How to give Action Fans Active Blocking without Breaking Waterfall Stat Blocking

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

When you say both? you referring to using one or the other? OR having both currently active/available at any given time?

Both at the same time, as I outlined in the post.

A TL:DR version would be that active blocks act similar to attacks in that they are activated by a player, any will block the first melee attack that happens in about a 0.5 second time frame. From there, you can gear up to make your active block either better or worse, but the trade off will always be your passive defense. This lets players pick between better active defense but worse passive, or better passive defense but worse active.

There is more to it, but in terms of the general idea, that is a fairly decent outline of what I'd like to see.

oh I understand what active blocking is.. lol that TL:DR was more of an unnecessary elaboration

Yes they could be interwoven into the same system depending on animations and functions of said both active and passive re-actives. I feel it could too much rely onto RNG with passive procs for better blocking which takes away from skill as it relies more on luck in hopes for those passive procs. I definitely get what you're saying and going off the OP with how the passives could enhance it randomly.

If the design of combat is going the way of luck, RNG and procs for combat, it is definitely going to remove some of the skill set players have in the game where it can rely too heavily on such a factor causing a mess for balancing down the road. I would definitely prefer a system where I trigger my enhancements opposed to luck and RNG. This goes back to what I was tangentially saying about burst and procs in pvp for heals and dps. I dont think it should apply to tanking either. RNG and balance do not necessarily benefit one and another that often but not impossible.

That's my opinion anyways

JamesSunderland

Ottobot wrote: »

Not sure what the issue is with full action combat blocking. Putting damage mitigation in the hands of an rng stat seems lazy and boring. Since when is actually playing the game a problem?

There is no issue with "full action combat blocking" or parrying or evading at all, but I will assume you simple lack knowledge about tab-target combat and doesn't understand how impactful to the balance of a Hybrid combat such as Ashes' which includes both tab and action skills this would be.
Without rng stat checks such as block/parry/evasion to check tab-target skills, it would straight up make it the meta over action skills(unless overly buffed breaking balance) that can be escaped through movement/positioning and requires aiming, this isn't about being "lazy" or "boring".its about core funcionality and balancing.

I believe what fits hybrid combat the most is OP's 2° option having both types of block overlapping, example:
Active shield block = 50% dmg reduction X sec duration X sec cooldown
Passive shield block = 50% dmg reduction X% chance.

Currently, the wiki still have the stats related to those rng defences that were present in alpha 1
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Stats

Solvryn

Ottobot wrote: »

Not sure what the issue is with full action combat blocking. Putting damage mitigation in the hands of an rng stat seems lazy and boring. Since when is actually playing the game a problem?

Yes, but as of now the games direction is hybrid which requires mixing the two.

Which is why they combined split body with root and “weighted feel” and that weighted feel seems to be the anchor to the combat system. Combat is going to have mass it seems to tie in both worlds.

Navv

Jahlon wrote: »

We had a very in-depth discussion today on the Discord about how to give action fans active blocking without breaking passive (waterfall or tab) blocking.

I like this topic. How can the game be balanced and still be keept interesting for both parties.
My opinion and soloution on this is that holding RMB per say to active block in "action mode". would be the same as flagging/toggle the player as entering a defence stance (slower movment speed, break on attack,, can or cannot be directional, etc) in "tab target mode". This should be fast and smooth to swap between the modes just as holding the RMB.

The system you mentioned are good, but I'd like for them to be mixed to create a more homogeneous experience for both parties.

Jahlon wrote: »

1: Active Blocking should give you a flat damage reduction on incoming damage. This damage would be based on the shield type/size/quality. So a small round shield might reduce 100 points of damage on every attack coming in, and a tower shield might reduce 500 points of damage on every attack coming in.

