Proactive+reactive Offense/defense/movement options baked in at various ranges

Comments

• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  Not sure why the gifs arent working, for some reason certain ones are requiring you to click and hold, then open in another tab- hopefully I can get that fixed asap

  0
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  Thats the best I can do for the gif examples.
  
  @Vaknar kind of a dead thread so far probably due to the wall of text and technical issues I had, but would be a shame for it to get buried without at least getting some eyes on it first lol. Anyway, I spent some time puting this together- so I hope that it could be useful inspiration in some way, thanks!

  0
• maouw Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two

  January 2023

  I love high mobility too, but please remember they thrive best when you have:

  • complex terrain (walls, hills, cover, etc.) - gives mobility contextual meaning: moving behind a wall vs moving out of a choke point
  • positional threat (traps, AoE zones, projectile trajectories) - obstacles that turn certain areas of the field into bad places to be: think twice about where you want to dash to, AND when.

  
  high mobility fights in an open field are less interesting if the aim is to just confuse an opponent's targetting system - we need skills that provide foundational reasons to move to some places and not others.

  I wish I were deep and tragic

  0
• Solvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two

  January 2023

  Interesting ways to interface with the terrain and space around us.

  0
• Songcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two

  January 2023

  How many toons do you expect to see these on? There are enough to wipe out the current skills on a Mage for example.

  

  0
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  @maouw
  

  I love high mobility too, but please remember they thrive best when you have:
  complex terrain (walls, hills, cover, etc.) - gives mobility contextual meaning: moving behind a wall vs moving out of a choke point
  positional threat (traps, AoE zones, projectile trajectories) - obstacles that turn certain areas of the field into bad places to be: think twice about where you want to dash to, AND when.
  
  
  high mobility fights in an open field are less interesting if the aim is to just confuse an opponent's targetting system - we need skills that provide foundational reasons to move to some places and not others.

  
  Yep I agree, there should be stategic positions, i've made some threads and commented on others in the past about utilizing of terrain and cover to keep it a relevant part of combat positioning, and also about recommending systems that would encourage players to engage in combat with each other, even if mobility is very strong, in situations where both players are on an even field positioning wise- in order to discourage aimless/overly passive mobility strategies.
  
  So, too your point, it should be important to think about where and when you want to reposition, but this could happen within both a dense area of cover and an open field. I think its important to have a mixture of both kinds of areas, because they make each other relevant.- Based on this, in order to accomplish your goal, I think its more important to ensure that movement has meaning at all times regardless of the type of area both players are in, and when they are on equal footing positioning wise.
  
  
  Unless I misunderstand your following statement- I do think its a good thing to be able to "confuse targeting systems", as that is part of good defensive play, and risk/reward- just as long as the offensive tools are balanced to give a skilled player the chance to make contact with a mobile enemy.
  

  0
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023

  @Neurath
  
  Yeah I agree, these are merely examples following the premise, so the specific ones relevant to the mage could be exclusive to the mage, but that doesn't mean there couldn't be the same types of situational tools available for other classes that fit their style, and are unique to them. And maybe each class can spec deeper into the skills that are more relevant to their particular class- so that each class can be versatile in their situational tools- so that the overall combat variety and depth can remain across the board- but they can still stand out from each other through specializations.

  1
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023

  @Solvryn
  

  Interesting ways to interface with the terrain and space around us.

  
  Thanks I thought so too! Any ideas you could think of to add to this, or adjustments you would make?
  
  

  0
• Solvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two

  January 2023

  Ace1234 wrote: »

  @Solvryn
  

  Interesting ways to interface with the terrain and space around us.

  
  Thanks I thought so too! Any ideas you could think of to add to this, or adjustments you would make?
  

  
  The only suggestion I have is to structure your thoughts a little more. It took a couple of read throughs to understand what you were talking about.
  
  Otherwise interesting topic.

  1
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023

  @Solvryn
  
  Good to know- thanks for the feedback

  0
• Gui10 Member

  January 2023

  Ace1234 wrote: »

  How this fits into current design:
  
  This would be more of a combat design approach rather than a class design/visual aesthetic kind of thing

  
  I went through your whole post btw. Interesting ideas. The way I see it, you are basically suggesting skill dieas, and I like most of them!
  
