's players only participate in easy open world PvE and the moment that open world PvE got harder (Heart of Thorns), ArenaNet received quite a lot of backlash.

Active defenses in the vein of TERA are a great idea to promote skill in a balanced gameplay environment. Going further and trying to achieve a game that allows almost all damage to be avoidable is just bad for business.

Noaani

Leiloni wrote: »

leonerdo wrote: »

TERA managed to make to make decent active-defense combat systems years ago. I don't see why Intrepid couldn't do the same... Which isn't to say that they want to do that. The BR gave some evidence that they are willing to make more modern, quick-reaction-based system. But we'll have to see how it gets integrated in the alphas. (Hybrid-combat is slated for Alpha 2, isn't it?)

The reason why that worked is because they had a lot of passive defenses, too. It was effectively a hybrid system. So it wasn't like GW2 where you had paper armor and would die unless everything was evaded/mitigated. In TERA you could take a decent amount of hits and your dodge/block was used for bigger boss moves, or to avoid getting CC'd in PvP, etc. I would be ok with a system more akin to TERA. GW2's take on it was a big reason why I didn't like the game.

This is also why TERA could get away with true trinity class roles and GW2 still has to water them down. Important point to remember since I know a lot of people here are looking forward to playing healers and tanks (or support!).

This is basically my thoughts on it too.

All players would need (and want) to take some form of active defensive ability. It may be a dodge, a block, a parry or even a phase shift or blink for magical based classes.

However, there NEEDS to also be passive, stat based defenses - and thus equipment, buff, build and positioning all play a MAJOR part in both PvE and PvP content.

From there, each ability (PvE and PvP) can have a differing amount of damage that can be avoided based on stats, and based on the attack hitting or missing.

What this leaves players with is a two individual two way choices. They can elect to go with a lot more action based defenses, thus having more opportunity to defend more potential incoming attacks, or they can opt to have more attacking based abilities and thus be able to deal more damage.

Conversely, with gear, a player can opt for more defense based gear, thus being able to mitigate more damage passively, or they can opt for more attacking based gear, thus being able to deal more damage.

From this, you can build yourself with defense abilities and defensive gear to be ridiculously hard to kill - but while putting up little thread.

Or you could take those same defensive abilities but pair them with more attacking based gear. With this, you would be having to actively defend against most attacks, but you would still pack a decent punch when you had time to get a hit in.

Then you could opt for offensive based attacks, and make some of that up with defensive gear. You wouldn't be dealing a whole lot of damage, but you also wouldn't need to stop attacking in order to defend against most incoming attacks either.

Lastly, there is taking offensive abilities with offensive gear. This is the proverbial glass cannon. You would deal massive amounts of damage, but would likely die from a paper cut.

Clearly, there would be as many different points in between each of these extremes as there are potential character builds, but these are the four extremes.

To me, this is a far deeper and more interesting system than double tapping to roll.

Edit; thinking about what it would mean to the game if stats were not major factor in defense, it would mean that gear progression was a purely DPS thing, meaning all PvE content could ever offer would be DPS check encounters as a means of offering progression.

It would mean that support classes could only really offer CC and DPS buffs to groups and raids - and since CC will only ever be used in situations where it is designed to be required (CC used at the wrong time slows things down - the good CC player is the player that knows how to use CC, but only uses CC when it is needed). Basically, support classes would be relegated to either being essential for a piece of content, or a DPS buff bot.

To me, the notion that an average of 50% of all defense will be via tab based systems (stats, builds, equipment, buffs, positioning) is just unfathomable in regards to an actual MMO with progression based PvE content.

Not having this would straight up prevent Ashes from being what Intrepid want Ashes to be.

Vanqor

I strongly agree with @noaani and @Leiloni on this, there needs to be a degree of passive defences.

Regarding blocking, I also think that there should exist hybrid options, and that action blocking shouldn't be forced upon everyone.

Balancing "action blocking" with "blocking abilities" sounds like a nightmare, though, but I guess that's a challenge that comes with the hybrid system in general

Caeryl

noaani wrote: »

Leiloni wrote: »

leonerdo wrote: »

TERA managed to make to make decent active-defense combat systems years ago. I don't see why Intrepid couldn't do the same... Which isn't to say that they want to do that. The BR gave some evidence that they are willing to make more modern, quick-reaction-based system. But we'll have to see how it gets integrated in the alphas. (Hybrid-combat is slated for Alpha 2, isn't it?)

The reason why that worked is because they had a lot of passive defenses, too. It was effectively a hybrid system. So it wasn't like GW2 where you had paper armor and would die unless everything was evaded/mitigated. In TERA you could take a decent amount of hits and your dodge/block was used for bigger boss moves, or to avoid getting CC'd in PvP, etc. I would be ok with a system more akin to TERA. GW2's take on it was a big reason why I didn't like the game.

This is also why TERA could get away with true trinity class roles and GW2 still has to water them down. Important point to remember since I know a lot of people here are looking forward to playing healers and tanks (or support!).

