Ground Targeted AOEs are not skillshots.

You don't shoot Divine Flare, you place it on the ground.

Skills shots, require that you shoot them.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc

tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).

actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.

Mag7spy

@_@

JamesSunderland

Tab Target combat and Action combat are cool and all but damn looks like Semantics Combat is peak!

Depraved

Mag7spy wrote: »

@_@

dont copy me thats my face T_T

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Tab Target combat and Action combat are cool and all but damn looks like Semantics Combat is peak!

thats what we do here ;3 but it isnt semantics rn hahaha

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc

tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).

actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.

I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.

Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc

tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).

actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.

I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.

Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.

ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc

tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).

actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.

I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.

Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.

ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development

If you were a game designer, you wouldn't have to shift the goal posts and you would have been able to articulate your points in explicit detail from the start. Nor would have you engaged in fallacious behavior.

Your inability to articulate your points doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Nor is the part where you have actively demonstrated that you do not understand basic statistics, psychology, strategy, tactics, or game theory. You have to reasonably explain and defend your extraordinary claims, not me.

So after all of that, what is it that you could possibly have that I could consider a moment to learn from? That you cannot even the follow your own arguments? You've proven yourself incapable of argumentative logic?

You have yet to present a teachable moment. You're able to regurgitate information, from a quick engine search. Don't worry though, I can say I will put more time than I already have in the last few years into game development and the combat systems for the specific purpose of presenting viable data and feedback.

Something you seem to be unable to do at the moment.

Veeshan

Solvryn wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Try Archer! You’ll experience the bloom on the reticle and the arrow physics. Also, combos are very important.

I'm sure that its archer is great and all, but I don't really care about that class. Me playing it wouldn't really give me any knew revelations about this discussion, because I've played archers in other action games already.

At this point I'm sure we won't get anywhere. You just want shooter mechanics in Ashes and I just want some action abilities that can be blocked. Our interests cross paths, but you're just much more of stickler for semantics of said mechanics and for very particular features that I have no interest in.

We'll see what Intrepid decide to do with their rangers. Initial plan was always to fall back on full tab, if hybrid doesn't work out, so I wouldn't be surprised that they change course down the line if they hear a ton of negative feedback about the action part of the game.

Well, I at least hope they will, because otherwise we'd be looking at yet another 5 years of "subjects to change" and "we're still deciding what to do".

I don’t think any tab version of this game will be superior to what they started in Apoc. Apoc is one of the things that gave me confidence that they’d make great combat.

I don’t see that same level of combat in the tab system.

You’re being a bit hyperbolic with shooter mechanics, as the games I’ve posted above and shooters aren’t the same.

Im a stickler for concise wording because that’s the best way to temper reasonable expectations.

i think it fine aslong as key skills are skill shots of some kinda, like heavy hitting skills or hard CC for example.

Going to heavy into skill shot territory thing will cause the game to die due to skill cap being to high for majority of players (what i beleive was a cause of darkfall failing) if you just make key/impactful skills being skill shots then i think your in a good position to have skill matter but not be determining factor to a degree, anything thing pulls player to somone or stun/knockdown or super heavy hitting skills should be a skill shot or require some time to set up.

honostly think for range combat crowfall had probaly the best feeling/skill level for overall that game had many issues elsewhere however but combat wasnt realy one appart from AoE having target caps which made zerg combat crap but the small scale combat in that game was amazing..
The combat was all action combat however the hit boxes were generous, you can still out play somone but it wasnt at darkfall levels where 1 person could just kill 30 noobies without breaking a sweat.

Veeshan

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

what the hell.

you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely.

you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well.

I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions.

Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games.

You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat.

Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data.

Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell.

A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell.

Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data.

It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you.

You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts.

Damn dude, just damn.

which champion is more complex, which one is more deep and which one is harder to master, lee sin or syndra. lee sin has 1 skill shot, syndra has 3. go.

again, you are mistaking mechanical skills with complexity and depth. civilization requires 0 mechanical skills and is more complex than any action mmorpg you have ever played.

