Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.
If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.
Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...
I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..
Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.
Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.
I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.
I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.
It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.
The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.
Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.
___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"
There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.
There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.
Flip that on its head. If the person attacking you can't kill you there is no reward. If you can't be killed, then there is no risk. Now no one is having any fun.
This is a strawman. I don't think you meant to do it, it's probably just a misunderstanding, but it represents a position convenient to argue against, rather than what my actual position is.
To put it very simply, where did I say anything about not being able to kill people?
Bow before the Emperor and your lives shall be spared. Refuse to bow and your lives shall be speared.
Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.
If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.
Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...
I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..
Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.
Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.
I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.
I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.
It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.
The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.
Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.
___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"
There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.
There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.
Flip that on its head. If the person attacking you can't kill you there is no reward. If you can't be killed, then there is no risk. Now no one is having any fun.
This is a strawman. I don't think you meant to do it, it's probably just a misunderstanding, but it represents a position convenient to argue against, rather than what my actual position is.
To put it very simply, where did I say anything about not being able to kill people?
Then argue against it. Don't say "I could" and then change the topic
I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.
Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.
Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.
If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.
I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.
Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.
Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.
If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.
So there's not much else I can say here.
I think at the very least the testing will tell us a lot. I'm guessing some classes will have the tools to handle this and some won't. They'll have to do a lot of adjusting regardless.
Pretty insulting post ill just say that right off the bat. You are jumping in here literally to be disingenuous and try to twist up the post.
If you are going to respond to a post make sure you understand the context, which the context is the suggestion its not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds (to me it is hens the clip). You are heavily trying to read into the post than just take it for what it is.
Also u clearly didn't watch the video talking about someone being almost dead. Next time watch the full video for the full context. Or do i need to spoon feed you every element of the video...
I guess I need to do that. You see in the video there is 2 rounds that happen one is mid way from the first round. Clearly you can see that is above 20 seconds in time. But you see in the last round you can clearly do as you said, and actually you know...count the time its right there. And you can see its 12 seconds into the round. That means under 15 seconds..
Please don't say what i enjoy you don't know me, and you didn't understand the context of the clip to begin with. You were racing to say some non-sense showing you were coming at this to be negative to begin with.
Though ill be happy to have an apology if you weren't trying to be an ass.
I'm not sure if this kinda thing usually works for you with other people? So let's break it down.
I understand the context you were replying to wrt "not satisfying in a fighting game to win in 15 seconds". It's because I understand it, that I replied you seemed to prefer 1-player games disguised as pvp.
It's not called trying to heavily read into a post when you make the most immediate surface level observations available based on what a person is saying and showing. Trying to heavily read into a post would be more like me coming up with a personality profile based on these replies, which I haven't bothered to do. And this is neither here nor there but is there a particular merit to "not reading into things"? In general, it figures one would try to understand where the other person is coming from.
The second round that you so kindly "spoon fed" to me is worse than the first one. I counted 5-6 fumbles from your opponent in that one, as opposed to 3-4 in the first one. Please do correct me if I misjudged what is happening there, I'd love to have my opinion changed. I have no doubts you enjoyed beating on that helpless opponent, and I make no claims otherwise. I also know from experience that dealing damage in most fighting games involves hours of grinding execution, it's an actual skill. It just isn't interactive skill for the most part. When your opponent fumbles, you get closer to a 1-player game in function, which is what I said.
Also, I'm only going to say this once. People can make reasonable judgments/inferences about your internet persona based on what that persona says and shows. Particularly since you said it so explicitly on your own.
___________________________________________________________
For everyone else just trying to get something useful out of this, here it is: people do often enjoy beating their opponent down for 12-15 seconds or however long. That's not the problem. The problem is when people approach design questions based on this, because the second you've done that, you're basically running with the assumption the shoe will never be on the other foot, that you will never have to sit there for 12-15 seconds of failing to do anything relevant before just being dead. Game designers cannot afford not to ask "well what if the situation was reversed, would the person still enjoy that? would they feel like they have agency?"
There are of course people who just want to take turns with their opponent on who gets to combo the other one, but I hope we can all agree here, this isn't very interactive.
There is little difference between a target dummy and someone who fumbles every defensive reaction when it comes to the time it takes to kill them. It doesn't particularly make sense for Intrepid to design around that, does it? Most people imagine themselves putting up at least a reasonable level of fight, which would make more sense to tune TTK around.
