Dodge Roll vs Quick Step and Dash

Something I've seen in discussions, both in the Ashes community and elsewhere, is the topic of the dodge animation. A lot of people appear to have an opinion on it, and I felt that it might warrant its own topic of discussion as a result. Note, this is NOT a discussion about invulnerability frames. This is JUST about animations.

For my part, I can see arguments for both sides. I've heard arguments that quick steps and dashes feel like they should be shorter range maneuvers, and thus shouldn't have the same kind of maneuverability as a dodge roll, and therefore fit a faster pace of combat. Some people also seem to feel that longer range dashes shouldn't be possible in heavier armor. By contrast, dodge roll detractors appear to feel that it makes characters look incompetent as their character's feet leaving the ground and eyes losing sight of the enemy is a cardinal sin in a fight, making an otherwise competent character look stupid by doing a rookie mistake to reposition in a fight and avoid attacks; however I've seen arguments that the flow of the movement is often flowing and sensible for a heavy impact and weighty feel. The implication these sides usually carry is that dashes and quick steps make a character a character look more competent but more unreal, while a dodge roll makes a character look less competent but more grounded and hefty.

What's your opinion on this debate? And, more importantly, based on what you've seen of the combat Ashes of Creation is going to have, what kind of dodge and combat mobility animation do you think it should have?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Halae

LordBlank wrote: »

Yes, but it will still have to be effective at evading attacks. Otherwise, there will be no point in investing the skill point when you can just spec into defense and roll for the movement.

Yeah. Monster Hunter and similar games show us that a short range, stamina-limited evasion ability, even without iframes, is still valuable for getting your character the hell out of the way of AoEs. For a more MMO based example, a lot of classes in Final Fantasy XIV have short range dashes that don't grant invulns (the one that immediately comes to mind is Dancer) but are still useful to players trying to reposition. As long as there's incoming AoEs, abilities that go "I don't want to be here anymore" will always be valuable, iframes or no.

Skill points adding to range, and then adding in iframes, sounds viable. Make it an investment.

EDIT: Slight clarity. I'm agreeing, not arguing.

LordBlank

Halae wrote: »

LordBlank wrote: »

Yes, but it will still have to be effective at evading attacks. Otherwise, there will be no point in investing the skill point when you can just spec into defense and roll for the movement.

Yeah. Monster Hunter and similar games show us that a short range, stamina-limited evasion ability, even without iframes, is still valuable for getting your character the hell out of the way of AoEs. For a more MMO based example, a lot of classes in Final Fantasy XIV have short range dashes that don't grant invulns (the one that immediately comes to mind is Dancer) but are still useful to players trying to reposition. As long as there's incoming AoEs, abilities that go "I don't want to be here anymore" will always be valuable, iframes or no.

Skill points adding to range, and then adding in iframes, sounds viable. Make it an investment.

EDIT: Slight clarity. I'm agreeing, not arguing.

100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.

Settite

I'd rather there be 1 frames on a dodge as opposed to none. No having I frame on the base dodge works in a game like monster hunter because chances are you not fighting a while group of enemies. It's typically one large enemy that's relatively telegraphed in its action. This means you learn the most optimal times to dodge and the times where dodging won't do you any good. In an mmo that's planning to have a server size of 8-10k you bound to run into groups of other players and if you have no way of realistically dealing with their softlocking single target abilities then your doomed to die everytime. I'd rather every player have a chance at getting away or being the underdog and coming out on top as opposed to always dying in such a scenario.
I suppose one counter argument could be, why not travel as a group yourself? And the answer is its impossible to always be buddied up if you think about it logically. I enjoyed eso dodges since all classes had access and it burned stamina so sure if you wanted to spam it go ahead but it wasn't gonna protect you from aoes or CC. I believe dodges should cost mana in ashes and everyone should be able to do it.

CROW3

LordBlank wrote: »

100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.

I think you mean hard lock in this case. A 'soft lock' just means I'm in your target reticle. A roll mechanic is fundamentally meant to avoid soft lock attacks. A 'hard lock' attack means I'm your target (as in the tab target sense of target) and if I roll away we're talking about homing and 'to hit' statistics.

Just want to make sure we're all using the same language.

Mag7spy

Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

Azherae

Mag7spy wrote: »

Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

So you want soft-lock to also require iFrames to avoid?

Alldbiscuits

For me the ability to dodge roll or sidestep should depend on a certain stat your character has like agility for example. The effectiveness of the avoid would be better with more of the attribute you have and each class/race has a hard cap on the effectiveness of their avoid. I have this opinion because it helps create class/race uniqueness. For example a rogue can sidestep more regular than a tank can. The armour you are wearing and weapon should also play a huge part in your ability to avoid

Mag7spy

Azherae wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

So you want soft-lock to also require iFrames to avoid?

Iframes, blocking, movement (Id expect some skills will miss not everything is going to work like a very fast arrow), using obstacles.

It shouldn't work any differently between hitting a target in those mode and how things normally should be working anyway. If it is projectile base it could be less accurate based on th =e range and easier to dodge roll out of it physically for both action and tab. ie* Curving strength - Distance = curve amount

LordBlank

CROW3 wrote: »

LordBlank wrote: »

100%. Since abilities soft lock on you, it does become an investment one has to make. Which should drastically change up playstyle depending on which way plays spec their skill points.

I think you mean hard lock in this case. A 'soft lock' just means I'm in your target reticle. A roll mechanic is fundamentally meant to avoid soft lock attacks. A 'hard lock' attack means I'm your target (as in the tab target sense of target) and if I roll away we're talking about homing and 'to hit' statistics.

Just want to make sure we're all using the same language.

yes. I mixed it up

LordBlank

Mag7spy wrote: »

Soft lock should work the same as tab target as far as hitting what you hit. Soft lock just means you have to have some effort and to be facing your target and aiming for the shot to go off, rather than not needing to look at all and hit with tab target.

Ok, this is interesting. Because as someone who will be playing on the action side of the combat I don't want to get 360 no scope by someone using tab. In terms of at least requiring a tab user to face their character toward the target. A target within a 180-degree view of you can be targeted but not targets behind you unless you turn your character. I think that would be fair given someone in action can't target and sometimes even see what's going on behind them.

Ludullu

LordBlank wrote: »

Ok, this is interesting. Because as someone who will be playing on the action side of the combat I don't want to get 360 no scope by someone using tab. In terms of at least requiring a tab user to face their character toward the target. A target within a 180-degree view of you can be targeted but not targets behind you unless you turn your character. I think that would be fair given someone in action can't target and sometimes even see what's going on behind them.

What would be your opinion on hard lock tab abilities that would automatically turn the character to face their target? For or against?

LordBlank

NiKr wrote: »

LordBlank wrote: »

Ok, this is interesting. Because as someone who will be playing on the action side of the combat I don't want to get 360 no scope by someone using tab. In terms of at least requiring a tab user to face their character toward the target. A target within a 180-degree view of you can be targeted but not targets behind you unless you turn your character. I think that would be fair given someone in action can't target and sometimes even see what's going on behind them.

What would be your opinion on hard lock tab abilities that would automatically turn the character to face their target? For or against?

That better the abilities curving behind you and hitting the target. I would like for the person to manually have to turn their character around. How I will say is characters could auto-turn, facing their targets I would love it if after they shot a range, that attack went in a straight line instead of tracking. Untimely though, yes I'm fine with characters having to at least auto-turn to face their targets. The few seconds of animation time for that character to turn is good for someone like me who enjoys playing action. I hope that answers your question.

Child Item