  I do have to add that these ideas have to be class dependant though, and that in fact, many of them are already being considered to be a part of class kits .
  
  Many if not all classes will have more than one movement skills in their arsenal, but it also makes sense that each class has their own ways to move around, their own pros and cons. Usualy, heavy casters are less mobile, for example. You would have to trade damage or something for survivability. Melee classes are very short range, so it also makes sense for them to have their own "get-in-there" skills.
  
  Then you have agility classes like ranger and rogue, also makes sense for them to jump around to hit angles and evade incoming attacks. and they have also spoken of "skill upgrades" through skill leveling, which may add movement upon lv 2 or 3 of that skill, for example. Also, augments will have something to do with this.
  
  If the dodge is actually implemented into the game, I would love to see it affected by the class, with every class having 1 or 2 different and unique dodge augments to choose from.
  
  
  

  0
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  @Gui10
  

  I went through your whole post btw. Interesting ideas. The way I see it, you are basically suggesting skill dieas, and I like most of them!
  
  I do have to add that these ideas have to be class dependant though, and that in fact, many of them are already being considered to be a part of class kits .
  
  Many if not all classes will have more than one movement skills in their arsenal, but it also makes sense that each class has their own ways to move around, their own pros and cons. Usualy, heavy casters are less mobile, for example. You would have to trade damage or something for survivability. Melee classes are very short range, so it also makes sense for them to have their own "get-in-there" skills.
  
  Then you have agility classes like ranger and rogue, also makes sense for them to jump around to hit angles and evade incoming attacks. and they have also spoken of "skill upgrades" through skill leveling, which may add movement upon lv 2 or 3 of that skill, for example. Also, augments will have something to do with this.
  
  If the dodge is actually implemented into the game, I would love to see it affected by the class, with every class having 1 or 2 different and unique dodge augments to choose from.

  
  
  Thanks for reading! Yeah I totally can understand that perspective- my thought process is to kind of prioritize engaging combat first and foremost, and then worry about class distinctions after that. This is just in order to make sure it is as fun and engaging as possible, rather than adhering to the traditional tropes too much and allowing it to restrict how fun your combat design could potentially be.
  
  Thats not to say that the classes shouldn't be as distinct as possible- its just that rather than me starting with "big guys are strong so they should be slow" or "rangers should only have long range tools", I start with "what is fun too play" skills wise, and then "how can we make these tools unique to each class"- so at that point a ranger and a warrior might have similar short ranged tools, but the warrior might be more efficient/effective with them. Thats also where the stats and spec choices come into play as well, because different classes may have access to similar tools with their own flavor, but you could allow specific classes to further specialize in skills that make sense for their class, without detracting from the combat and the rest of the class kits. Thats just my thought process anyways, if that makes sense- thanks for allowing me to clarify that!
  

  0
• Azherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two

  January 2023

  Just a reminder to bear in mind that Ashes explicitly moved away from their 'Root Motion' style attacks to allow players maximum 'drift' and control.
  
  I'd say about half of these suggestions (the interactive ones where both the actor and target receive a meaningful flow/positional effect) would either 'be out of place', or, if we consider that Ashes intends to allow freedom of movement EXCEPT when these skill types are encountered, interact oddly with the game's targeting system.
  
  Basically I'm saying that those ones are better suited to a different game with 'recovery' and semi-static animations, because GROUP combat will cause such skills to be less effective (any given pair of opponents can be attacking while drifting their hurtboxes out of the realm of an interactive flow, but if such a skill hits, they gain control of the target's position in a way that removes the target's ability to positionally react).
  
  Maybe you enjoy that fact, maybe you don't, but as of now, Ashes doesn't seem to want to go that way, meaning that even knockback will fall under 'CC', hence the heavy traditional themes we've seen in their older (and honestly some of their newer) design.

  ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪

  1
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  @Azherae
  
  Thanks for the feedback and for bringing up some interesting points, ill give my response to a few of them if you are interested.
  