I have no clue what kind of surface observation you are trying to read into, it is as simple as this. Someone says people don't enjoy something, I say no I play this type of game and that is something I can enjoy.
There is no deeper meaning to understand or extra detail to dissect.
I'm not really here to have a detailed break down of a old clip. Also he isn't helpless he is an amazing player, you are pretty much insulting him. He took a few gambles and lost since i played different is all there was to it. And he Tried to big brain to jump over my skill, but I'm use to that kind of element of top players and play unpredictably in waves.
Anyway I can see the issue is we are both out of sync, it would have been much better rather than do that weird first approach, is just have a conversation and ask some questions and lead it into another direction. If you wanted to have a interaction with me and understand how i might think and feel on certain elements in that might come to light in AoC.
You don't need to respond to above.
~~~~
My stance on this is generally the same, people should be able to react to elements in a fight. If you die more quickly do to lower ttk on classes, defensive options need to be stronger. Of course I'm not really wanting BDO with its cat and mouse and first person to get a cc wins.
Again AoC is a team based games, to me plenty of you are looking at it in mainly a 1v1 situation and saying TTK is too short or going to the extreme that suddenly everyone id dps and all 8 can freely target someone easily.
1. Yes my first points are more about 1v1 situations because I'm trying to point out the skill ceiling available and defensive options + (new skill tree they will be showing) and trying to point out do to the skill ceiling that time can be made to be longer.
2. As AoC is a party game you are going to have a comp of other classes synergizing and working together. Clerics will heal you meaning all classes with lor or high TTK will have more buffer and increased survivability, tanks to peel off allies and most likely give them some protections, ccs from other classes to help peel and slow people down, etc.
As I've said before all this needs to be tested and balanced, if gameplay is people can not react to anything than ttk should be increased.
I feel both you and nikr are really not understanding the potential gameplay of this game with what i keep talking about.
Seems like you're still coping that the game will be exactly how YOU think it'll be, rather than any other way.
Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.
If the people attacking you are higher level, have better gear, are traveling in large numbers, and manage to gank you with sneak attacks, you could say they earned the kill.
So there's not much else I can say here.
There is no coping here, all I'm going to say is wait and sit back. And ill tag you again when we see more and more of the kit.
Having mobility and defensive options * a skilled player doesn't make balancing work like that. If we look at any game with a high skill ceiling you would see that. The tools of what a player does allows them to push the limits. The higher the skill ceiling you can get into the realm of a person can not lose a fight.
If i look at shooters for a moment like Titanfall 1. TTk is on COD level and very short you are dying in like 1-2 seconds. Though with mobility + stim (it gives you a speed boost and starts to auto regen your hp). I can stretch my hp between multiple fights while dodging most bullets mid fight. Allowing me to win pretty much almost every engagement if the person isn't beyond atleast an average level.
Remove the mobility and that skill ceiling and my potential of winning 100% pros down immensely, same for stim to the point one would have to play differently.
I'm really not coping I'm going based on what they have been showing and my view point has grown or changed as we all learn more. I remember talking about modern game design and you were saying AoC was going old school and was just going to be like linage. To me that is coping based on what he had been seeing and what they talk about.
When I'm looking at games yes we all have our assumptions but im basing mine with what is said and shown generally with a bit of my own bias. So when you hear the recently information about a defensive universal skill tree. Instantly I'm realizing that is another element that is going to add a higher skill ceiling to the game, mixed between the class abilities we have seen and that there is going to be heavy customization in the game.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
Which is precisely the average experience and will be the average gameplay with a low ttk. If you watched the L2 oly video I linked you can see that against some enemies it literally took 2-3 hits to kill them, which will be the experience in Ashes as well. Except in that video it was an OEd to all hell OP character vs weaker people, while Steven is talking about the same speed ON AVERAGE.
I know we're all super coolhakahz on this forum, but the average player is in fact an F1 spammer who'll complain and leave if the enemy can super easily out-F1 him. And I know that all yall uberpros will say "well fuck em" and I would definitely agree with that, except that the game needs those fuckers to give Intrepid money.
