Combat and Class feedback

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It's hard to have this conversation at a level where everyone can participate and understand.

Tab is the absence of aiming and requires different calculations.

The shapes Clerics use, do not require aiming. They require positing, orientation, or placement - but not aiming.

I'm interested in the behavior of an object (a variable with art attached to it) moving across 3d space, especially how it'll behave from a tab system and an aimed system.

Ok, so it is just about direct aiming rather than the "actioness" of abilities. Got it.

I feel like this is just another example of semantic discussions and the lack of concrete definitions for the bigger mmo community. To me, "action" always meant "doesn't require a target to cast". But from all the discussions I've seen, for A LOT of people it's usually "I want to shoot a "gun" in an mmo".

There is in fact a very specific reason for that that is completely valid to an MMO. People who are more into shooters (at the level of discussing them non-casually) would be able to explain this better with correct terms but basically...

Line-of-Sight 'ducking'.

Cover shooters as a game type involve a lot of situations where both characters are in cover, and both looking for a moment to shoot the other. Particularly seen in 3rd person games where the camera can be above the character's head (like most MMOs).

When the opponent is entirely 'in cover' they are untargetable outright. When they poke out to check, they expect to be able to get back into cover before you can either react to their appearance or fire your shot, or some combination of these that leads to the bullet speed being relevant.

If they fire preemptively, you are aware of it. Depending on their weapon, you now know their rhythm. If they don't, two things are usually the possibilities.

I don't know if you play enough shooters that I don't need to explain these in detail so here's basics just in case. Either they are exposed and aiming in order to get a perfect high reaction shot on you that only 'a fakeout' would dodge, or they are aiming to do the same thing you are, aim at the spot they expect you to be and fire.

In that small case where the only option for even landing your shot is the tiniest sliver of a sightline and maybe 10f of time where you could even be hit in some games, projectile travel speed matters. Any game where the calculation of if it should hit was done at the moment of firing, would result in the person who successfully did a fakeout still getting hit, basically ruining the game.

There are definitely similar scenarios in MMOs, the aforementioned Predecessor is not that far from them combat-wise, and 'tab targeted' abilities have a massive effect on Tanking for Carries (basically the people who are playing the game as a shooter, in Predecessor specifically).

Even if you can shoot straight through friendlies (not always possible) you still can't SEE (your reticle lock is usually blocked) so it's possible for a highly coordinated movement between Tank and Carry to result in a situation where the opponent attempts to hit the Carry who pokes out from behind the Tank and as a result misses BOTH of them, similar to the wall thing.

If you care about this type of gameplay (skill level irrelevant) then you'll care a lot about Action vs Tab Targeting. If you don't care about this type of gameplay/twitch skill, then it will be hard to see any issue. That's probably the best way to determine if a game is 'True Action Combat' or not for most people (i.e. you might manage to not annoy both sides, except you-know-who).

"Can I use the Tank as an actual wall to do this technique and the result be that neither I nor the Tank gets hit?"

The type of 'Action Combat' that certain other people find acceptable, you can still do it, but you'll hit the Tank instead due to the 'reticle bloom'. Any situation where 'pressing the button for the attack in the 4-16 frame window where the 'Carry' stuck their head out but your projectile should not reach them in time, but you hit them anyway' is 'Lock Target' or 'Tab Target'. Because 'soft lock' doesn't actually manage this, you theoretically 'should' lose your lock on the 'Carry' the moment they get behind the 'Tank' again, and end up retargeted on the Tank, and therefore so should your ability.

Because of some specifics of how MOST of BDO abilities work, this is the case there and therefore it is actually a Soft Lock Action Combat game with large reticle bloom.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

It's that if the reticle does not NEED to be aimed there's balance issues for some.

This is why I'm gonna try tera. BDO was an aoe fest and outside of guns in NW, iirc, it was the same. And we've seen that Ashes will have cone aoes too, so that's "action". I guess placing a thing on the ground requires less precision than a gun/bow shot, so even though it's an "action" move it's not really enough for the action players, but then does it mean that only ranged precision shots can be considered "action"? And the game's requirement for you to aim precisely then determines how "action" the game is?