2: Even while active blocking your passive blocking can still trigger for whatever percentage passive blocking gives to damage reduction. So if you have a block rating of 30% then 30% of the time you'd block the attack, regardless of if you are active blocking or not. This would then give whatever damage reduction you give on blocks (100% or less as designed)

And just to add my opinion about it as well.
1: For it to only be something that is available for action based combat is not something I'd like to be a thing. Instead having a "defence stance" and as I mentioned before to toggle these benefits and to be scaled with weapon type / shield type. I think is the way to go.
2: It's just a good system that I think should be the baseline of actually having a shield in the first place. This is what I at least associate with blocking/having a shield in MMO. It is proven and tested to work well in other games, That could be enhanced by the active choice of entering defence stance if wanted.

The issue I can see with the things I've mentioned is is that swapping between the stances might be tedious for "tab target" if it's something you toggle. But I do like it to be an active choice the player makes no matter the playstyle you choose.

Anyway I think this would create the fantasy of being tanky. blocking both a lot of hits and big hits for both types of players and making it an active choice of when to enhance your "blocking" capabilities no matter the class you play. And both types of play would be involved in the same system.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I feel it could too much rely onto RNG with passive procs for better blocking which takes away from skill as it relies more on luck in hopes for those passive procs.

That is kind of the point.

Some people prefer this kind of gameplay (especially for defense), and some don't.

The point of the system outlined was to basically function similar to how we can pick action or tab abilities. Each player can pick basically as much of each as works best for them.

The outline was basically a defensive version of that. If you refer active blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

On the other hand, if you prefer passive blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

I think we can all agree that having both active and passive blocking working at full capacity on a character would be a bit OP. To me, this means that the only way to give players a choice as to how much active or passive they want is to allow them to pick where they want to lie on that line.

It also kind of fits in to Ashes whole thing of player agency.

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I feel it could too much rely onto RNG with passive procs for better blocking which takes away from skill as it relies more on luck in hopes for those passive procs.

That is kind of the point.

Some people prefer this kind of gameplay (especially for defense), and some don't.

The point of the system outlined was to basically function similar to how we can pick action or tab abilities. Each player can pick basically as much of each as works best for them.

The outline was basically a defensive version of that. If you refer active blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

On the other hand, if you prefer passive blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

I think we can all agree that having both active and passive blocking working at full capacity on a character would be a bit OP. To me, this means that the only way to give players a choice as to how much active or passive they want is to allow them to pick where they want to lie on that line.

It also kind of fits in to Ashes whole thing of player agency.

I get that

everyone has preferences. I do agree with what some people have said in having both systems available causing issues. It's not really that difficult to hit a button to activate a blocking feature opposed to relying on RNG luck and stat patting to ensure automated passive block is more functional.

The whole point of a defence rating and armour acts as a damage mitigation as well which can just make the blocking passive a bit inferior and not necessary especially when it comes down to " oh if my RNG luck was better I could have blocked that" (assuming they stacked enough points into acquiring a functional % range for the passive to trigger on its frequency they prefer)

That's the thing with stats RNG % chance to trigger as a functioning means for balancing. In terms of a spectrum it goes like this:

low % chance, low pay off = pointless
low % chance, medium pay off = still pointless, leaning towards luck reliance
low % chance, high pay off = reliance on luck to survive

Med % chance, low pay off = still pointless
Med % chance, medium pay off = more reliance on luck than what it's worth
Med % chance, high pay off = more luck and leaning towards burst dependence

High % chance, low pay off = relatively functional but relatively pointless
High % chance, medium pay off = procedural burst dependence
High % chance, high pay off = heavy burst proc dependence on survivability functionality

Now, with those examples provided it still comes to ability functionality, how often that ability will be used, it's pathing for procedurals to trigger and the damage numbers and it's output range allowances.

Base damage works with RNG range off its weapons and stats as an example, Crits work with RNG range etc. Obviously there's room for more grey zones for nuance and I'm not saying RNG and procedural systems are bad, they just set up the game for a lot of complications down the road that can be avoided. I for one prefer knowing i survived or accomplished something because of skill and not an RNG dependence such as these examples but that is my opinion and I respect others and their preferences as we're all different, relatively.

RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills.
I should be able to build a Py'Rai Ranger with high Dex who has more accuracy than my player twitch skills and my high Dex should hit a Ren'Kai Cleric with low Dex, regardles of that player's twitch skills.
RNG helps determine the outcome.

I should be able to build a Rogue Nikua with high Dex who can Dodge better than my player twitch skills and my high Dex should allow me to Dodge the Lightning Strike of a Vek Mage who has low Dex, regardless of the player twitch skills for accuracy.

There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS.

Solvryn

Dygz wrote: »

RPGs are about character skill; not player twitch skills.
I should be able to build a Py'Rai Ranger with high Dex who has more accuracy than my player twitch skills and my high Dex should hit a Ren'Kai Cleric with low Dex, regardles of that player's twitch skills.
RNG helps determine the outcome.

I should be able to build a Rogue Nikua with high Dex who can Dodge better than my player twitch skills and my high Dex should allow me to Dodge the Lightning Strike of a Vek Mage who has low Dex, regardless of the player twitch skills for accuracy.

There will be less RNG with Action Combat skills, but there will still be some because Ashes is an RPG, not an FPS.

I don’t agree, player still plays a role whether it’s tab or action.

Moving the work to the player and not the paper doll doesn’t remove the fantasy aspect of the game.

One involves an added layer of skills required to become proficient at the game.

Solvryn wrote: »

I don’t agree, player still plays a role whether it’s tab or action.

Moving the work to the player and not the paper doll doesn’t remove the fantasy aspect of the game.

One involves an added layer of skills required to become proficient at the game.

RPGs can be Sci-Fi or Fantasy or some other genre. Fantasy is not what determines whether a game is an RPG.
Focusing on player twitch skills is an FPS - might be a MOBA.
RPGs are about building characters who have mythological prowess that defy the average abilities of real life Humans.
Specific non-Human races have high Dex while others have low Dex. RNG helps resolve the results when those races are in competition.
Some classes have bonuses for high Dex - which adds to those results. RNG also helps with that.
Doesn't really matter whether you agree. Just like it doesn't matter whether you agree that the Earth is not flat.
Facts are facts.

Solvryn

I don’t agree with conjecture.

First Person Shooter is a First Person Shooter. Apex, Call Of Duty, Halo are first person shooters, involves free aiming and mostly firearms.

Just like MOBAs are.. MOBAs. Usually require lanes to play.. like League of Legends and Smite.

A role to play determines what a RPG is. Tank, DPS, Support, Heals are all roles.

Again, a combat system doesn’t null the role you fill it just puts the work on the paper doll or the player.

Doesn't matter whether you agree.
You're definition of an RPG from a game design standpoint is flawed.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I feel it could too much rely onto RNG with passive procs for better blocking which takes away from skill as it relies more on luck in hopes for those passive procs.

That is kind of the point.

Some people prefer this kind of gameplay (especially for defense), and some don't.

The point of the system outlined was to basically function similar to how we can pick action or tab abilities. Each player can pick basically as much of each as works best for them.

The outline was basically a defensive version of that. If you refer active blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

On the other hand, if you prefer passive blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

I think we can all agree that having both active and passive blocking working at full capacity on a character would be a bit OP. To me, this means that the only way to give players a choice as to how much active or passive they want is to allow them to pick where they want to lie on that line.

It also kind of fits in to Ashes whole thing of player agency.

I get that everyone has preferences. I do agree with what some people have said in having both systems available causing issues. It's not really that difficult to hit a button to activate a blocking feature opposed to relying on RNG luck and stat patting to ensure automated passive block is more functional.