I don’t play League.

Complexity is abstract thought and depth is meaningful decisions in game decision.

There’s no mistake.

its a shame cause league is pretty much hybrid combat when it comes down to it, some skills are skill shot/action combaty and other are click and shoot aka tab target.

Moba's probaly have the most hybrid combat currently out there on the market

Depraved

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.

these are objective things im talking about.

Which require you to have the facts.

Depraved wrote: »

Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.

It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game

no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.

Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.

Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.

You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.

So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.

This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.

com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:

Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.

Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?

Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.

And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.

i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc

tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).

actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.

I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.

Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.

ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development

If you were a game designer, you wouldn't have to shift the goal posts and you would have been able to articulate your points in explicit detail from the start. Nor would have you engaged in fallacious behavior.

Your inability to articulate your points doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Nor is the part where you have actively demonstrated that you do not understand basic statistics, psychology, strategy, tactics, or game theory. You have to reasonably explain and defend your extraordinary claims, not me.

So after all of that, what is it that you could possibly have that I could consider a moment to learn from? That you cannot even the follow your own arguments? You've proven yourself incapable of argumentative logic?

You have yet to present a teachable moment. You're able to regurgitate information, from a quick engine search. Don't worry though, I can say I will put more time than I already have in the last few years into game development and the combat systems for the specific purpose of presenting viable data and feedback.

Something you seem to be unable to do at the moment.

you say that but...you are the one who is unable to answer my questions. i dont want to give you the answers myself. its better when people find the answer themselves with a little guidance, but the only question you answered was the depth question 2 pages later after a google search lmao.

im not shifting the goalposts. i could probably not be articulating myself the best way....i mean this is a video game forum, its an informal space to me and im usually typing in a hurry, so ill give you that one. also, you are probably a native english speaker, im not. maybe thats why you are perceiving what you are perceiving. sure. but it still doesnt change the fact that complexity and depth have nothing to do with action games or aiming. if you cant see that, thats on you.

you keep mentioning 3d space and blah blah and how you took the time to learn how games are made and how other people dont, etc. where did you learn that and what did you do with that knowledge? did you make a game? have you at least implemented a projectile, since you keep mentioning those? because i have...i build websites and games, thats literally my job. i have said that before.

you still didnt answer my questions though. how come you can have 2 different characters, one is easy to learn and master, and another one isnt, yet they are both in the same game. how can you have the same combat system (its the same game, duh) with different classes/characters having different levels of complexity and depth? explain that to me. why or how can you have different characters/classes (maybe weapons if its an fps) with different levels of difficulty within the same game?

also, why are some action games more complex and deep than others? i mean they are all action games, so they should all have the same level of complexity, depth and difficulty, according to you. right? but why they dont?

im gonna pull an azherae here and tell you this, if you reply to me, anything you say that isnt answering the questions above will be ignored. so if you want to end the discussion, then go that route. if you want to keep debating these topics with me, then answer my questions before we can proceed. its kind of annoying that i keep asking you things and you arent able to answer them then say that im the one who doesnt know what im talking about. so go do your google search if you want. no one will know

your move.

Dygz

Solvryn wrote: »

Role Playing Game =\= Roll Playing Game
Role Playing Game = Role Playing Game

Right.... and by that logic... hamburgers are made from ham and hot dogs are made with dog meat.

Sunboy

Percimes

8 pages? Who would have thought.

Solvryn

Percimes wrote: »

8 pages? Who would have thought.

1.7k for views for a statement.

It isn’t abra kadabra that gets you views, the magic phrase is lexicon lexemes.

