Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
The "Go-To" phrase - "It's still in Alpha"
DarkTides
Member
Sometimes, this is the dumbest thing people can say, and we hear it a lot when games are in development.
Any criticisms receive a quick comeback of "It's in Alpha" or "It's in development"..."polish comes later"....
While I don't deny this, certain aspects of the game won't be changing, and that should be obvious. Heck, we commonly heard "this game isn't for you" when people requested action combat.
When combat was criticized as bland, months ago, there was a reason for that. You pretty much know, already, what combat will feel like in the future. The same comparative reasoning is being used that allows someone to distinguish between tab action and hybrid combat.
Telling people that "polish comes later" is trickery. Imagine swinging a sword, and the animation looks clunky, and after some "polish" it will look smooth...swinging a sword, however, is still swinging a sword, and what happens when you swing it will remain the same... nothing about that changes.
In this sense, the style of interactions between PCs and NPCs are already established, otherwise you'd have no clue how to even design the game. We will not be getting BDO combat, or Everquest or WoW combat. No amount of "polish" will change this because "polish" has nothing to do with it.
So when combat is criticized as bland, I personally feel it is because of the choices that were made when determining the interactions between PC and NPC. Not polish.
Any criticisms receive a quick comeback of "It's in Alpha" or "It's in development"..."polish comes later"....
While I don't deny this, certain aspects of the game won't be changing, and that should be obvious. Heck, we commonly heard "this game isn't for you" when people requested action combat.
When combat was criticized as bland, months ago, there was a reason for that. You pretty much know, already, what combat will feel like in the future. The same comparative reasoning is being used that allows someone to distinguish between tab action and hybrid combat.
Telling people that "polish comes later" is trickery. Imagine swinging a sword, and the animation looks clunky, and after some "polish" it will look smooth...swinging a sword, however, is still swinging a sword, and what happens when you swing it will remain the same... nothing about that changes.
In this sense, the style of interactions between PCs and NPCs are already established, otherwise you'd have no clue how to even design the game. We will not be getting BDO combat, or Everquest or WoW combat. No amount of "polish" will change this because "polish" has nothing to do with it.
So when combat is criticized as bland, I personally feel it is because of the choices that were made when determining the interactions between PC and NPC. Not polish.
6
Comments
https://intrepidstudios.com/careers
What part of the combat do you believe is "bland"?
Personally im impressed how the devs listen and change things.
Il add i think the game has come a long way and the fact it has alpha two and betas before coming out, id take everything with a grain of salt of being the end design.
not having a dig at you i just think maybe you should give productive ideas and trust the devs that they listen. instead of complaining on a game that isnt even out yet.
fyi i like where they are going with this game.. keep it up!
There've been quite a few posts which I contributed to regarding combat, in the past. The horse is certainly dead. You all are welcome to check out prior posts, if you so choose...
The purpose here is to highlight that the go-to, get out of jail free card phrases are over used. It is not full spectrum, all encompassing.
Does it apply to everything? No.
Its easy to convince the blind otherwise.
How many games have you seen actual alpha gameplay (not including alpha used as an early access release term or marketing).
1,000!
Anyone able to tell me what combat style of gameplay AOC will have?
Not really. I mean, I played Alpha 1, but when I watch Alpha 2 gameplay it looks so different from what I played in Alpha 1 that it might as well be a different game.
To be more specific, I often gravitate towards playing a tank and that's what I initially played in Alpha 1. And it was a bit boring. It wasn't terrible, don't get me wrong. It was serviceable. But nothing absolutely sucked me in and made me eager to keep playing.
Cleric was more interesting but felt, I dunno, "fiddly" I guess. It felt awkward.
I played a mage (the only other available choice in that phase of testing) and loved it. The weapons, the skills, the visuals, it was legitimately fun. As early and unpolished as the game might have been, it was already something I wanted to play.
Now I look at this latest video showcasing the tank and it is nothing like what I experienced in Alpha 1. Steven even talked about the fact that the tank in Alpha 1 wasn't really "tanky" and was more of a generic melee fighter. It still didn't look as appealing as what I remember from being a mage... Teleporting across a battlefield, setting things on fire, draining health, zapping with magic ranged weapons. But it was a night and day difference from the totally uninspired gameplay I experienced in Alpha 1.
If things can change that dramatically between two phases of Alpha, how different will gameplay be once we get to release? I have no idea. We are still at the "see what works, get rid of or change what doesn't, add what's missing" phase. We're not at the "this is what everything will look like just with more polish" stage. That's why people remind folks that it's still Alpha. When they say that it's subject to change, it really is.
Now, does that mean that some of the really cool things I loved about the mage will not be there at release? Unfortunately it might, and that's how I temper my enthusiasm over what I've seen so far. I mean, in theory I can say that their goal is to make things even better than what we've seen, so whatever you like now, you'll absolutely love it later. But I have to remember that what I think is better is not necessarily what the developers or other players think is better.