The whole point of a defence rating and armour acts as a damage mitigation as well which can just make the blocking passive a bit inferior and not necessary especially when it comes down to " oh if my RNG luck was better I could have blocked that" (assuming they stacked enough points into acquiring a functional % range for the passive to trigger on its frequency they prefer)

That's the thing with stats RNG % chance to trigger as a functioning means for balancing. In terms of a spectrum it goes like this:

low % chance, low pay off = pointless
low % chance, medium pay off = still pointless, leaning towards luck reliance
low % chance, high pay off = reliance on luck to survive

Med % chance, low pay off = still pointless
Med % chance, medium pay off = more reliance on luck than what it's worth
Med % chance, high pay off = more luck and leaning towards burst dependence

High % chance, low pay off = relatively functional but relatively pointless
High % chance, medium pay off = procedural burst dependence
High % chance, high pay off = heavy burst proc dependence on survivability functionality

Now, with those examples provided it still comes to ability functionality, how often that ability will be used, it's pathing for procedurals to trigger and the damage numbers and it's output range allowances.

Base damage works with RNG range off its weapons and stats as an example, Crits work with RNG range etc. Obviously there's room for more grey zones for nuance and I'm not saying RNG and procedural systems are bad, they just set up the game for a lot of complications down the road that can be avoided. I for one prefer knowing i survived or accomplished something because of skill and not an RNG dependence such as these examples but that is my opinion and I respect others and their preferences as we're all different, relatively.

I'm going to start off by saying that I think you are over-exaggerating the impact of RNG here.

In an MMO, the RNG factor makes up perhaps 2% of any given outcome - at a stretch. The rest is a mix of how you gear, spec and play your character. In 20 years of playing MMO's I have literally never once had a death that I blamed on RNG. It just doesn't happen.

That aside, your perspective here is exactly why both systems need to be incorporated. You prefer one, others prefer the other. The only thing is, a player can't use all of both at the same time - there needs to be a scale.

NishUK

Dygz wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you agree.
You're definition of an RPG from a game design standpoint is flawed.

Game design is game design.

The theme and conclusion decides its genre, not gameplay.
IE if a game is designed to be a "sporty/strategy" affair that lasts for x duration (under a day) then it's a sports game/moba, if it lasts for way more than a day it's a host of other things.

You seem to have a problem with putting things in the same basket, "this is an mmofps", if it has classes, an open world and team activities its an mmorpg, regardless of its fps gameplay.

There is no good, bad or wrong gameplay design, most critics or reviewers will be the judge of that.

Well, the designers will decide what the rules, mechanics and features are and will typically make them genre appropriate.
And, sure, critics will critique.
Consumers will determine viability of the design.

An RPG is different in fundamental ways than an FPS. In more ways than just what you simplify to "a role to play".
And a key aspect of RPGs is that character builds determine combat results more than player twitch skills.
Similar to - just because I, as a player, am aware of a trap, does not mean that my character is aware of the trap. Just because I, as a player, have the wisdom to decipher a script does not mean my character has the Wisdom to Decipher a script.

falcorpix

I dont know how can they solve this problem, all I know is whether I tank in this game or not is completely up to how good active blocking feels.
After tanking in Tera I was never able to tank again in any other game, I would love if AoC could be the game to give me that feeling back, but as it is a tab/action hybrid I dont have a lot of confidence, as I think the tab-target portion of combat will prevent the action combat side from shining as bright as it could.

Would love to be proven wrong tho.

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I feel it could too much rely onto RNG with passive procs for better blocking which takes away from skill as it relies more on luck in hopes for those passive procs.

That is kind of the point.

Some people prefer this kind of gameplay (especially for defense), and some don't.

The point of the system outlined was to basically function similar to how we can pick action or tab abilities. Each player can pick basically as much of each as works best for them.

The outline was basically a defensive version of that. If you refer active blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

On the other hand, if you prefer passive blocking, have at it - get the gear that works best for it and go.

I think we can all agree that having both active and passive blocking working at full capacity on a character would be a bit OP. To me, this means that the only way to give players a choice as to how much active or passive they want is to allow them to pick where they want to lie on that line.