This is basically my thoughts on it too.

All players would need (and want) to take some form of active defensive ability. It may be a dodge, a block, a parry or even a phase shift or blink for magical based classes.

However, there NEEDS to also be passive, stat based defenses - and thus equipment, buff, build and positioning all play a MAJOR part in both PvE and PvP content.

From there, each ability (PvE and PvP) can have a differing amount of damage that can be avoided based on stats, and based on the attack hitting or missing.

What this leaves players with is a two individual two way choices. They can elect to go with a lot more action based defenses, thus having more opportunity to defend more potential incoming attacks, or they can opt to have more attacking based abilities and thus be able to deal more damage.

Conversely, with gear, a player can opt for more defense based gear, thus being able to mitigate more damage passively, or they can opt for more attacking based gear, thus being able to deal more damage.

From this, you can build yourself with defense abilities and defensive gear to be ridiculously hard to kill - but while putting up little thread.

Or you could take those same defensive abilities but pair them with more attacking based gear. With this, you would be having to actively defend against most attacks, but you would still pack a decent punch when you had time to get a hit in.

Then you could opt for offensive based attacks, and make some of that up with defensive gear. You wouldn't be dealing a whole lot of damage, but you also wouldn't need to stop attacking in order to defend against most incoming attacks either.

Lastly, there is taking offensive abilities with offensive gear. This is the proverbial glass cannon. You would deal massive amounts of damage, but would likely die from a paper cut.

Clearly, there would be as many different points in between each of these extremes as there are potential character builds, but these are the four extremes.

To me, this is a far deeper and more interesting system than double tapping to roll.

Edit; thinking about what it would mean to the game if stats were not major factor in defense, it would mean that gear progression was a purely DPS thing, meaning all PvE content could ever offer would be DPS check encounters as a means of offering progression.

It would mean that support classes could only really offer CC and DPS buffs to groups and raids - and since CC will only ever be used in situations where it is designed to be required (CC used at the wrong time slows things down - the good CC player is the player that knows how to use CC, but only uses CC when it is needed). Basically, support classes would be relegated to either being essential for a piece of content, or a DPS buff bot.

To me, the notion that an average of 50% of all defense will be via tab based systems (stats, builds, equipment, buffs, positioning) is just unfathomable in regards to an actual MMO with progression based PvE content.

Not having this would straight up prevent Ashes from being what Intrepid want Ashes to be.

Wtf was with all the fuss earlier if we have the same opinions on that.

I never implied gear should have no armor or resistances, and your earlier statements didn’t leave much room to interpret that as being in favor of any active defenses.

It is my opinion that it would be unhealthy for the game to have defensive potential not tied to character equipment - having defense be primarily active as you suggest would do exactly that.

Noaani

Caeryl wrote: »

Wtf was with all the fuss earlier if we have the same opinions on that.

No idea, I didn't start any fuss.

mcstackerson

You can still have active defenses affected by gear the same way it affects your offensive abilities.

For blocking, you can have gear limit the amount of damage that can be blocked and/or affect the percentage of damage blocked. Type of damage can also be a factor.

For dodging, you can have dodge stats affect dodge charges and/or dodge recharge rate.

Ventharien

noaani wrote: »

No idea, I didn't start any fuss.

Do you ever not? Hahahaha
I think we can all agree there should be statistical defensive bonus to gear, like armor resistances etc., and thus be passive, along with maybe passive abilities like if you would die, instead you don't and are at x health.
But i do disagree with some earlier assertions that forms of blocking present in other games, a wow holy pally was one example, are forms of action blocking or combat. These are aspects of a tab target combat system. They also are generally tied to class, and so can't be applied to the player base as a whole, unlike say, a shield having an active block, or a statistical chance to activate a mitigated strike, which applies to anyone wanting to pick up the piece of equipment. To make sure Ashes doesn't just become another wow clone, and really keeps to their goal of hybrid combat, i think there has to be some general ability to block/ evade/ parry, and maybe then passive abilities for auto versions of these to keep with the customization on how much of a tab target/ action system you want to play with.

Noaani

Ventharien wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

No idea, I didn't start any fuss.

Do you ever not? Hahahaha

I just never back down from a potential healthy debate.

Very occasionally, they don't end up as healthy as I would have liked, but that is rarely (though not never) my fault.

I think we can all agree there should be statistical defensive bonus to gear, like armor resistances etc., and thus be passive, along with maybe passive abilities like if you would die, instead you don't and are at x health.
But i do disagree with some earlier assertions that forms of blocking present in other games, a wow holy pally was one example, are forms of action blocking or combat. These are aspects of a tab target combat system. They also are generally tied to class, and so can't be applied to the player base as a whole, unlike say, a shield having an active block, or a statistical chance to activate a mitigated strike, which applies to anyone wanting to pick up the piece of equipment. To make sure Ashes doesn't just become another wow clone, and really keeps to their goal of hybrid combat, i think there has to be some general ability to block/ evade/ parry, and maybe then passive abilities for auto versions of these to keep with the customization on how much of a tab target/ action system you want to play with.