Patchify

As most things, there is a bit of a gray area when it comes to skill shots, even more so when you compare the differences to melee and ranged attacks, so I think it would be easiest if it's thought of as a spectrum.
Hardcore FPS Like
When it comes to MMORPG's, New World I would say is pretty hard core when it comes to it's skill shots. With projectile weapons functioning the same as they would in a FPS like Apex, (although musket is a hitscan) where as long as you aren't prohibited by Terrain you can hit someone with projectiles. It also shares other FPS traits like differences in damage from body shots and headshots (excluding "explosive" aoe projectile type weapons and melee, as they have backstabs instead). But we can agree that all the projectiles (originating from the avatar) in New World are all skills shots. Now we could look at the melee system in New World, starting with a swing from a melee weapon. This is obviously no longer a projectile but still requires skill. The conditions to hit someone are: to be in range and direction of the swing or ability (depending on the shape of the AOE's, some may just need to be in range). But it can be agreed that far less precision is needed to hit someone with a melee attack, but this is acceptable as it does not have the advantage of ranged, which is blockable by terrain or objects (in most cases, excluding AOE abilities). Even though there is a large difference in precision to meet the requirements for a successful hit for both ranged and melee, they can still be considered skill shots. obviously more nuance starts coming into play with some abilities like Path Of Destiny of what's "melee" as it acts like a grounded projectile, if you don't know, here is a time stamped link to the ability.

https://youtu.be/sPb4p4HG628?si=r1dCWlBTpCSmQsPz&t=66[url="http://"][/url] Also adding there are no placeables in New World.

Black Desert Online
BDO is the action combat MMORPG. But even though it's most well known for it's action combat, the precision required to hit someone with ranged or melee is incredibly lenient (most likely due to how quickly classes can move). Using any projectile in BDO is like you're shooting logs and has almost a magnetization, lock-on ability as long as they're in range and somewhere relatively close to your crosshairs. Melee swings and abilities extend much further than what you can see from your weapon, which is usually outlined by the classes colour that trails behind to indicate as such. But regardless, we can agree that BDO attacks and abilities are all skill shots, it works the same as New World but does not carry the FPS trait of different damage to body shots and headshots, but still has increase in damage from back attacks (regardless if ranged). I should also add there are no abilities that are placeables in BDO, but a Wizards Blizzard ability acts similarly, although the placement of the ability is decided on your camera angle and not where you click your cursor.

Guild Wars 2
Now this is where things get tricky as the requirements to hit someone become far more lenient. We will start with ranged, then melee along with aoe abilities. Ranged is now no longer about aiming anywhere remotely close to your target (i'm not going to bother with the action combat camera for GW2 when it comes to ranged because it's a straight up disadvantage) but as long as you are in range, have line of sight (LOS) and facing within 45 degrees of your target that you are tabbed onto, you will shoot your target. These projectiles can be body blocked like the above games, but as mentioned, the conditions required are far far easier. We are also tab targeting or locking onto the target (within 45 degrees), this cant be considered a skill shot, at least in BDO you had to face and aim somewhere relatively close to the target for a projectile to magnetize or "lock on". Melee works similarly to the above games but is also far more lenient, with swings being far larger than their appeared hitbox. dagger/pistol thief as an example, even though the blade is swung in the right hand in an arc, this same arc is applied to the left side of the avatar, hitting the target. In BDO or New World, the collision of the melee weapon follows it visually, so swinging from the right would not hit a target on the left. I will also add that whenever the player does not put in any directional inputs with movement in GW2, the character will automatically face the target to attack it. I think it can be agreed that this tab targeting system is not a skill shot. However, GW2 does have abilities that can be considered as such, with projectiles originating from the avatar and shooting forward, hitting targets in a line (Dragon hunter longbow 3 for example) or AOE attacks like warriors dual axe 5, which work how abilities would in NW or BDO. But then the whole argument of this thread, placeable abilities.

Placeables
When talking placeables with all types, regardless of how the AoE is made (projectile, delayed like Divine Flare, etc) to place a placeable you must use the ability, choose the location of the placeable with your mouse and "place" it down on a 2D plain. These method of using AoE's doesn't exist in the action combat NW and BDO. (There is two examples that I can think of right now that work similarly to placeables in NW & BDO but have a few distinct differences to make them action combat & a "skill shot" but the argument is more so if a placeable is a skill shot.) There is a few things that we can look at that determine where it would sit as a skill shot along the spectrum (how difficult is it to land, from free aim to tab-target lockon). How large the AoE is, the delay of the AoE, and how the AoE is projected or placed.