  Just a reminder to bear in mind that Ashes explicitly moved away from their 'Root Motion' style attacks to allow players maximum 'drift' and control.
  
  I'd say about half of these suggestions (the interactive ones where both the actor and target receive a meaningful flow/positional effect) would either 'be out of place', or, if we consider that Ashes intends to allow freedom of movement EXCEPT when these skill types are encountered, interact oddly with the game's targeting system.

  
  
  Yep I agree 100% and was also thinking about these aspects myself. I was going more for the "if we consider that Ashes intends to allow freedom of movement EXCEPT when these skill types are encountered" route. But even so, some of these could be modified to allow for the recipient to still have control but just "less". Such as with the ring of ice around the opponent example- they would still have some space to move around and the option to break the ice and get past it, it just limits their options and makes it more difficult to move, but they still have control to an extent.
  
  Aside from that, yes it "could" be odd with the auto targeting, but that is assuming the skill in question is intended to be capable of being hit from auto target attacks, rather than action target ones. In the case that they are meant to be hit by an auto-target attack, another game handled this by quickly freezing time while the projectile traveled, to simultaneously avoid "bending" projectiles while also avoiding "impossible to hit" targets. You could also have skills that are "homing" to where its okay if they "bend".
  
  Im not saying that particular solution of freezing time is the way to go in the context of this game, just saying there are ways to avoid that particular issue.
  

  meaning that even knockback will fall under 'CC'

  
  Potentially, but this falls under my above response, in that regardless, some CC is okay, even according to current design direction, as long as its doesn't infringe too much on that freedom within the overall combat design. Like I also pointed out, you could make modifications to still allow control, such as allowing the player to manipulate their character while being pushed back, allowing them to influence their direction. Similar to "DI" in platform fighting games, but much more exaggerated to give that feeling of control.
  
  

  Basically I'm saying that those ones are better suited to a different game with 'recovery' and semi-static animations, because GROUP combat will cause such skills to be less effective (any given pair of opponents can be attacking while drifting their hurtboxes out of the realm of an interactive flow, but if such a skill hits, they gain control of the target's position in a way that removes the target's ability to positionally react).

  
  
  I am interpreting your main point within this, in 2 different ways.
  
  either you are saying that:
  
  A- the positional skills would be less relevant when at a numbers disadvantage
  
  B- There would be too much of an emphasis on positional skills, causing it to be too difficult to deal with all the enemy's positional options available to them, even when on an even playing field, in terms of quantity of opponents
  
  
  Ill respond to both, and in case I misinterpreted feel free to correct me.
  
  A- I would say yes, but would say that it's okay if that's the case, and to my understanding it would be okay with Steven as well, based on past comments about balancing, and that numbers should "give an advantage" as long as tactics and strategy are a priority. The positional skills would still give you room to outplay multiple enemies if you have more skill than them, but you would be defeated if against equally skilled opponents, as it should be based on the referenced comments.
  
  B- I would say that this just depends on the tuning of the abilities. The balance is through having teammates to make it a fair fight, so at that point they would need to take into account your teammates' ability to support you and allow teammates to make plays in order to counter an enemy group's options and setups. Its more of a "group combat balance" specific discussion at that point, rather than a general combat design discussion imo.
  
  
  
  
  I appreciate the engagement in the discussion.

  1
• Ace1234 Member

  January 2023 edited January 2023

  I dont think I mentioned this in the original post, so if anyone is curious of what game some of those gifs are from, its called "crosscode"
  
  Here is an overview of that game's "combat arts" system that I pulled from for the gifs, which are pretty much abilities that use mana in order to modify your basic combat functions, such as melee, ranged attack, dodge roll, and shield.
  
  https://crosscode.fandom.com/wiki/Combat_Arts

  0
• Vaknar Member, Staff Staff ›

  January 2023

  Very fun and interesting thread to read through. I can tell you put a lot of time and thought into your post, @Ace1234
  
  I loved the visual examples you provided!

  

  1
• Ace1234 Member

  February 2023

  With the recent tank reveal, and lots of class design threads popping up in response, this thread is more relevant now, so im bumping it as a part of my class kit feedback.

  0