Late "basic attack" dev stream feedback

I am late to the party for the "basic attack" stream feedback, but wanted to still give my opinion on it.

As long as the basic attacks and each subsequent attack in the "combo use" system plays a role in:
1. Each option having practical situational uses
2. allows you to use the options in an unpredictable and unreactable manner, to deter an overly "campy" meta where the first to act is at a disadvantage.
3. maximizes the amount of control and player-freedom (such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)
4. is balanced by the different aspects of the combat system (such as range/speed/etc.) that each attack has
5. supports both offensive and defensive playstyles-

then it should make for a great system and is a step in the right direction.

From a viewing perspective it seems as though it is going in the right direction in most of these areas, but it is hard to tell without actually testing it.

I absolutely love the direction to move toward more fast-paced skill based combat.

I think that good basic attacks are meant for:
A) a low committment/low risk option that can be used for protection to keep yourself safe by halting more high risk aggressive options, that a standard defensive option might not be able to deal with
B)a low committment/low risk option that can be used aggressively to poke at more defensive options
C) a tool a players can use to create space between the enemy. By being capable of being a threat using basic attacks against enemy options used at various ranges, this can condition the enemy to not want to constantly be aggressive, which can help classes that want to relieve some of that close up pressure, of which a standard defensive option might not always be capable of since that threat might not be there, freeing the enemy to always feel safe closing the gap.

For these reasons basic attacks can set you up for more advantageous situations when used correctly, in order to lead into your higher reward options
-but if basic attacks are used in a predictable manner with no situational awareness or thought put into it, then it can be countered, but this means they need to have the ability to be used unpredictably through player control, to maintain that low-risk aspect

I also really like the idea of the non-magic based attacks showing a more "physical" animation effects rather than the magical, such as the animation trail being the color of the weapon material.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sapiverenus

Pokemon has no traditional RPG roles. It's simply typed rock paper scissors combat.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus
It does though, its just isn't immediately obvious. Through stat manipulation and movesets- you have tank, dps, and support builds with overlap betwen each other similar to what Ashes dual archetype system creates

Sapiverenus

Tank DPS and Support are the most shallow conceptions of RPG you can possibly conceive of. Everything you've said is to; you hope; get your way and have a 3D fighter MMO.
Where is the fucking RPG. I'm not responding to you anymore.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus
That example was purely in response to your comment "Name a strategic class choice."

Obviously there is other rpg elements you can have outside of just strategic role choice with your archetype. You have the progression and role playing element and all the other features inside Ashes that add to the rpg experience. What else do you need to the point where a "strategic class choice" is a deal breaker compared to a traditional rpg combat role lol.

Sapiverenus

This is what your argument boils down to.

You want weapons to have viability for the same roles of offense, defense, unreactability, unpredictability, maximum control and player-freedom "(such as the "agency" of movement, as well as the ability to cancel animations, make/change decisions on the fly, and doesn't restrict your reaction-based tools)" and to have auto-attacks have the same role.

In this way each weapon has functions that are the same. I know that there would be variations. Given they are viable for each role they will be similar though.
The issue is clear: they can perform in every role. This diminishes the meaning of "role" and "role-playing". Every weapon should have a niche.

The game should start from RPG and compromise on the competitive 3D fighter aspect of it. Deeper combat should exist as elaborations of each weapon's niche; but you're a perfectionist unwilling to compromise.

This is not a political [rhetorical] or logical exercise.
Yes it boils down to preference; but it's an MMORPG at its premise. Not a 3D fighter. If I went onto a Dragonball Z MMO forum and started talking about RPG elements I would be the odd one out, unloading my RPG bootstrap onto others.

Ace1234

Yes I agree with most of that, however-

"In this way each weapon has functions that are the same. I know that there would be variations. Given they are viable for each role they will be similar though.
The issue is clear: they can perform in every role. This diminishes the meaning of "role" and "role-playing". Every weapon should have a niche."

This is an oversimplification. Thats like saying me and you are the same thing because we are both made of atoms. Of course when you boil something down enough it is going to look more similar, there is nothing inherently wrong with the "weapons performing the same roles" when you have to boil it down to such a basic level in order to make that comparison.

I believe that the 3d combat system where you have the basic tools for different combat scenarios makes for the most dynamic gameplay, and this outweighs any type of "gameplay" you would get from starting with arbitrary rules of "weapon roles" in terms of the ability to perform extremely basic combat functions.

At that point gameplay fun outweighs the "roleplay" aspect for me at least, and that is only at that overly basic level, because I have explained that as you zoom out and look at the different combat interactions that can take place, you can still have extremely varied weapon roles within that system through varied combinations of spacings/timings/and risk/reward ratios for the different weapons, to provide more than enough role play within the combat system.