The following is my opinion based on the assumption that Ashes will have defenses structured similarly to attack - in that there is a hybrid system and players need to adopt a mix of both action and tab in their builds, but the amount can vary.

If you look at what is being considered action combat (specifically AoE's that are aimed at a spot on the ground), many of the concepts that some players would consider to be at home in a tab target game are in fact being considered action combat by Intrepid.

In terms of defense, to me, this should include those abilities in tab target games that are used to either react to a known incoming attack, or to preempt a potential attack.

These share many of the hallmarks of what makes action combat, arguably more so than aimed AoE's have.

Based on that, again this is just to me, these abilities should be considered action based defensive abilities.

These would be the type of ability that a tab target player would take to fill out his 25% action requirement.

However, in saying this, there also needs to be additional action abilities so that players wanting a more action based defense game can take that up to 75%, but even at that 75% there should be enough abilities available that these players have options.

---

After thinking about a way to specifically implement both in to a game equally and in a balanced manner (and since balance changes over time, that means building in many easily adjusted levers to the system), I came up with a way that I personally would begin to implement a system.

First of all, I would implement my system of defensive stats, though for now I would limit it to armor, resistance and block chance. I would create all of my gear with 33.3% more of this stat than I would normally put on it (if I wanted a player in the best gear and buffs in the game to have a resistance amount of 500, I would make it so all the best gear and buffs in the game has a combined resistance of 667 with rounding).

Then I would develop all of my action based defensive abilities. This is where I would add in things like parry and dodge - they would be restricted to action combat only. Some abilities would have their effectiveness altered by a specific stat of the character using the ability (not necessarily always a defensive stat). An ability that you use to hide behind your shield would be in part governed by the defensive characteristics of your shield, a blink spell cast by a mage may have the amount of damage that is mitigated and the duration of the blink determined by the casters intelligence stat.

Then, once all of that is done, I would apply a percentage reduction to all defensive stats on each action based defensive ability. Assuming there is a minimum of 25% action abilities to be chosen (yes, I know that is likely not a correct assumption), then a player that is opting to only take the minimum of action abilities would have 25% of their defensive stats reduced. A 25% reduction of that above 667 would be exactly 500 (with rounding), which was the original target.

To carry this on, a player opting to take 75% action defenses would have a total of 75% of their defensive stats reduced. This player, in the same gear as the above player, would have 166.7 on their resists, which is exactly one third (again, rounding) of what the player with fewer action abilities had. However, this player also has three times the number of defensive action abilities at their disposal - thus providing for a general sense of balance between the two systems (not complete balance, just general balance).

One player is putting their defensive effectiveness in their gear, buffs and build, the other is putting it in their own ability. This also has the added effect of players opting for an action build being comparatively more effective with lesser equipment. How much of an effect this would have would depend on how much defensive stats effect action based defensive abilities.

A system like this would need some levers in place, as I mentioned above. This could be accomplished via alterations in the percentage of defensive stats each individual ability reduces - so an action ability that is only situationally useful may only reduce stats by 10%, but an ability such as a parry that also provides a chance to riposte may reduce stats by 20%, and the ability to simply perform a dodging roll on a short reuse timer may be 25%.

Now, it isn't a perfect system as described, but I personally think it would be a far better framework upon which to build the best possible system than anything else I have been able to come up with.

mcstackerson

I get the idea of making it a choice but don't agree with tying it to ability choice.

The best way to do this might be to move the choice from your character build to gameplay.

It might be best if everyone gets both active and passive block. Your gear effects both in it's own way. The choice comes into play when you are playing. You always have your passive block active but if you use your active block, your passive block gets disabled for a period of time.

This way players can always choose.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

I get the idea of making it a choice but don't agree with tying it to ability choice.

The best way to do this might be to move the choice from your character build to gameplay.

It might be best if everyone gets both active and passive block. Your gear effects both in it's own way. The choice comes into play when you are playing. You always have your passive block active but if you use your active block, your passive block gets disabled for a period of time.

This way players can always choose.

I'm not a fan of this, as it would mean there is always only one best way to act in terms of defense.

Regardless of if you prefer action or tab, every situation will see all players needing to make the same decision, because all players will essentially have the same defenses. This basically means the defensive portion of the game will require players to always be full action AND full tab, as both need to he used to their absolute fullest all the time.

I'm also not a fan of how this completely removes a multitude of character build options and replaces that choice with a simple yes/no as to whether you should activate an action combat based defensive ability.

Doesn't really seem like the kind of gameplay Intrepid are going for. They seem to want players to decide for themselves while designing their build how important action vs tab is to them, I don't see why that choice should ever move from when you are designing your build to when you are facing an enemy.

Edit; imo the only issue with tying this to ability choice lies in players having a restricted number of active abilities that we can chose to use at any given time. My suggestion for this would be that purely defensive abilities wouldn't use up one of these ability slots.