I played Star Wars Galaxies from beta through a number of expansions. I was a very active community member and was invited to a very closed beta when they proposed a revamp to the combat system. (Closed as in, only 5 people were hand-picked from the community for each "profession" in the game, so it was a very small pool of people.) We ended up having no involvement in the changes or actual testing after being told for weeks to just wait for our turn, and the changes were so bad that the game was basically ruined. As a result, after being a very devoted player for years I quit for good. I learned my lesson to not assume that developers are always going to make things better. Sometimes they can break things in the attempt to improve them.
I do like what I've seen so far though for this particular game. I have not seen a single change so far that I didn't like. (That doesn't mean I like everything they're doing; I've given lots of criticisms on these boards, but I have yet to see them make anything worse yet.) So I'm very optimistic.
Bottom line is, even if your question was meant to be rhetorical, I can still give you a very non-rhetorical answer. And I can say with absolute confidence that for better or worse, the game is still early enough in development that many things are subject to change, and it's not an empty sentiment to point that out.
Agree with this paragraph ... disagree with everything else.
Steven did say in the January Livestream that the Animation Team was working on iterations of the combat animations and effects. It is still a work in progress. But, Intrepid did want any and all feedback from the Tank demo on those.
Overall, though, @daveywavey is right.
Whenever you hear Steven say buzzwords like "not polished" or "work-in-progress", there's an expectation of feedback that's commensurate with where the game currently is in its lifespan (Alpha).
If a person gripes about a missing feature, it's helpful. If they declare the game will suck at launch, it's helpful. If a person is comparing footage to other games, and saying that other games are better, it's helpful.
If a person is giving their opinion about what they see, and what they'd like to change, it's harmful. The developers want feedback, why would someone try to squelch that feedback in some misguided attempt to defend the game? If someone says they wish the developers had made a different choice, it's harmful. There are times when it's a useful reminder, but there are other times when it's a bludgeon to stifle discussion or an excuse to cover up a problem.
So in that sense, I am in semi-agreement with @DarkTides on the subject.
At this point, however, I find it difficult to believe that the foundation of their combat design, that they now have, will change.
At certain points along the way, finalized decisions are made and can then be expanded upon.
Active blocking. What does anyone think will change with the interactions that occur while active blocking?
If you make videos of their combat, and play them beside one another, you will notice similarities that continue throughout.
As far as what might change, it depends on what you mean by “foundation”. They surely aren’t going to ditch everything, but I don’t think any particular thing at this point is immune to change. And as others have said, we’re missing a lot of key things that are critical to combat. I haven’t even seen how they’re mixing action and tab targeting like they’ve always planned.
I don’t even think the foundation is even done yet.
Your last post here suggests that you do need to be reminded how early they still are in all this. You’re implying that you think they have more combat in place than they actually do.
I honestly believe it would be better if Intrepid just showed mounts and talked about stuff for a few monthly updates while they fix the combat, before showing anything else in terms of gameplay.
At the end of the day Intrepid can deliver the world and the game systems they promised to perfection and even beyond that but if the combat is mediocre or straight forward bad, everything is for nothing because nobody is going to play this.
They really don't have to.
Yes they do, but alot of ppl in this community sits in a echo Chamber. Repeating etch other, anyone from outside can see that things are not going to plan or to the pace we should expect.
But having that opinion here is shamed. I have seen and been a part of alot of MMO alpha s in my time to see it.
They turn it around this year or not at all.
For your own purposes, YOU need Alpha to be sooner rather than later. But that's a you problem, not an us or an Interpid problem. If you don't want to play the game if Alpha-2 is more than a few months away, then that's on you. I'll be playing it whenever it's released.
They turn it around this year or not at all.
Seeking clarification.
Can you define these please?
This is something I think should be looked at early and often, no coding shortcuts should be taken here. Put the effort in now so its easy to constantly make fixes to keep the game running fast and smooth later.
Please dont tell me 5 years after release it cant be fixed because of spagetti alpha code.
But what a majority of people use "it's Alpha" is to write off any concerns and negative feedback. Honestly, these people with concerns are the people who Intrepid should be making content for. Players already sold on the project don't need further convincing, and to just write off people's concerns with "well it's only Alpha" isn't going to change anyone's mind that their concerns have merit.
Only more information will do this.
So be part of the solution and listen to these concerns, find them answers to their questions, and if you think the concern is unfounded, explain why.
this statement is capped, name which games you saw in alpha development.
Good question!
If you feel that combat is, in your opinion, "bland" - feel free to express that on the forums, as long as you do it in a constructive and helpful manner, so that we can understand why you feel the way you feel
Not Enough Salt.
Did you know that ? AoC "It's still in Alpha" with more progress than 2 years ago but "It's still in Alpha".
In order to have a good chance of a better future, the foundations must be well structured.
Using the same analogy:
The plunge off the cliff edge would be Release Day.
Driving up to the cliff top would be the Betas.
Driving along the road that leads to the cliff top would be the Alphas.
Getting into your car to start your journey would be initial creation.
We're currently driving along the road that leads to the cliff top. There's still plenty of road left. It's still just the road that leads to the cliff top, and there's no saying that there aren't other roads that are also in the same direction, that don't lead to certain death.
I see a cave on the left. Let's explore it