Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
That being said, I agree with the combat effects are far too flashy and look rigid.
Please make the attacks more meaningful and something about the attacks feel really rigid, in New World when I attack it feels much less awkward, I think it's to do with the body movement when attacking.
The actual effect/attack should trigger at the very last frame of its animation unless it's a channeled ability. It's better for readability and gameplay.
You shouldn't be able to cast 2 skills with cast times at the same time. However, instant cast skills tend to be augments like a damage, move speed, or cast time buff. These are fine to be cast during the animations of other skills.
Either way, having varied cast times in set quarter second intervals is actually really nice for changing the way each class flows in combat. For example, a 3-part basic attack chain of .5 -> .5 -> .75 has a completely different 'weight' to it than a .75 -> .75 -> 1s. The majority of what was shown in the demonstrations look like they're all .25s casts which most people won't even be able to register from a visual standpoint, much less react to.
Yes, but there will always be that rift between people who like that sort of game and people who like WoW and similar games.
There's basically no way Ashes can cater to both sides because they're literally diametrically opposed viewpoints on gaming. At this point they might as well 'take everything that someone like you dislikes, and lean into it if it can still result in what others consider good gameplay'.
I believe they could make a good game with this basis, free movement, low reaction, GCD based, rotation type combat. There's no way WoW would have lasted this long if it was not considered good by a critical mass of people.
Anyways if you 'came in late' and were not aware, it used to be like what you describe and then was explicitly changed to be how it is now after much feedback. I doubt they're going back.
Yeah I've been following AoC since it was out on Kickstarter. I just find it strange that the hybrid tab-action combat AoC is using has taken so much inspiration from GW2 yet they implement a global CD system which removes the fluidity that system provides.
Is it not boring when the flow of all of the unique classes offered is just (eg.) 1 action per second simply because the game itself artificially limits how many skills you can cast regardless of the actual animation times of the abilities themselves?
GCDs and animation locks (with the exception of specific skills like movement abilities) are relics of the past when it comes to combat design. The graphics are significantly better on the new engines but the gameplay feels the same as a game that came out in the early 2000s. WoW did a lot of things well that has contributed to its longevity (sunk-cost fallacy aside), but there have been many innovations and improvements to combat systems since then and it would be a shame if they weren't considered or at least partially adopted.
The thing is, are those things universally considered innovations or improvements?
My data collection (on this forum) indicates no. It's around 50-50 with a slight edge toward what they made now. So, basically, they took the feedback, they considered what the slight majority wanted, probably 'what their Devs liked and think will be good', and very intentionally and explicitly made that change.
The fact that you or I or similar people think 'this isn't the future' means nothing to the other half of MMO gamers who hate our 'idea of the future'.
I'm not saying we will get a GCD, but probably the 'philosophical concept behind combat' would be in the same area as a GCD-based game.
I mention innovations and improvements from the standpoint that industries and their respective features and generations of products tend to get better over time as data is compiled and iterated upon. While people may prefer older systems, I would question whether those those systems or inconveniences were a result of limitations of older engines or if they were intentionally designed that way. Then, comparing those older systems to newer ones to figure out the aspects that work and feel good vs. the ones that don't is also a crucial part of the design process. This is especially beneficial in competitive industries like gaming where new releases are competing for the attention and loyalty of the same groups of players.
For example, I enjoy the skill-based and fluid combat in GW2. But, if Ashes doesn't execute the aspects of the game that I care about better than GW2, I would mostly play it for the novelty before returning to my 'roots.' Obviously this example is subjective but look what happens with a new MMO like New World. Everyone tries it at release because they hope it's the next best thing and then they realize what they want already exists or is better found elsewhere. The longevity and relevance of the games released in the past few years have been quite low. Sticking to old ways of doing things for the sake of nostalgia doesn't seem like the right way to go for me.
Maybe so, but as long as there are enough people who like the old ways, as long as there is a market for this type of combat (and there is, just read the feedback thread), it will work.
And honestly, is Ashes competing for the attention and loyalty of the same groups? I'd wager that there are three groups, and the only game really appealing to 'Group 2' right now is WoW. Ashes would be taking the baton from there, not from things like GW2 ('Group 1', I guess), combat wise, no matter how similar they end up looking.