I also quite like the fact that if it is tied to gear as per above, if a player manages to catch a heavily action combat player by surprise, they will have a decent advantage over them for a second or two. To me, this is how it should be - being a fully action combat focused character but running around with tab target based defensive stats seems almost like cheating to me - definitely exploitable.

Sarevok

I guess we would need to know more on how IS is going to make their hybrid combat work. When I think tab-targeting I just think WoW and ArcheAge. This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design. If IS goes this route I would be extremely disappointed. If they go more action based then the only defense I want passive is my damage absorption that I get from the armor of my items or magical means. In an action game it seems silly to have passive block, dodge or parry because it doesn't play into the "action" theme very well and just isn't rewarding to players on both sides of the fight. With action combat you would see a resource bar for dodge and a parry/block health bar. Now, how your items would contribute to your dodge resource or block health bar would probably tie into the attributes those items gave you. I'm not sure just yet how they will implement parry or if it will just fall under the block category as I haven't seen it mentioned yet as a stat. Allowing players to itemize towards being heavily focused on offense, defense or a mix of both is going to be amazing. It will definitely lead to a lot of build suggestions and hours of theorycrafting that I eagerly look forward to.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats

Noaani

Sarevok wrote: »

This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design.

See, this is what annoys me.

Sure, WoW has a very simplified version of tab target combat, and Archeage put the complexity of the combat portion of it's game in to character builds and no where else, but that doesn't mean tab target is inherently simple. This is what I have been trying to tell people on these forums over many threads in the last few months.

Lets take physical defense in general in EQ2 as an example here.

If I am a tank in a raid, I need understand how to prevent my hit points from going to 0.

In order to best do this, I would need to know how mitigation works, how block works, how dodge works, how parry works, how damage reduction works, how wards work, how reactive heals work, how over healing works.

So far, that is 8 factors to take in to account, but they all break down further.

With mitigation, I need to know if I need to mitigate crushing, piercing or slashing damage, as I am able to gain small increases to each individually of general mitigation that applies to them all. I need to know exactly which of the games 24 (at the time I played it) classes offered me a buff to mitigation. I also need to know how much mitigation comes from each item I am wearing, as there are encounters in that game that remove specific items as a part of their script (encounters that remove the tanks pants are particularly entertaining). I also need to understand how mitigation caps work, where the soft and hard caps are, and exactly what the shape of that curve from the soft to hard cap looks like. Then I need to understand how mitigation itself can be mitigated by the encounter, whether that be an encounter that has attacks that ignore a percentage or a flat amount of mitigation.

So, once I understand mitigation like this, I can then turn to block, dodge, parry, damage reduction, wards, reactive heals and over healing and be sure I have a similar level of understanding of each of them.

Then, when I have that solid understanding of each of them, I need to understand in which order each individual detail of these things is taken in to account.

If I have a ward for 500 HP, and I have mitigation equaling 50%, will an attack for 2,000 damage deal 1,000 damage to me, or 500 damage to me? With just these two factors in their absolute simplest form in play, the order in which they are taken in to account can potentially half the damage I take.

If you were to write all of this out as a mathematical formula, the end result would not look out of place on a blackboard in A Beautiful Mind - and this is the information a competent raid tank, raid leader and raid strategist have to keep in mind all the time.

Keep in mind as well that all of this is only for incoming physical damage, there is similar information for magical based damage and outgoing damage.

All of that said, I actually can't understand how people can label tab target combat in general as simple. Some games implement it in the simplest manner they possible can, for sure, but that doesn't mean tab target is simply.

Even in games where there is this complexity, many players are able to play the game to an extent without actually understanding it - however, the game can not be played at the top end without this understanding.

I mean, some games also implement action combat as a simple point and click type game, but that doesn't mean all action combat is simple.

Sarevok wrote: »

In an action game it seems silly to have passive block, dodge or parry

I totally agree.

On the other hand, in a tab game it seems silly to me to have active block, parry or dodge (assuming tab based builds have access to those mechanics).

This is actually the main reason I came up with the system that I did - not that I expect it to be how Intrepid goes.

To me, if an individual player has the choice of being mostly action or mostly tab, then they need to have the defensive capabilities that match that play style. You are not giving an action player a choice if you force them in to a tab defensive system, nor are you giving a tab target player a choice if you force them in to an action combat defensive system. Likewise, you are not giving players a choice if you give everyone tab defenses and then allow action abilities on top of those defenses.

The only way I could come up with to see to it that players could make an actual choice between the two was to outright hand everyone tab target defense, and then reduce it as and when that player added action combat based defenses to their build.

I also feel it worth nothing that Intrepid have said that if they can't get hybrid to work, they will default to tab target combat. This would lead me to assume that if they can't get a hybrid defensive system to work, they will default to tab target defense.