And all the uberpros need those F1ers, so that they can fed their egos and feel good about themselves. The main counterargument for longer ttk has been "it's boring", which to me sounds more like "I want to dominate weaker people faster, because that makes me feel better than them". Except, as Mag says, this would be the case even if the ttk is longer, simply because a good player will outplay a worse player and will decrease the ttk in a major way.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.
someone who does this in PVP: f1f1f1f1f1f1 usually more common among ranged classes. they don't move, they don't kite, they don't take a step back, they don't heal, they just stay in place pressing f1f1f1f1 and if you take a step back they just chase you pressing f1f1f1f1
you also have the facerollers. same as the f1 spammer, the difference is the faceroller looks for a build online on some website and all they do is press f1f2f3f4f5f6. no moving, no kiting, no nothing else.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
Which is precisely the average experience and will be the average gameplay with a low ttk. If you watched the L2 oly video I linked you can see that against some enemies it literally took 2-3 hits to kill them, which will be the experience in Ashes as well. Except in that video it was an OEd to all hell OP character vs weaker people, while Steven is talking about the same speed ON AVERAGE.
I know we're all super coolhakahz on this forum, but the average player is in fact an F1 spammer who'll complain and leave if the enemy can super easily out-F1 him. And I know that all yall uberpros will say "well fuck em" and I would definitely agree with that, except that the game needs those fuckers to give Intrepid money.
And all the uberpros need those F1ers, so that they can fed their egos and feel good about themselves. The main counterargument for longer ttk has been "it's boring", which to me sounds more like "I want to dominate weaker people faster, because that makes me feel better than them". Except, as Mag says, this would be the case even if the ttk is longer, simply because a good player will outplay a worse player and will decrease the ttk in a major way.
bruh 2-3 skills in l2 is like 2-3 seconds... and as you said, you have a guy oed as hell. if you mean the only video, it was more than 2-3 secs btw...it was only 2-3 secs when using damaging skills. ttk in ashes is 10-15 seconds when using damaging skills. I'm fairly certain that's without doing anything else. that's on an afk character.
as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?
you also have to set up your skills in ashes to a certain extent. remember you have to do normal attacks to proc something then make your skills more powerful. an example that steven gave a while back, a rogue might do extra damage with a backstab if the target is bleeding, so you have to use normal attacks until your bleed procs and lands or wait for another person to land a bleed on your enemy unless you wanna do less damage.
if we say 1 skill per second, 10-15 secs ttk is 10-15 buttons pressed, and that's if the enemy is afk and not getting any heals.
as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?
In that quote above Steven explains, dps kill each other faster, while others kill each other slower, but average is ~10 for "faster" and ~30 for "slower". To me that phrasing implies not a "the target doesn't do shit" test.
edit to add: I'm mainly taking that implication because otherwise healers and tanks dying THREE TIMES as slow would imply that their hp/def values are fucking three times higher than that of dps (if it was a "target doesn't do shit' test) and I sure as hell hope that is not the case, especially considering how both cleric and tank were considered kinda OP in A1 cause one could both heal and do dmg, while the other was a CC machine that still did ok dps.
So them just standing around and STILL dying in 30s instead of 10s would imply that if were they do use their skills - they'd be literally unbeatable.
as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?
In that quote above Steven explains, dps kill each other faster, while others kill each other slower, but average is ~10 for "faster" and ~30 for "slower". To me that phrasing implies not a "the target doesn't do shit" test.
edit to add: I'm mainly taking that implication because otherwise healers and tanks dying THREE TIMES as slow would imply that their hp/def values are fucking three times higher than that of dps (if it was a "target doesn't do shit' test) and I sure as hell hope that is not the case, especially considering how both cleric and tank were considered kinda OP in A1 cause one could both heal and do dmg, while the other was a CC machine that still did ok dps.
So them just standing around and STILL dying in 30s instead of 10s would imply that if were they do use their skills - they'd be literally unbeatable.
yeah exactly. id say afk tank dies in 25-30 seconds. afk healer (in heavy armor) dies in 20-25, probs a bit less in light armor.
but anyways, these chars have to be more durable (specially when using their skills) since they will take more fire than the dps.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Ok, finally, so you agree that the average ttk will be low. Got it. Great
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzS96auqau0
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE. Though not everyone is going to be up their as the best pvper the bigger the skill ceiling the more room there are for other types of players. There are going to be plenty of people not just above average but also good.
I don't agree with heir view point on zergs being fodder or unorganized, there are strong guilds or good people out there. IT will be a mix of both kinds. That being said they are correct with TTK, the more tanky people are the more difficult it will be to out play people. Its about making the right kind of balance with the ttk though.