Cause iirc BDO's bows have soft tab, right? So would that mean that BDO is barely even an action game? My mind just doesn't seem to work in a way where it sees the difference between an action ability in a tab game and a whole game full of action abilities that seemingly function in the same way, yet people complain that those abilities are not "action" or that they don't contribute towards the game being a hybrid.

Would a high-skill reticle-based ranged-weapon-only heal be considered a proper "action" ability then? Cause ironically enough even NW had fucking tab targeting for their healing (unless they added a ranged reticle heal after the release).

It's hard to have this conversation at a level where everyone can participate and understand.

Tab is the absence of aiming and requires different calculations.

The shapes Clerics use, do not require aiming. They require positing, orientation, or placement - but not aiming.

I'm interested in the behavior of an object (a variable with art attached to it) moving across 3d space, especially how it'll behave from a tab system and an aimed system.

well, the ground targetted aoe and the cone that requires positioning and orientation are elements of action combat. i know what you mean though, you could just look at the ground and still hit your target, but you can do a lot of this in pure action combat games...purely aiming is more of a shooter thing...

Asymmetrical games, tab, and action require positioning, orientation, and placement and the first two required them way before action ever game to be.

they are still elements of non targetted combat, arent they?

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

In that small case where the only option for even landing your shot is the tiniest sliver of a sightline and maybe 10f of time where you could even be hit in some games, projectile travel speed matters. Any game where the calculation of if it should hit was done at the moment of firing, would result in the person who successfully did a fakeout still getting hit, basically ruining the game.

I think L2 did the "projectile speed" with their animation-based combat. You could still hide behind stuff to avoid hits, because the ability's effect check would happen at the end of the attack animation, rather than at the start. This is probably one of the reasons why my mind can't quite comprehend the difference.

Azherae wrote: »

Even if you can shoot straight through friendlies (not always possible) you still can't SEE (your reticle lock is usually blocked) so it's possible for a highly coordinated movement between Tank and Carry to result in a situation where the opponent attempts to hit the Carry who pokes out from behind the Tank and as a result misses BOTH of them, similar to the wall thing.

If you care about this type of gameplay (skill level irrelevant) then you'll care a lot about Action vs Tab Targeting. If you don't care about this type of gameplay/twitch skill, then it will be hard to see any issue. That's probably the best way to determine if a game is 'True Action Combat' or not for most people (i.e. you might manage to not annoy both sides, except you-know-who).

As a Tank, I definitely want this. Hell, I want even tab abilities to have this, so that even if the enemy is still targeting my mate behind me, if I'm between the two - any projectile flying towards my mate hits me instead.

And I'm sure that it's waaaay more difficult than what I'm imagining, but I feel like this could be achieved through the "same" animation-based combat as L2 had. Add to that a check of "did you have a hard or a soft tab at the start of the animation" and you have yourself a situation that you described.

Player 1 has a projectile attack.
P2 is a tank. P3 is behind him
P1's attack is "hybrid", so you can use it in both modes
1. in tab it just tracks projectile's actions, but the "aim" is always on P3 (by keeping P1 directly facing P3)
2. in reticle mode it "railguns" the shot, even if soft target was acquired (projectile's action is still tracked)
P1 is trying to hit P3
1. in tab mode P1 always hits P2, unless P3 pops out during the animation of the attack
2. in reticle mode P1 always misses, unless the same^ thing happens

Iirc in the archer showcase the "bloom" was quite big, so even when Steven went past the soft locked target with his reticle, he could still hit it. I'd prefer if the "bloom" was controlled more by the size of the projectile than just by system-determined difficulty. Arrows and basic magic wand attacks would be "railgunned", while fireballs and iceshards (and the like) would obviously have a fairly big hit diameter.

Would smth like that work in general? And does it seem like smth that could work in Ashes?

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

In that small case where the only option for even landing your shot is the tiniest sliver of a sightline and maybe 10f of time where you could even be hit in some games, projectile travel speed matters. Any game where the calculation of if it should hit was done at the moment of firing, would result in the person who successfully did a fakeout still getting hit, basically ruining the game.

I think L2 did the "projectile speed" with their animation-based combat. You could still hide behind stuff to avoid hits, because the ability's effect check would happen at the end of the attack animation, rather than at the start. This is probably one of the reasons why my mind can't quite comprehend the difference.