Undead Canuck

Sarevok wrote: »

I guess we would need to know more on how IS is going to make their hybrid combat work. When I think tab-targeting I just think WoW and ArcheAge. This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design. If IS goes this route I would be extremely disappointed.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats

Looks like you are going to be disappointed. You will not be able to be 100% action. The most you will have is 75% action and 25% tab targeting. And that doesn't take into account if Intrepid falls back on just tab (I am sure that even if they did that, they would still work on the hybrid to bring back later).
Tab targeting might be decades old, but why does that make it bad? Computers are decades old as well. Age does not make something bad.

Noaani

Undead Canuck wrote: »

Sarevok wrote: »

I guess we would need to know more on how IS is going to make their hybrid combat work. When I think tab-targeting I just think WoW and ArcheAge. This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design. If IS goes this route I would be extremely disappointed.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats

Looks like you are going to be disappointed. You will not be able to be 100% action. The most you will have is 75% action and 25% tab targeting. And that doesn't take into account if Intrepid falls back on just tab (I am sure that even if they did that, they would still work on the hybrid to bring back later).
Tab targeting might be decades old, but why does that make it bad? Computers are decades old as well. Age does not make something bad.

To be perfectly fair, action combat is older than tab target combat.

I remember playing Wolfenstein 3D back in the day, that was action combat in 1992 - and not even the first game that could be considered action combat. It may not be an online game, but it is still an action combat game.

The first game that could be considered tab target that I can think of would be the original EQ (though there may be older). Any game that I can think of that is older than that and has a system where you target specific enemies and then attack them are all turn based games - which is it's own thing again.

mcstackerson

noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I get the idea of making it a choice but don't agree with tying it to ability choice.

The best way to do this might be to move the choice from your character build to gameplay.

It might be best if everyone gets both active and passive block. Your gear effects both in it's own way. The choice comes into play when you are playing. You always have your passive block active but if you use your active block, your passive block gets disabled for a period of time.

This way players can always choose.

I'm not a fan of this, as it would mean there is always only one best way to act in terms of defense.

Regardless of if you prefer action or tab, every situation will see all players needing to make the same decision, because all players will essentially have the same defenses. This basically means the defensive portion of the game will require players to always be full action AND full tab, as both need to he used to their absolute fullest all the time.

I'm also not a fan of how this completely removes a multitude of character build options and replaces that choice with a simple yes/no as to whether you should activate an action combat based defensive ability.

Doesn't really seem like the kind of gameplay Intrepid are going for. They seem to want players to decide for themselves while designing their build how important action vs tab is to them, I don't see why that choice should ever move from when you are designing your build to when you are facing an enemy.

Edit; imo the only issue with tying this to ability choice lies in players having a restricted number of active abilities that we can chose to use at any given time. My suggestion for this would be that purely defensive abilities wouldn't use up one of these ability slots.

I also quite like the fact that if it is tied to gear as per above, if a player manages to catch a heavily action combat player by surprise, they will have a decent advantage over them for a second or two. To me, this is how it should be - being a fully action combat focused character but running around with tab target based defensive stats seems almost like cheating to me - definitely exploitable.

The best defense would be situational and affected by other aspects of the build. If you want to be more defensive, you can focus on active defense. If you know you know your passive defense will be enough, you can let it do all the work so you can focus more on offense and your abilities.

It's the same decision they you are having them make, just moving it to combat instead of when they choose there abilities.

Both have their advantages. Active defense, at least active block, lets you control when you block with the downside of not being able to do another action. Passive means you don't have to do anything for your defense so you can focus on your abilities and other aspects of combat.

There is no less build options then tying it to abilities.

The ability system isn't about picking a team, it's about giving diverse ability options for players with different preferences. You associate passive defense with tab because tab games use it but they don't have to be linked. I don't think a person should have to pick passive defense because they prefer tab abilities and vice versa. They should be given the option.

The reason for my recommendation was to avoid a convoluted defensive stat system and allow players to pick in the moment instead of forcing them to pick when they are making there build. If a player prefers to use passive defense then they can do that but they always have the option to try active. This is balanced by passive defense being shut off for a period of time.

You can still have just as many defensive stats as you would have in any other game. The only thing that would change is the stats that directly relate to passive defense like block percentage would also impact the effectiveness of your active defense in some way.

noaani wrote: »

Sarevok wrote: »

This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design.

See, this is what annoys me.

And this is what annoys me.

Stats are an rpg thing, not a tab targeting thing.

None of what you mentioned is unique to tab. They might be more common in turn based and tab games but they are not unique to them. You can find ways to incorporate stats like this in a more active game. Dark Souls isn't a bad example. Keep in mind, we have tab games that don't have this variety.

If you want a crazy variety of stats and challenges that force you to understand them, then ask for that. The fact the game is tab or not does not have an effect on that.

It's not like they would have a bunch of stats for players who use passive block/dodge and just give players who want active defense a button.

Noaani

Quoting your post in reverse, for reasons.

mcstackerson wrote: »

It's not like they would have a bunch of stats for players who use passive block/dodge and just give players who want active defense a button.