Hard to say much about how zergs will go though and how effective you are against them, talking about it right now is head cannon. Pretty much it will be both of us half making up points to say we are right and not knowing how the game is going to really play.
Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE.
I have never been in that scene and have always said that I'm a shitty player who simply has enough time and dumb stubbornness to overcome challenges.
And this is exactly why I'm talking about average players who play at the same lvl as me or slightly above/below, and why I couldn't care less about good or great players, because they're the minority in all games.
Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE.
I have never been in that scene and have always said that I'm a shitty player who simply has enough time and dumb stubbornness to overcome challenges.
And this is exactly why I'm talking about average players who play at the same lvl as me or slightly above/below, and why I couldn't care less about good or great players, because they're the minority in all games.
Well that is the difference with us, i prefer deeper combat with a skill curve so there are elements to grind besides just gear and improving player skill.
Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.
Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.
I feel this is kind of a falacy. How would they win against a elite player in a 20 or 30 sec fight? They would get equally creamed, as they would with 10 seconds. There is only onme way to get better, thats playing. If you got less time to play, you wont get as good as people who play alot. So, I dont see how the situation would be different. 10 - 15 seconds is not a small timeframe. In action, thats a long time. Using abilities like blink or something else that keeps you out of the fight, would last even longer.
If the TTK was like 60 seconds, everyone would get away, get help or whatever. People would feel useless, and feel PvP had no meaningful impact. Dmg classes would feel weak as hell, and healing classes would be unkillable.
I feel this is kind of a falacy. How would they win against a elite player in a 20 or 30 sec fight? They would get equally creamed, as they would with 10 seconds. There is only onme way to get better, thats playing. If you got less time to play, you wont get as good as people who play alot. So, I dont see how the situation would be different. 10 - 15 seconds is not a small timeframe. In action, thats a long time. Using abilities like blink or something else that keeps you out of the fight, would last even longer.
10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.
I'd compare this to someone sniping you from somewhere you didn't even look at vs someone headshotting you after doing a quick zig-zag towards you to dodge your own shots. In the first situation - you've learned nothing, because there was no time/ability to even learn from the experience. In the second situation you see what the opponent did and could then try applying the same methods in your own gameplay.
This would of course be false if gear power scaling is off the damn charts and a person barely above you in gear progression can wipe the floor with you - but we both don't know if that is the case and it would also be a completely different kind of discussion if that were the case.
If the TTK was like 60 seconds, everyone would get away, get help or whatever. People would feel useless, and feel PvP had no meaningful impact. Dmg classes would feel weak as hell, and healing classes would be unkillable.
If we're talking about pvp (as in, both players are flagged) - getting away shouldn't be easy, because CCs exist. Yes, everyone will have at least some form of CC break, but I'd hope that is not a 0CD spammable ability.
Dmg classes would only feel weak if you compare them to dmg classes from other games rather than to other classes in Ashes. That's like comparing a boxer to a dude with a gun and saying that the boxer is super weak, because he can't do dmg to another person as quickly.
If we instead compare a boxer to a kickboxer or to other martial artist (i.e. comparing something within the same type/class of said thing) - we'd have a variety of choices that are not too far away from each other, but which still differ in their speed/intensity of applying dmg.
As for healing classes being unkillable - mana. Mana gameplay should be deep and intricate. Every class will use mana, so every class should have some interaction with the enemy's mana. And healer's ttk should account for their mana pool's ability to restore their hp. The same could apply to tank's defensive ability costs, so that the tank doesn't remain impenetrable forever.
Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
Longer ttk serves this exact purpose. Shorter ttk will simply mean that any average player dies to a better player in literal seconds, w/o even a chance to improve. At which point all the average players leave.
Hm yeah not sure it works this way. Longer TTK gives you more time to totally outskill someone. More opportunity to put knowledge etc to good use.
Eg ultra short TTKs (like in an FPS).. the pros can still get headshotted.
Eg ultra short TTKs (like in an FPS).. the pros can still get headshotted.
Except that non-shooter games are way more complex in their gameplay mechanics. You can't quite "spray and pray" in a non-shooter game and think you'll beat a better player that way.
This kinda goes back to the fighting games context we've seen in this thread. Two bad players can each find their "cheese" and beat each other with it, because they don't really know how to deal with either. But a good player will simply use that cheese against them. In a shooter you can just point to a thing and hold lmb, and there'd already be a chance to win.