I think that is a completely fair stance to take considering the combat is supposed to represent the most fun and prevelant "gameplay" for those who prioritize that in an mmo. There are plenty of other avenues within the game to get the role play fix, if that weapon variety within my system for whatever reason would still not be enough for you.

And regardles of whether you want to argue that this "blurrs the generes" it doesn't really matter if it results in more fun for all people, as I explained how their are systems in place to provide different players with different avenues to get the exlerience they want, in which case the "fun gameplay" seekers gravitate towards the combat system, so that gameplay should be prioritized over the role-play aspect- (should you require boiling it down to such a level to make that comparison and force people to take sides) for that specific game system.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

Sapiverenus

Your arguments are subjective and dismissive of people wanting RPG combat.
Use the sledgehammer on rock elementals. Use the axe on tree monsters. Use the dagger on people.
If you want to kill rock elementals with a dagger, get an enchant for flat dmg bonus against rock elementals. call it "ley cutter" enchant.
You are completely unwilling to compromise on your 3D fighter dream.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus

1. I am not being "unwilling to compromise" and dismissive though. Its actually kinda the other way around. I am not saying it has to be "only 3d fighter" wheras you are saying it has to "only be rpg". I am willing to have a mixture wheras you are not. There is nothing wrong with combining elements of different genres, and you yourself have advocated for that in your other threads, so using the genre as a barrier for my ideas is not a valid argument coming from you. If its about the ratio or percentage of content from different genres then thats another more acceptable argument, but not the stance you are currently taking. If intrepid took your advice then we wouldn't have ashes, as it pulls from so many different ideas accrossed genre, so that is such a moot point you are making.

2. No matter what the idea is you can look at it and say "but it isn't role play" and I think that is a flawed argument, because you can have content for all types of players. The point is, its okay to have content that is not genre specific, as long as you have enough of the content people expect from the genre they are playing. By starting off with an arbitrary constrain that everything different from the genre is bad because "it could have been role play", is limiting players from having the option to have different types of experiences, as long as there is enough content for each. I have provided sooooo many example examples of rpg elements and role playing you could have in the game, so rpg elements and role play is not lacking- but you know what is unnessecarily lacking within in your framework? The type of gameplay I was suggesting.

3. Just because I think it would be justified to choose to have 3d fighting elements instead of potential role play elements, does not mean that its necessary to do that. You can have both 3d fighting and rpg elements coexist. Just because I think the combat system should follow that set of criteria does not mean that each individual weapon has to meet all of those criteria. The weapons are just cogs within the system. If you so choose you could design it in a way that would allow for as defined of "jobs" as you would like for each weapon, and just provide access to enough weapons at a time, in order for the totality of those jobs to meet the criteria of the overall combat system design. I also stated that archetypes and the trinity could be designed to provide advantageous and disadvantageous matchups to give strategic layer outside of the combat itself, to add even more and tangible role play elements. I said that the strategic role choices, team composition, and other comletitive pokemon-like elements could be weighted against the skill required in the 3d combat system- so that each simultaneously contributes a percentage of impact in determining the resulting winner in battle.

4. Fun may be subjective to a certain extent yes, but my idea of fun is no less important than anyone elses. Choosing to limit players to only certain specific types of fun experiences because "genre" is just arbitrary when you could include enough for everyone. Except that to a certain extent fun can be measured and reproduced to be less subjective, in which case their could be argumenets made for why one idea is more fun than the other, and I have went into certain examples of that already.

Sapiverenus

i am fine with combining elements. the execution you suggested seemed too rigid and uncompromising.

I don't think Ashes combines a lot of anything at this point but we will see.

I am not going to read past #2

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus
If you would have taken the time to read past #2 it would have saved you the time typing that response, because I addressed your concern of rigid execution

Sapiverenus

Why do you act like customer service. Is that your job?

Ace1234

How do I act like that? Maybe.

Sapiverenus

you act like a store front employee defending business practices to irritated customers lol

Ace1234

Lolol

Sapiverenus

@Ace1234
You are also risk-averse to conveying some wrong nuance that will give the wrong impression that will cause issues later or give the impression to a customer that they have room to get their own way even if it's bad for your business so you stick to one thing and repeat it to iron out any room for interpretation even if it's irritating and gives the sense you're unwilling to compromise on anything; but you keep talking and hope the customer asks for something you can agree to or drops it all together. But you're mad and want to be the unreasonable person online.
Like customer service employees.

Ace1234

@Sapiverenus
Can't argue with that

Child Item