Actually, block is something they would do this with.

It is a fairly safe assumption to make that shields will have a block statistic on it. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that there will be a passive block chance that is derived from this stat. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that there will be an ability that allows a player to block an incoming attack with their shield.

I'd actually be shocked if this were not the case. I am fairly sure it would make Ashes the only MMO that doesn't have all of this, as even tab games have these abilities that are - according to Intrepids own definition - action abilities.

Now, dodge may be a different situation. Fortunately, if you read the post where I outlined how I would do this, you would have noticed that I specifically leaf dodge (and parry) as action combat only with absolutely no tab based equivalent.

Stats are an rpg thing, not a tab targeting thing.

None of what you mentioned is unique to tab. They might be more common in turn based and tab games but they are not unique to them. You can find ways to incorporate stats like this in a more active game. Dark Souls isn't a bad example. Keep in mind, we have tab games that don't have this variety.

I mean, you're not wrong here, but you're also not right.

I'd like to remind you of the conversation on these forums a while ago about tab vs action, and my point (that still stands) about how removing the need to target from players allows other factors to then be added in to the game to replace that specific task. Tab target isn't simply removing the need to aim, it needs to replace that need to aim with something else - if the intent is for the tab

I think it would be foolish to make the assumption that Intrepid would be happy with one of tab or action combat being interesting to people that enjoy that system, and the other not being enjoyable to people that like that system. I think it is also fair to say that Intrepid would want to have the over all power of both styles somewhat equal. I think it is also fair to point out that the likely scenario if Intrepid can't manage to get this right is that they will have to fall back on tab target - since they have stated that tab is their go-to should they need one.

I mean, I neither want to see a game where an action combat player is always at an advantage, nor one where a tab target player is always at an advantage. If there is an actual, permanent advantage one way or the other, then there may as well only be one combat style.

It would be foolish to think Intrepid don't know this, and as I said above, they have stated their go-to for if they ever need one (the fact that it has been stated should tell us there is a reasonable chance it could be used).

You can still have just as many defensive stats as you would have in any other game. The only thing that would change is the stats that directly relate to passive defense like block percentage would also impact the effectiveness of your active defense in some way.

What you are saying here is that action combat players should have access to every single thing tab target players have in terms of defense, but then more on top.

If I have everything you have in game, but on top of having everything you have, and purely by virtue of the style of play I have opted for, I also have an ability I can use to make me even better, that isn't balance.

The ability system isn't about picking a team, it's about giving diverse ability options for players with different preferences. You associate passive defense with tab because tab games use it but they don't have to be linked. I don't think a person should have to pick passive defense because they prefer tab abilities and vice versa. They should be given the option.

Actually, the outline of how I would do it did give people the option.

It was a long post, so maybe you didn't read it all. No worries, I do that sometimes too, so I'll give you an outline here. In Italics, no less!

Everyone has the option to take all the offensive abilities they want. Action. Tab. Cool. Have at it. These abilities have no bearing on this discussion.

On top of that, there are defensive abilities that players can chose to use as action combat based defense, rather than using tab target based passive/stat based defenses. These would be things like dodge, parry, magical barriers, blink etc. These abilities don't count towards the total for how many abilities a player can have on their hotbar at a time. There is no need for a hotbar slot for dodge - simply double tap left or right - similar things could be assigned to all defensive abilities.

Each of these abilities have an amount they reduce defensive stats by, so players can make the decision if each ability is worth it to them.

Then, to follow on from players needing at least 25% action and tab abilities, you make it so that players need to take defensive abilities totally at least 25% defensive stat reduction, and a cap of 75%.

This is literally giving every player the option to take exactly as much active or passive defense as they want, while being able to maintain what they consider the best over all defensive build that works for them as a player, within their class. There is no point where a player needs to decide if they want to be a tab or action based defense build, as each individual ability can be selected or declined based on the merits of that one ability.

It also means players are not walking around with full passive defenses, but then also having an arsenal of active defenses - a situation that leads to a clear bias towards action combat.

Perhaps just as importantly, this also leaves it up to the player that wants an action based build to have to make defensive choices in combat, which is where they should be. Tab target players will still have to make the occasional choice here as well, as they will have to take some action based defensive abilities, but action based players will be reliant on their action based abilities for the bulk of their survivability.

The best defense would be situational and affected by other aspects of the build. If you want to be more defensive, you can focus on active defense. If you know you know your passive defense will be enough, you can let it do all the work so you can focus more on offense and your abilities.

So, what you are saying is that you think players wanting action based combat should have more defense than players wanting tab based combat. Because a player that has 500 armor is worse off than a player that has 500 armor and an active ability that blocks attacks for a period - even if they are then defenseless for a short period. And lets not forget about the player that has several defensive abilities, all while still maintaining that 500 armor.

In this situation, the player with the action combat build will always have the ability to not use their abilities. However, they will be there for when there is that specific need, and thus the action combat build under a system like this will ALWAYS be better off.