And so, unless we get super simplistic combat in Ashes (which already seems to not be the case) - we ain't getting a "spray and pray" chances to win here.
Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.
As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.
Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card
Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.
As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.
Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card
Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights
If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)
10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.
Actually, it would resolve in a higher TTK. An high dps like a mage or rogue, trades big dmg for less survivability. A weak dps normally has other abilities, which gives them a higher survivability. So strong dps, vs strong dps will most likely yield the fastest TTK.
10-15 seconds is what Steven named as "average dps vs dps". In a "stronger dps vs weaker dps" it will most likely be way shorter ttk with a huge disparity in skill.
Actually, it would resolve in a higher TTK. An high dps like a mage or rogue, trades big dmg for less survivability. A weak dps normally has other abilities, which gives them a higher survivability. So strong dps, vs strong dps will most likely yield the fastest TTK.
Yeah I guess he means dps v dps but "weaker" in terms of gear & skill. So, still burstable. But I get your point too.
Ooh, I know what would quell most of my worries here. A tank defensive party buff (say, 5min duration) that scales off the amount of sources of dmg taken by an ally, within a period of time (say, 5s).
So if the attacking party is hitting your healer all together - the defensive buff gives its strongest protection, which directly decreases the ttk of the target. But this still leaves the possibility of rogue sneak attacks or ranger crits from afar.
If a plain buff is viewed as too op for this kind of effect - I'd be totally ok with a "formation"-type deal. So smth like "everyone who's behind the tank in a wide and long cone aoe has this effect on them". This would make tanks move in a certain way around their party, limit their movements in pvp (unless the party is secure in some other way) and would also add more pvp interaction for "forced movement" abilities like the tank's Grapple.
I'd compare this to someone sniping you from somewhere you didn't even look at vs someone headshotting you after doing a quick zig-zag towards you to dodge your own shots. In the first situation - you've learned nothing, because there was no time/ability to even learn from the experience. In the second situation you see what the opponent did and could then try applying the same methods in your own gameplay.
Dmg classes would only feel weak if you compare them to dmg classes from other games rather than to other classes in Ashes. That's like comparing a boxer to a dude with a gun and saying that the boxer is super weak, because he can't do dmg to another person as quickly.
As for healing classes being unkillable - mana. Mana gameplay should be deep and intricate. Every class will use mana, so every class should have some interaction with the enemy's mana. And healer's ttk should account for their mana pool's ability to restore their hp. The same could apply to tank's defensive ability costs, so that the tank doesn't remain impenetrable forever.
Now you are comparing to shooter games, I think its a bad analogy. 10 secs as a minimum TTK, you will know where the dmg comes from.
If Iron Mike is considered big dmg, as I would consider him. (to use your boxing). He would feel weak, if he could keep left hooking someone, and they kept standing up and smiling at him. Thats how I tried to explain how dmg would feel like, if their abilities took ages to kill others.
Well. Both sides would have mana, CC and escapes, yea? Not just the defender. So the attacker would run out of mana too, so I dont think its a valid argument.
Points on both sides here. Tbh the one thing I am most against is very short TTKs, but also think it's easy to underestimate how long 15 secs feels in PvP.
As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.
Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card
Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights
If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)
I think there is a reason to focus down players, even with 10-15 sec TTK. In big team fights, healers will be able to react to 10-15 sec, and heal the player. If focused, and it takes 2-3 secs. Kansas is going bye bye.
Comments
This is a strawman. I don't think you meant to do it, it's probably just a misunderstanding, but it represents a position convenient to argue against, rather than what my actual position is.
To put it very simply, where did I say anything about not being able to kill people?
Then argue against it. Don't say "I could" and then change the topic
Steven, at this point, has stated several times that AoC's ttk will be on the faster side. This means that this is Intrepid's plan for the game's balancing and design. And to me this means that all defensive abilities will give you as much protection as one would need to die within the ttk described by Steven in that answer.
As I've stated before, my issue here is that short ttk means easy assist-kills in group pvp. You seem to be fine with that judging by this
So there's not much else I can say here.
I think at the very least the testing will tell us a lot. I'm guessing some classes will have the tools to handle this and some won't. They'll have to do a lot of adjusting regardless.
I have no clue what kind of surface observation you are trying to read into, it is as simple as this. Someone says people don't enjoy something, I say no I play this type of game and that is something I can enjoy.