Azherae wrote: »

Even if you can shoot straight through friendlies (not always possible) you still can't SEE (your reticle lock is usually blocked) so it's possible for a highly coordinated movement between Tank and Carry to result in a situation where the opponent attempts to hit the Carry who pokes out from behind the Tank and as a result misses BOTH of them, similar to the wall thing.

If you care about this type of gameplay (skill level irrelevant) then you'll care a lot about Action vs Tab Targeting. If you don't care about this type of gameplay/twitch skill, then it will be hard to see any issue. That's probably the best way to determine if a game is 'True Action Combat' or not for most people (i.e. you might manage to not annoy both sides, except you-know-who).

As a Tank, I definitely want this. Hell, I want even tab abilities to have this, so that even if the enemy is still targeting my mate behind me, if I'm between the two - any projectile flying towards my mate hits me instead.

And I'm sure that it's waaaay more difficult than what I'm imagining, but I feel like this could be achieved through the "same" animation-based combat as L2 had. Add to that a check of "did you have a hard or a soft tab at the start of the animation" and you have yourself a situation that you described.
Player 1 has a projectile attack.

P2 is a tank. P3 is behind him

P1's attack is "hybrid", so you can use it in both modes
in tab it just tracks projectile's actions, but the "aim" is always on P3 (by keeping P1 directly facing P3)

in reticle mode it "railguns" the shot, even if soft target was acquired (projectile's action is still tracked)

P1 is trying to hit P3
in tab mode P1 always hits P2, unless P3 pops out during the animation of the attack

in reticle mode P1 always misses, unless the same^ thing happens

Iirc in the archer showcase the "bloom" was quite big, so even when Steven went past the soft locked target with his reticle, he could still hit it. I'd prefer if the "bloom" was controlled more by the size of the projectile than just by system-determined difficulty. Arrows and basic magic wand attacks would be "railgunned", while fireballs and iceshards (and the like) would obviously have a fairly big hit diameter.

Would smth like that work in general? And does it seem like smth that could work in Ashes?

Again, I don't actually know exactly what Solvryn is talking about so it might be better to ask in that direction. I have no reason to believe that L2 didn't do this back then. To me personally this is 90s tech, and the Tab Target was an intentional choice to equalize ping and lower the skill ceiling.

I also don't know what the difference is perceived to be, between 'traveling based on initial target with curvature restraint' (which is also old but might not have been easy to optimize before certain breakthroughs, and results in hitting the Tank as you consider) and 'whatever it is Solvryn means'.

I haven't ever implemented anything where there was a meaningful difference, in a specifically 3D game with any form of progressive projectile. Basically 'my expectation is that L2 was coded the way I know how to code it and I don't know what difference in coding Solvryn refers to that isn't what you're talking about'.

So probably yes, you are already used to this from Lineage 2 and that's the reason you don't grasp it either.

Ludullu

Yeah, I've been grinding a ton of gta5 online (solo, not pvp) and I feel like I did more pixel hunting and target leading there, than I do in gta. Obviously not in 1v1 fights, but definitely during mass battles.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It's hard to have this conversation at a level where everyone can participate and understand.

Tab is the absence of aiming and requires different calculations.

The shapes Clerics use, do not require aiming. They require positing, orientation, or placement - but not aiming.

I'm interested in the behavior of an object (a variable with art attached to it) moving across 3d space, especially how it'll behave from a tab system and an aimed system.

Ok, so it is just about direct aiming rather than the "actioness" of abilities. Got it.

I feel like this is just another example of semantic discussions and the lack of concrete definitions for the bigger mmo community. To me, "action" always meant "doesn't require a target to cast". But from all the discussions I've seen, for A LOT of people it's usually "I want to shoot a "gun" in an mmo".

Well I'm trying to use the jargon in a way that still invites people into the conversation but really it's unhelpful because it still doesn't convey the science and math behind the system.

I am definitely not interested in the semantic circus that takes part on these forums. Which is why I'm trying to explain how things behave the best I can on this thread.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1c1crLkr56E&t=1786s

I’ve always been a big fan of the Armored Core series and I feel like they have done that hybrid style of combat.

You soft lock on enemies based on where your reticle is. You can miss if your opponent is strafing and you don’t manually adjust the reticle to lead them. Stuff like missiles would seek out targets but explode after a period of time. You could fire weapons without a lock.