I specifically came up with a system that doesn't advantage one style over the other, you seem to have come up with one that will always have an inherent bonus to the style you are on record as preferring.

Honestly, without addressing this point, I don't think there is any more to discuss.

Since the last line above was my response to the first portion of your post, this is why I replied to it in reverse.

mcstackerson

Active block shouldn't always block everything when used. They would/could still make some stat that works with active block to limit it like a limit on the amount of damage a player could block with their active block. This amount could correlate to a block percentage. Where in a passive system you have a higher chance of blocking, in an active system, player can block more attacks for longer.

Yes, i remember our conversation on tab vs action. i don't think your point changes the fact that anything you add to an ability/combat to create these other factors for players to focus on in a tab system couldn't be added to a action/free aim system. It's just that in a free aim system you also have to aim in addition to having to think about those other factors. If you think this would be too hard for people then cool (i disagree) but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

I think you miss-interpreted my point about stats in an action system. I wasn't talking about ashes, I was talking about action vs tab games in general. I was commenting on your post about all the stats you have in a tab game and pointing out you can have the same stat diversity in a action game.

I did miss that part of picking active defense abilities, that is a better system to me.

noaani wrote: »

The best defense would be situational and affected by other aspects of the build. If you want to be more defensive, you can focus on active defense. If you know you know your passive defense will be enough, you can let it do all the work so you can focus more on offense and your abilities.

So, what you are saying is that you think players wanting action based combat should have more defense than players wanting tab based combat. Because a player that has 500 armor is worse off than a player that has 500 armor and an active ability that blocks attacks for a period - even if they are then defenseless for a short period. And lets not forget about the player that has several defensive abilities, all while still maintaining that 500 armor.

In this situation, the player with the action combat build will always have the ability to not use their abilities. However, they will be there for when there is that specific need, and thus the action combat build under a system like this will ALWAYS be better off.

In my system it's a player with 500 armor and a block chance(passive) vs 500 armor and a person without a block chance but an active defensive ability.

The active user isn't always better off as the passive user is naturally more tanky because on top of their 500 armor they automatically have a chance to block attacks. An active defense user loses their auto block when they are using active defense. This means that they aren't as naturally tanky and have to give up using other abilities to block incoming attacks.

You do realize that an advantage of passive block is that you use your attacks/abilities without interruption? With active block, you have to pause whatever you are doing to block. With passive block, you don't have to do anything, it's always there.

Only point of it was to make both available at all times and give advantages to each. I'm not going to dive into specifics on how the math would work as that can be balanced so when thinking of what i'm purposing think of it just like your system but you don't pick it with your build. Instead, everyone has passive defense active at all times and an active block ability available, if they use that active block, the lose their passive defense for a period of time.

Main reason for my thought is i don't know how i feel about making players pick a defensive type when making a build. When you are selecting your tab/action skills, you aren't picking a skill and making it tab or action, you are selecting from a list of skills, some of which are tab and others action but in the context of the skill, it will make sense.

With defenses though, you are picking between do you want your character to auto block vs do you want to do it yourself. You are picking a system not an ability. I do think players should be able to pick abilities that complement the different defense types and possibly make builds around them, just don't know how i feel about them picking the defense system itself.

Undead Canuck

noaani wrote: »

Undead Canuck wrote: »

Sarevok wrote: »

I guess we would need to know more on how IS is going to make their hybrid combat work. When I think tab-targeting I just think WoW and ArcheAge. This is roughly a two decade old combat style that I would not want to keep playing regardless of the simplicity in the design. If IS goes this route I would be extremely disappointed.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats

Looks like you are going to be disappointed. You will not be able to be 100% action. The most you will have is 75% action and 25% tab targeting. And that doesn't take into account if Intrepid falls back on just tab (I am sure that even if they did that, they would still work on the hybrid to bring back later).
Tab targeting might be decades old, but why does that make it bad? Computers are decades old as well. Age does not make something bad.

To be perfectly fair, action combat is older than tab target combat.

I remember playing Wolfenstein 3D back in the day, that was action combat in 1992 - and not even the first game that could be considered action combat. It may not be an online game, but it is still an action combat game.

The first game that could be considered tab target that I can think of would be the original EQ (though there may be older). Any game that I can think of that is older than that and has a system where you target specific enemies and then attack them are all turn based games - which is it's own thing again.

Thank you for agreeing with me that just because it is old it is not bad.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Active block shouldn't always block everything when used. They would/could still make some stat that works with active block to limit it like a limit on the amount of damage a player could block with their active block. This amount could correlate to a block percentage. Where in a passive system you have a higher chance of blocking, in an active system, player can block more attacks for longer.

I am working on the assumption that there would be a very large number of defensive abilities spread between the 8 classes.

Some of those would increase chance to block, but some of them would be short duration abilities that completely negate the next attack, a number of attacks for a set period of time, or a number of attacks until a set amount of damage has been blocked.

I mean, if the game only provides us with one block ability, that would suck.