There is no deeper meaning to understand or extra detail to dissect.
I'm not really here to have a detailed break down of a old clip. Also he isn't helpless he is an amazing player, you are pretty much insulting him. He took a few gambles and lost since i played different is all there was to it. And he Tried to big brain to jump over my skill, but I'm use to that kind of element of top players and play unpredictably in waves.
Anyway I can see the issue is we are both out of sync, it would have been much better rather than do that weird first approach, is just have a conversation and ask some questions and lead it into another direction. If you wanted to have a interaction with me and understand how i might think and feel on certain elements in that might come to light in AoC.
You don't need to respond to above.
~~~~
My stance on this is generally the same, people should be able to react to elements in a fight. If you die more quickly do to lower ttk on classes, defensive options need to be stronger. Of course I'm not really wanting BDO with its cat and mouse and first person to get a cc wins.
Again AoC is a team based games, to me plenty of you are looking at it in mainly a 1v1 situation and saying TTK is too short or going to the extreme that suddenly everyone id dps and all 8 can freely target someone easily.
1. Yes my first points are more about 1v1 situations because I'm trying to point out the skill ceiling available and defensive options + (new skill tree they will be showing) and trying to point out do to the skill ceiling that time can be made to be longer.
2. As AoC is a party game you are going to have a comp of other classes synergizing and working together. Clerics will heal you meaning all classes with lor or high TTK will have more buffer and increased survivability, tanks to peel off allies and most likely give them some protections, ccs from other classes to help peel and slow people down, etc.
As I've said before all this needs to be tested and balanced, if gameplay is people can not react to anything than ttk should be increased.
There is no coping here, all I'm going to say is wait and sit back. And ill tag you again when we see more and more of the kit.
Having mobility and defensive options * a skilled player doesn't make balancing work like that. If we look at any game with a high skill ceiling you would see that. The tools of what a player does allows them to push the limits. The higher the skill ceiling you can get into the realm of a person can not lose a fight.
If i look at shooters for a moment like Titanfall 1. TTk is on COD level and very short you are dying in like 1-2 seconds. Though with mobility + stim (it gives you a speed boost and starts to auto regen your hp). I can stretch my hp between multiple fights while dodging most bullets mid fight. Allowing me to win pretty much almost every engagement if the person isn't beyond atleast an average level.
Remove the mobility and that skill ceiling and my potential of winning 100% pros down immensely, same for stim to the point one would have to play differently.
I'm really not coping I'm going based on what they have been showing and my view point has grown or changed as we all learn more. I remember talking about modern game design and you were saying AoC was going old school and was just going to be like linage. To me that is coping based on what he had been seeing and what they talk about.
When I'm looking at games yes we all have our assumptions but im basing mine with what is said and shown generally with a bit of my own bias. So when you hear the recently information about a defensive universal skill tree. Instantly I'm realizing that is another element that is going to add a higher skill ceiling to the game, mixed between the class abilities we have seen and that there is going to be heavy customization in the game.
Average players are going to fall into the realm of lower ttk, skilled players are going to go beyond what you think is possible.
Why in the everliving hell would I care about some uberpro who can dodge better than Neo did in Matrix? Steven said "average ttk will be lower than in other games", he then doubled down and said it'll be 10s for dps and then says "that's the intent", which means they are balancing the game that way.
You say "I see and listen what they do/say and then base my opinion on that", but you literally go against Steven's words here. And also, the "30s for tanks/heals" seems to even be in the context of "heal vs heal" or "tank vs tank" (though this would probably be the most arguable point here).
Like, we can all dream to be this dude and turn a 0.1 ttk into a damn win
But only a select few will be at that level. And I couldn't give fewer shits about what the do/think about the ttk, because I'm talking about average gameplay situations with average people in average gear. And those people will have *snap*ped real quick by any even slightly stronger attacker, because of how low the average ttk is planned to be in Ashes.
Steven believes that this low ttk will somehow beat zergs, but, as YOU YOURSELF LITERALLY SAID IN THE PAST - nowadays zerg is not a dumb huge ball of lowskill players and is instead a collection of hardcore way-above-average career-gamers who will wipe the game with good coordination.
And your all-so-hated zerg will reign supreme, in part, due to the lower ttk, because higher-skilled smaller groups simply wouldn't be able to withstand an aoe barage from 20 people at once and would just drop dead.
bruh most of the people complaining about 10-15 secs ttk are f1 spammers. their argument is "whoever attacks first or unloads their combo first wins" wtf?