I may be misremembering but I don’t think anything was hitscan it was all projectile based.

There is also a hard lock that focuses your camera on the target in the one coming out soon.

You could still cycle through enemies in a tab kind of way.

Very different games but I feel like it’s relevant in an action vs tab discussion.

This is some gameplay discussing the lock on in the game a bit. There’s a lot of nuance he doesn’t talk about in this section of the video like being able to soft lock missiles and such on multiple targets, but it was the most to the point section in the video.

HumblePuffin wrote: »

I’ve always been a big fan of the Armored Core series and I feel like they have done that hybrid style of combat.

You soft lock on enemies based on where your reticle is. You can miss if your opponent is strafing and you don’t manually adjust the reticle to lead them. Stuff like missiles would seek out targets but explode after a period of time. You could fire weapons without a lock.

I may be misremembering but I don’t think anything was hitscan it was all projectile based.

There is also a hard lock that focuses your camera on the target in the one coming out soon.

You could still cycle through enemies in a tab kind of way.

Very different games but I feel like it’s relevant in an action vs tab discussion.

This is some gameplay discussing the lock on in the game a bit. There’s a lot of nuance he doesn’t talk about in this section of the video like being able to soft lock missiles and such on multiple targets, but it was the most to the point section in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1c1crLkr56E&t=1786s

Armored Core games are entirely projectile based, yes, but the specifics of how exactly to 'make sure your shots hit despite your FCS lock not being enough' differs from game to game. In most of them the answer is just 'you're too far away and your opponent is too fast so you're out of luck', though.

EDIT: Just realized this might have seemed like 'talking to you' when it's moreso just 'adding data for any unfamiliar'.

Azherae wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

I’ve always been a big fan of the Armored Core series and I feel like they have done that hybrid style of combat.

You soft lock on enemies based on where your reticle is. You can miss if your opponent is strafing and you don’t manually adjust the reticle to lead them. Stuff like missiles would seek out targets but explode after a period of time. You could fire weapons without a lock.

I may be misremembering but I don’t think anything was hitscan it was all projectile based.

There is also a hard lock that focuses your camera on the target in the one coming out soon.

You could still cycle through enemies in a tab kind of way.

Very different games but I feel like it’s relevant in an action vs tab discussion.

This is some gameplay discussing the lock on in the game a bit. There’s a lot of nuance he doesn’t talk about in this section of the video like being able to soft lock missiles and such on multiple targets, but it was the most to the point section in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1c1crLkr56E&t=1786s

Armored Core games are entirely projectile based, yes, but the specifics of how exactly to 'make sure your shots hit despite your FCS lock not being enough' differs from game to game. In most of them the answer is just 'you're too far away and your opponent is too fast so you're out of luck', though.

EDIT: Just realized this might have seemed like 'talking to you' when it's moreso just 'adding data for any unfamiliar'.

You’re good. The AC games go deep deep deep into all the different ways things affect your core in the end so I didn’t want to get too lost in the sauce.

I definitely don’t think it would be good to go 1:1 with how AC does it. Some hitscan makes a lot more sense in an MMO environment than it does in AC world. Especially when looking at healing abilities.

The more I think about it though the more I love the idea of the multi target stuff they do. Imagine if while you were charging your chain heal you were able to soft lock who you wanted it to spread to, or even the mages arcane missiles being able to be spread out across multiple enemies. Would be neat.

Yeah, but combat for an FPS is practically the polar opposite of combat for an RPG.
In an RPG, the character's abilities are supposed to take precedence over player skills - especially player "twitch/dex" skills.
FPS, the focus is player v player.
RPG, the focus is character v character.

Which is why Steven has said that while he's hoping for hybrid - if he had to choose Tab or Action, he would choose Tab.
Hopefully, Steven will be able to implement a hybrid that feels good.

Solvryn

Dygz wrote: »

Yeah, but combat for an FPS is practically the polar opposite of combat for an RPG.
In an RPG, the character's abilities are supposed to take precedence over player skills - especially player "twitch/dex" skills.
FPS, the focus is player v player.
RPG, the focus is character v character.

Which is why Steven has said that while he's hoping for hybrid - if he had to choose Tab or Action, he would choose Tab.
Hopefully, Steven will be able to implement a hybrid that feels good.