Yes, i remember our conversation on tab vs action. i don't think your point changes the fact that anything you add to an ability/combat to create these other factors for players to focus on in a tab system couldn't be added to a action/free aim system. It's just that in a free aim system you also have to aim in addition to having to think about those other factors. If you think this would be too hard for people then cool (i disagree) but that doesn't mean it can't exist.

I think you miss-interpreted my point about stats in an action system. I wasn't talking about ashes, I was talking about action vs tab games in general. I was commenting on your post about all the stats you have in a tab game and pointing out you can have the same stat diversity in a action game.

I completely agree (and always have) that almost anything that is put in a tab target game can be put in to an action combat game.

However, my point from that previous discussion about how it is possible to put too much in to a tab target game to make it enjoyable or feasible as a form of entertainment still stands. So really, there is no point in trying to argue which system can have more going on, as both can have too much going on if the developers chose to do so.

In Ashes, since we want both systems to be essentially equal, the notion of just taking tab target and adding aiming to it doesn't work. This would create an imbalanced game. However, since there is more that can be added to both a tab and action game than is feasible to have in one game, it stands to perfect reason that there are things to add to tab target to replace the need to aim, while still keeping both systems generally equal.

So, while there may not be a single mechanic or system that can be added to tab that can't be added to action, the fact that players in a tab system are freed up to do more, means the developers at Intrepid can add more while still keeping the game feasible, and in order to keep a sense of balance between the two, they need to do this.

In my system it's a player with 500 armor and a block chance(passive) vs 500 armor and a person without a block chance but an active defensive ability.

The active user isn't always better off as the passive user is naturally more tanky because on top of their 500 armor they automatically have a chance to block attacks. An active defense user loses their auto block when they are using active defense. This means that they aren't as naturally tanky and have to give up using other abilities to block incoming attacks.

I'm not sure I follow.

Either the action player has the ability, and having the ability removes their passive ability to block - which is basically the system I outlined (selecting an ability reduces passive defensive stats - though I would never remove it).

Or, the player has the ability and only loses passive block for a short time after they use it - which is exactly the same as what I said in the above post is imbalanced. With this system, the player could simply not use their active block and be exactly the same a the player without it in keeping their full passive block along with their armor, but then still have that ability up their sleeve for if the situation demands it.

You do realize that an advantage of passive block is that you use your attacks/abilities without interruption? With active block, you have to pause whatever you are doing to block. With passive block, you don't have to do anything, it's always there.

Yes, I do.

One of the advantages of removing reliance on stats for action combat is it means they can then focus their gear selection on more offensive stats, without taking the same hit to their defense.

In a realistic in-game setting, this should provide a form of balance for the fact that action combat players would have to spend some of their in combat time defending, while tab target players would need to spend less time doing so (remember, there is still that 25% minimum, and developers would do well to put in situations where those abilities are actually required).

Only point of it was to make both available at all times and give advantages to each. I'm not going to dive into specifics on how the math would work as that can be balanced so when thinking of what i'm purposing think of it just like your system but you don't pick it with your build. Instead, everyone has passive defense active at all times and an active block ability available, if they use that active block, the lose their passive defense for a period of time.

The math can be balanced, but the playstyles can't be balanced against each other in this situation.

The only way to actually balance something like that out is to have situations where one is better than the other - to the point where there would be times where one or the other would be required.

Mathematically, this would be balanced. However, this would also force tab players in to action defense, the notion of a tab target based tank would go right out the window.

Basically, if you wanted any defensive build, you are going action - because going action means you get all the defensive abilities of tab, plus the defensive abilities of action.

This is why both can not be available to players at all times while in combat,

Main reason for my thought is i don't know how i feel about making players pick a defensive type when making a build. When you are selecting your tab/action skills, you aren't picking a skill and making it tab or action, you are selecting from a list of skills, some of which are tab and others action but in the context of the skill, it will make sense.

With defenses though, you are picking between do you want your character to auto block vs do you want to do it yourself. You are picking a system not an ability. I do think players should be able to pick abilities that complement the different defense types and possibly make builds around them, just don't know how i feel about them picking the defense system itself.

The way I outlined the system, you aren't so much deciding if you want your character to block, or do you want to do it yourself. Using this as an example, the ability to add active blocking could be described in game as altering the grip on your shield (not just the way you hold it, but the actual grip of the shield itself), so that it isn't as rigid naturally, but when a big hit is coming in, you are more easily able to brace for it.

So, you still have an amount of passive block, but because the grip on your shield is altered, that passive blocking is not quite as effective. However, when you hunker in behind your shield for - say - a Skyrim style giant hitting you with his club and launching you in to space, you have a grip on your shield that allows for this to be far more effective.

Taking that ability (or any ability) wouldn't and shouldn't remove any form of passive defense - it would just lower it a bit.

I do like the notion of lowering only the defense stat that would align with the ability, though I am unsure how that would work with dodge and parry, two things I am somewhat sure should remain action combat only.

Child Item