We'll start with how large the AoE is, obviously this is a hard metric in its size, but the correct feeling of challenge due to its size is subjective and requires context with its intentions (BDO has larger skillshots and abilities, but this is to accommodate for the speed at which the game is played). But it can all be agreed that the larger a placeable AoE is, the less meaning is put into the precision and accuracy required, this lowers it on the spectrum with skill, towards tab-target.

The delay of the placeable is also a soft metric and achieves a similar result to the size of a placeable AoE. The shorter the delay the easier it is to hit (think how hitscan and bullet travel in an FPS change difficulty). But I like to think of delayed placeables as a different type of projectile, (even though it's not but hear out). Projectile and delay both take time. It takes time for a projectile to travel and it takes time for a placeable to activate. Yes a projectile is well, a projectile that travels through a 3D plain, so it can be intercepted during it's time travelling, making it more difficult to land, therefore more skill. But, like adding and reducing bullet speed in an FPS, delay to a placeable also adds more skill, as targets can move out of it, especially if it's visible to other players. So we can gather that the more time it takes for a placeable to "activate" the more foresight needed to land it (and more difficulty), which can be thought of being similar to leading a target in an FPS with bullet drop and bullet travel, but a lot less factors and mechanical skill needed to execute.

Lastly how the placeable works, once placed (as it has finished it's delay, if it has any). Does the aoe expand outwards from the centre similar to Zyra's R from league of legends (Or Airstrike in the Ranger showcase)? And if it does, how long does it take to reach its AoE limit? How long does it stay on the ground and how is the damage calculated and the damage/heal amount?

TL:DR I've just realized I have written a book so far, so i'm gonna cut it short here. Placeables ARE a skill shot, but how easy it is to land said skill shot, is firstly, subjective, and secondly, changes depending on the many different mechanics that placeable has (size, delay, amount damaged/healed, how long it lasts, etc). These combined factors determine how easy or difficult it is to land a placeable, and the conditions for it to be considered a success, partial success or failure. But I think the argument that Solvryn is trying to make is that not action combat enough (added mechanics to make it more difficult such as it being in a 3D space, projectile travel or travel along ground etc) and that's an entirely different debate. Obviously my personal opinion and everyone elses doesn't matter, as Intrepid have decided on a GW2 combat system which is a "hybrid" combat system. Like Solvryn, I dislike placeable AoE's and AoE's in general being thought of and marketed as action combat, because it isn't. I could try to dissect what differences makes action combat. action combat, but I think i've typed enough for now. If you somehow managed to read through this, props to you, and I'd like to read your thoughts.

-Pat

ELRYNO

Hybrid combat games aren't for everyone, and that's okay....

Noaani

Depraved wrote: »

what the hell.

you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely.

you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well.

Actually, it's you guys that are being me in this thread.

Trying to point out to someone that is set in their understanding of a term that they are only considering one aspect of what that term means, and refusing all other aspects it encompasses.

I could feel your frustration as I was reading.

Fact is, while Solvryn was indeed talking about an aspect of aiming, it is not the only type of aiming that exists. Your analogy of a camera was on point.

With projectile blocking being a thing in Ashes, some abilities being placed rather than having a projectile is a design decision that is a part of class balance. An ability that can't be blocked is inherently better than the same ability that can be blocked - that is the reason some abilities would be placed and some would have projectiles.

However, both are aimed, and both are what Intrepid has in the past considered to be action abilities (it was Steven stating this that has been my reason for pointing out to some people that action combat in Ashes may not be quite what they think it is).

Solvryn

Steven addressed it, leaving it alone.

Patchify wrote: »

snip

It’s just about a lexicon and being precise so it doesn’t lead to false expectations.

People aren’t on the same page.

Child Item