Well I'm not really talking about first person shooters but since you brought them up there are first person shooters with roles, Apex is an easy one to point out, Overwatch isn't an MMORPG either and it still has roles.

Ashes wouldn't stop being an mmorpg just because of the combat system, nothing stops people from taking up a role or the trinity if they had to simply aim.

I too am hoping for a hybrid system, which is why I made the thread. I rather not have output RNG in a highly competitive environment, thats fine for Dungeon Crawlers, it isn't fine for the genre in the modern age.

You aren't talking about shooters but Humblepuffin and Azherae were talking about Armored Core.
Combat system can push what is advertised as an RPG too close to a shooter or some kind of hybrid genre that is not really an RPG.

I was wondering if that was in response to what we were talking about. Armored Core is definitely not an FPS, but either way it wasn’t necessarily about the game itself rather that a very workable hybrid tab/action kind of combat already exists there.

The very fast nature of the game and other mechanics may make the game as a whole a bit more “twitchy” but I’m speaking about the targeting mechanics in the game not the game as a whole. I would watch the video to understand better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Core
"Armored Core is a third-person shooter mecha video game..."

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/everything-we-know-about-the-armored-core-6-1736918/
"The Armored Core series is a third-person shooter that involves monolithic mechs blasting and bashing each other into oblivion."

Same difference...

Just because combat is fun in one game genre does not mean it fits well with every other game genre.

A key aspect of RPGs is not just combat roles, but having enough reaction time to synergize your character's abilities with the individual abilities of the other characters in your group/party.
Combat has to be slow enough to allow for that.
But also, in an RPG, character knowledge and character skills are intended to be more important than player knowledge and player (twitch/dex) skills.

Dygz wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armored_Core
"Armored Core is a third-person shooter mecha video game..."

https://www.dexerto.com/gaming/everything-we-know-about-the-armored-core-6-1736918/
"The Armored Core series is a third-person shooter that involves monolithic mechs blasting and bashing each other into oblivion."

Same difference...

Just because combat is fun in one game genre does not mean it fits well with every other game genre.

A key aspect of RPGs is not just combat roles, but having enough reaction time to synergize your character's abilities with the individual abilities of the other characters in your group/party.
Combat has to be slow enough to allow for that.
But also, in an RPG, character knowledge and character skills are intended to be more important than player knowledge and player (twitch/dex) skills.

I'm not sure if you've played it, but those explanations are an oversimplification of Armored Core games.

They would absolutely work in the same way, it's just that Game Journalists gotta game journal.

Semantics again, but in case it ever matters to you, don't take that whole 'Third Person shooter' thing seriously for Armored Core... like... at ALL.

So... Armored Core is an RPG?
Just no professionals want to call it an RPG?

Actually let me clarify that better and extremely precisely.

IF for some reason Intrepid were to very seriously look toward Armored Core as inspiration for things in any way, and if the combat design somehow moved even closer to that of Armored Core than it currently is, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that Dygz would appreciate it and find it refreshing because it's exactly the reverse situation of what normally brings us to this point.

Armored Core is very much 'A so called shooter game that often plays considerably more like an RPG', to the point where I'm sure there would be people out there who consider it too heavy on the RPG style.

My brother's AC is a 'Mage'. Mine is a 'Rogue'. It's really really clear, they're absolutely nothing alike either in playstyle or in appearance/builds. Neither of them actually needs the single 'gun' they carry, and neither of them requires one to aim anything more than say, Consecrating Wave does.

I lay out all this because once again, I would hate us to derail based on a lack of information leading into a loop.

I'm looking at gameplay for Armored Core 6.
It's way too much action - too fast - to be a good fit for an RPG.

What I saw in the Alpha Two Cleric Archetype Update hits my sweet-spot for speed.

I mean kinda sorta not really but what Armored Core is is not the point. The tab/action hybrid style combat is the point.

Can you watch at the time stamp please so you can have a better understanding of how the targeting system works? I see now you have done this

Ignore the big mecha/guns theme. Just focus on the targeting. Armored Core is definitely an entirely different game than a fantasy rpg.

I will be extremely surprised if Elden ring 2 doesn’t end up with a very similar targeting system after it gets fine tuned in AC6.