It also kind of fits in to Ashes whole thing of player agency.

I get that everyone has preferences. I do agree with what some people have said in having both systems available causing issues. It's not really that difficult to hit a button to activate a blocking feature opposed to relying on RNG luck and stat patting to ensure automated passive block is more functional.

The whole point of a defence rating and armour acts as a damage mitigation as well which can just make the blocking passive a bit inferior and not necessary especially when it comes down to " oh if my RNG luck was better I could have blocked that" (assuming they stacked enough points into acquiring a functional % range for the passive to trigger on its frequency they prefer)

That's the thing with stats RNG % chance to trigger as a functioning means for balancing. In terms of a spectrum it goes like this:

low % chance, low pay off = pointless
low % chance, medium pay off = still pointless, leaning towards luck reliance
low % chance, high pay off = reliance on luck to survive

Med % chance, low pay off = still pointless
Med % chance, medium pay off = more reliance on luck than what it's worth
Med % chance, high pay off = more luck and leaning towards burst dependence

High % chance, low pay off = relatively functional but relatively pointless
High % chance, medium pay off = procedural burst dependence
High % chance, high pay off = heavy burst proc dependence on survivability functionality

Now, with those examples provided it still comes to ability functionality, how often that ability will be used, it's pathing for procedurals to trigger and the damage numbers and it's output range allowances.

Base damage works with RNG range off its weapons and stats as an example, Crits work with RNG range etc. Obviously there's room for more grey zones for nuance and I'm not saying RNG and procedural systems are bad, they just set up the game for a lot of complications down the road that can be avoided. I for one prefer knowing i survived or accomplished something because of skill and not an RNG dependence such as these examples but that is my opinion and I respect others and their preferences as we're all different, relatively.

I'm going to start off by saying that I think you are over-exaggerating the impact of RNG here.

In an MMO, the RNG factor makes up perhaps 2% of any given outcome - at a stretch. The rest is a mix of how you gear, spec and play your character. In 20 years of playing MMO's I have literally never once had a death that I blamed on RNG. It just doesn't happen.

That aside, your perspective here is exactly why both systems need to be incorporated. You prefer one, others prefer the other. The only thing is, a player can't use all of both at the same time - there needs to be a scale.

No, not an exaggeration, perhaps a little vague to prevent a word vomit post but no, not an exaggeration.

And no, it doesn't prove why both systems NEED to be in the game. I know you're team TT even though you say you want both but many know that Jahlons community and circle (or whatever shape you prefer) is in favour of TT.

I dont know where you get the 2% from if the RNG is become a dependant for gameplay mechanics going off the % chances and range allowances.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I dont know where you get the 2% from if the RNG is become a dependant for gameplay mechanics going off the % chances and range allowances.

From analyzing MMO combat for two decades.

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I dont know where you get the 2% from if the RNG is become a dependant for gameplay mechanics going off the % chances and range allowances.

From analyzing MMO combat for two decades.

nice! me too! lots of experience with video games.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

I dont know where you get the 2% from if the RNG is become a dependant for gameplay mechanics going off the % chances and range allowances.

From analyzing MMO combat for two decades.

nice! me too! lots of experience with video games.

If you have analyzed combat as I have, you will know that RNG is not that big of a deal.

You'll know things like %chance to block is often based on the amount of damage a hit will cause - meaning it will almost always block bigger hits, unless that bigger hit has a component to prevent this (where the design intention is that the player come up with a different strategy for dealing with this hit).

There are many things that are weighted like this, and when taken together, reduce the impact of RNG on a game.

These aren't things that are expressly explained to players, they are only really able to be learned via analyzing combat tracker data.

Edit to add; the above is also assuming you have appropriate gear - if your gear is not up to standard for the encounter, that hit will not be blocked, is very big, and you will die - this is the purpose of such abilities.