But I guess my analysis of GW2 is probably lacking, so I defer to yours.
I just tried the video at .75 speed and WOW, what a difference. Looks a lot better!
The hammer movements were not good though. Way to 'light' for such a large hammer. Was just flinging that thing around.
Really the only thing that needs to be "reactable" are the situations themselves- the player should have the ability to react and respond to the situation at hand, not necessarily the attacks themselves.
It doesn't matter if the attacks are too frenetic and fast, if the combat system gives you the possibility to have a reaction to that attack then there is a balance in that system and therefore that combat is viable.
Now it all depends on tastes, there are people who like a slower and more strategic combat, there are others who like a more frenetic and reactive combat, I personally think that with the hybrid combat Intrepid could try to reach a middle ground, a balance between fast and slow, between frenetic and strategic.
^
also, the tank charge being so fast means as an opposing player, you don't want to be in his range. you most likely want to be behind your tank. you know, spacing and all that.
sidenote: projecties or hit scans don't have anything to do with the speed of the arrow, or whether it can pass through terrain or not
For visual stimuli, any attack with an animation of .25s or less is generally difficult for the majority of the population to react to.
In terms of skill design, abilities designed to interrupt should be have animation times of .25s or less. On the other hand, any skill that does larger amounts of damage or crowd controls for extended periods of time should have longer animations around .5 to 1s.
Basic attacks on weapons can be faster (ie. .25, .25, .5 for a 3 part basic attack chain on a dagger) because wasting defensive cooldowns to avoid basic attacks (that don't have cooldowns) is generally a waste anyways.
Your point regarding passive play also reinforces the need for skill canceling in AoC. Skill canceling enables offense with the goal of baiting defensives out of the way. For example, I can engage with a high damage ability to force the enemy to react, but cancel my ability to put it on a shorter cooldown. Thus, I was the aggressor but still won the trade as the enemy wasted a defensive ability on nothing.
This is technically, again a thing that 'people had discussions about', then 'people were mostly split on', then 'Intrepid decided to go one of the two ways'.
Obviously I am not 'telling you what to do', but I definitely suggest that you don't put a lot of hope into this game, because it's also true that in this case, Intrepid had the option to go the other way, got a specific set of feedback, and then chose not to do that because a subset of the community was meaningfully against it.
If we assume that by now they have their core combat loop decided (mainly because if we don't assume that we'll be expecting a very far out release) none of what you're mentioning is very likely to happen, even if we get skill canceling, it most likely would be implemented in the other way and not actually force the trades.
I think as a whole it needs to be slowed down otherwise Zergh v Zerg PvP will just be flashing lights and number pops
It's important to note that the team hasn't done proper balancing quite yet, so there is a chance that level 15 gameplay looks and feels differently by the time Beta 1/2 are released.
Yeah I get you, but even defensive skills don't always have to be used reactively in order to be effective- it goes back to my point about having tools for the situation at hand to counter incoming threats. This means if you are trying to close a gap in order to apply your own offensive pressure, that you should have defensive tools to do so, as long as you use them in the correct manner for the situation at hand, which wouldn't necessarily require reactive use to a given attack, but more of a strategic planning and situational response kind of approach during combat. So even non-basic attacks could be unreactable and it would be fine, it really is just dependant on the overall kit each combatant has available, you don't want to overload an encounter with too many unreactable options within a given situation, rather than spreading them out acrossed their kit to be used in different circumstances, which is more manageable for the opponent.
As for the animation canceling, I totally agree and suggested that myself on the past to be used for the same purpose you described, but as long as movement is snappy enough to allow you feint with your movement itself (super smash bros style) then that should be sufficient as a tool to mix up your timing to avoid becoming to predictable/counterable when trying to initiate an interaction.
Yeah I agree. Duration based damage reduction buffs or channeled defensive skills (ie. 3s duration block) are examples of this. Animation canceling would be very nice for both sides on this fight.
The defender could end their defensive early to counterattack and the attacker could cancel their attack to not waste it into a defensive used too early.