What's an F1 spammer? I don't know what that means.
I know we're all super coolhakahz on this forum, but the average player is in fact an F1 spammer who'll complain and leave if the enemy can super easily out-F1 him. And I know that all yall uberpros will say "well fuck em" and I would definitely agree with that, except that the game needs those fuckers to give Intrepid money.
And all the uberpros need those F1ers, so that they can fed their egos and feel good about themselves. The main counterargument for longer ttk has been "it's boring", which to me sounds more like "I want to dominate weaker people faster, because that makes me feel better than them". Except, as Mag says, this would be the case even if the ttk is longer, simply because a good player will outplay a worse player and will decrease the ttk in a major way.
someone who does this in PVP: f1f1f1f1f1f1 usually more common among ranged classes. they don't move, they don't kite, they don't take a step back, they don't heal, they just stay in place pressing f1f1f1f1 and if you take a step back they just chase you pressing f1f1f1f1
you also have the facerollers. same as the f1 spammer, the difference is the faceroller looks for a build online on some website and all they do is press f1f2f3f4f5f6. no moving, no kiting, no nothing else.
bruh 2-3 skills in l2 is like 2-3 seconds... and as you said, you have a guy oed as hell. if you mean the only video, it was more than 2-3 secs btw...it was only 2-3 secs when using damaging skills. ttk in ashes is 10-15 seconds when using damaging skills. I'm fairly certain that's without doing anything else. that's on an afk character.
as I asked the other dude, do you think intrepid measured the ttk on someone running away, kiting, hiding behind a rock, using los to cancel skills, etc?
you also have to set up your skills in ashes to a certain extent. remember you have to do normal attacks to proc something then make your skills more powerful. an example that steven gave a while back, a rogue might do extra damage with a backstab if the target is bleeding, so you have to use normal attacks until your bleed procs and lands or wait for another person to land a bleed on your enemy unless you wanna do less damage.
if we say 1 skill per second, 10-15 secs ttk is 10-15 buttons pressed, and that's if the enemy is afk and not getting any heals.
yeah exactly. id say afk tank dies in 25-30 seconds. afk healer (in heavy armor) dies in 20-25, probs a bit less in light armor.
but anyways, these chars have to be more durable (specially when using their skills) since they will take more fire than the dps.
Again i feel you have really not played a mmo in the competitive scene in AWHILE. Though not everyone is going to be up their as the best pvper the bigger the skill ceiling the more room there are for other types of players. There are going to be plenty of people not just above average but also good.
I don't agree with heir view point on zergs being fodder or unorganized, there are strong guilds or good people out there. IT will be a mix of both kinds. That being said they are correct with TTK, the more tanky people are the more difficult it will be to out play people. Its about making the right kind of balance with the ttk though.
Hard to say much about how zergs will go though and how effective you are against them, talking about it right now is head cannon. Pretty much it will be both of us half making up points to say we are right and not knowing how the game is going to really play.
And this is exactly why I'm talking about average players who play at the same lvl as me or slightly above/below, and why I couldn't care less about good or great players, because they're the minority in all games.
Well that is the difference with us, i prefer deeper combat with a skill curve so there are elements to grind besides just gear and improving player skill.
Just because most people are average by the way doesn't me they don't want that kind of skill level in the game, and feel their own sense of control and grinding to get better. And enjoy knowing the gameplay offers that to push back against certain tab elements and not be helpless in certain situation waiting for a CD.
I feel this is kind of a falacy. How would they win against a elite player in a 20 or 30 sec fight? They would get equally creamed, as they would with 10 seconds. There is only onme way to get better, thats playing. If you got less time to play, you wont get as good as people who play alot. So, I dont see how the situation would be different. 10 - 15 seconds is not a small timeframe. In action, thats a long time. Using abilities like blink or something else that keeps you out of the fight, would last even longer.
If the TTK was like 60 seconds, everyone would get away, get help or whatever. People would feel useless, and feel PvP had no meaningful impact. Dmg classes would feel weak as hell, and healing classes would be unkillable.
I'd compare this to someone sniping you from somewhere you didn't even look at vs someone headshotting you after doing a quick zig-zag towards you to dodge your own shots. In the first situation - you've learned nothing, because there was no time/ability to even learn from the experience. In the second situation you see what the opponent did and could then try applying the same methods in your own gameplay.
This would of course be false if gear power scaling is off the damn charts and a person barely above you in gear progression can wipe the floor with you - but we both don't know if that is the case and it would also be a completely different kind of discussion if that were the case.
If we're talking about pvp (as in, both players are flagged) - getting away shouldn't be easy, because CCs exist. Yes, everyone will have at least some form of CC break, but I'd hope that is not a 0CD spammable ability.
Dmg classes would only feel weak if you compare them to dmg classes from other games rather than to other classes in Ashes. That's like comparing a boxer to a dude with a gun and saying that the boxer is super weak, because he can't do dmg to another person as quickly.
If we instead compare a boxer to a kickboxer or to other martial artist (i.e. comparing something within the same type/class of said thing) - we'd have a variety of choices that are not too far away from each other, but which still differ in their speed/intensity of applying dmg.
As for healing classes being unkillable - mana. Mana gameplay should be deep and intricate. Every class will use mana, so every class should have some interaction with the enemy's mana. And healer's ttk should account for their mana pool's ability to restore their hp. The same could apply to tank's defensive ability costs, so that the tank doesn't remain impenetrable forever.
Hm yeah not sure it works this way. Longer TTK gives you more time to totally outskill someone. More opportunity to put knowledge etc to good use.
Eg ultra short TTKs (like in an FPS).. the pros can still get headshotted.
Except that non-shooter games are way more complex in their gameplay mechanics. You can't quite "spray and pray" in a non-shooter game and think you'll beat a better player that way.
This kinda goes back to the fighting games context we've seen in this thread. Two bad players can each find their "cheese" and beat each other with it, because they don't really know how to deal with either. But a good player will simply use that cheese against them. In a shooter you can just point to a thing and hold lmb, and there'd already be a chance to win.
And so, unless we get super simplistic combat in Ashes (which already seems to not be the case) - we ain't getting a "spray and pray" chances to win here.
As a DPS PvPer I want to be able to separate my aggressors and pick one off given the opportunity, before turning on his mate.
Hard balance to get right. I think I'll fall back and play the "wait and see" card
Yes balance is always the right way, But ashes will be balanced around group fights. And even if the average 1v1 ttk is 60 sec, you still can get oneshoted in group fight if you get focused. This leads to only 1 logical conclusion - Bigger 1v1 ttk in order to get more interesting group fights
If the ttk is low - there wont be any reason for focusing particular player, because you can solo kill him fast enough. There wont be classes trying to synergize their skills in order to maximize dmg. There wont be tactical retreat, because if you try to get distance from enemy half your team will die.
Also healers will be useless, since they cant react to heal target that dies for less than 1 second. (maybe shields build will be the meta.)
Actually, it would resolve in a higher TTK. An high dps like a mage or rogue, trades big dmg for less survivability. A weak dps normally has other abilities, which gives them a higher survivability. So strong dps, vs strong dps will most likely yield the fastest TTK.
Yeah I guess he means dps v dps but "weaker" in terms of gear & skill. So, still burstable. But I get your point too.
So if the attacking party is hitting your healer all together - the defensive buff gives its strongest protection, which directly decreases the ttk of the target. But this still leaves the possibility of rogue sneak attacks or ranger crits from afar.
If a plain buff is viewed as too op for this kind of effect - I'd be totally ok with a "formation"-type deal. So smth like "everyone who's behind the tank in a wide and long cone aoe has this effect on them". This would make tanks move in a certain way around their party, limit their movements in pvp (unless the party is secure in some other way) and would also add more pvp interaction for "forced movement" abilities like the tank's Grapple.
In other words, a different kind of Aegis effect.
Now you are comparing to shooter games, I think its a bad analogy. 10 secs as a minimum TTK, you will know where the dmg comes from.
If Iron Mike is considered big dmg, as I would consider him. (to use your boxing). He would feel weak, if he could keep left hooking someone, and they kept standing up and smiling at him. Thats how I tried to explain how dmg would feel like, if their abilities took ages to kill others.
Well. Both sides would have mana, CC and escapes, yea? Not just the defender. So the attacker would run out of mana too, so I dont think its a valid argument.
I think there is a reason to focus down players, even with 10-15 sec TTK. In big team fights, healers will be able to react to 10-15 sec, and heal the player. If focused, and it takes 2-3 secs. Kansas is going bye bye.