It's called FINESSE not DPS

I don't like that either. It's annoying as hell.

 

Your right. It should not be. These releases just focus on it.

I like decorating my house, questing, and adventuring more then PvP.

People should work in teams. It eliminates a lot of problems.

One person struggling against one person will result in someone winning and someone losing. If we are going to do it, then it may as well be good.

Personally I want a few releases of crafting and I hope there are things you can only build with a team interacting with a workstation simultaneously.

 

let's not forget that over half of the skills arent online yet...just sayin

 

I haven't forgotten that.

But when I look at the proposed skills, this is what they are:

DAMAGE MELEE
DAMAGE RANGE
DOT MELEE
DOT RANGE
AOE MELEE
AOE RANGE
BUFF MELEE
BUFF RANGE

There's nothing new being added to this system, it's just more of what we already have. How is that supposed to improve this situation? We already have all of those things in the current system. There are a few skills like Stealth that will change the playing field for PVP mildly, but I can't really think of many more proposed skills or spells that will make this a better system.

The same thing goes with having the ability to take cover. While I think that's a compelling mechanic that will be a lot of fun, I don't see that as "the fix" because at the end of the day the entire system is still just about DPS. Cover will just require people to put that extra variable into their DPS calculations.

The combat system needs ACTIONS that a player can take that will INFLUENCE an opponent to become confused, stymied, and frustrated enough to run away. Skills that BLOCK, COUNTER, or FEIGN attacks are what I'm thinking of.

BLOCKING an attack would break the DPS cycle. Use of a Shield is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Shields don't lower damage, they BLOCK DAMAGE, they keep damage from being anywhere near you. They prevent damage from occurring. Mages should have ways to do this as well.

COUNTERing an attack would force players to THINK about the timing of their attacks. A good COUNTER would be something that completely ignores the defenses that a player has created in SPECIAL situations. For example, a player that has on Full Platemail and is in a Defensive Stance, might be COUNTERED by someone that is in a special (unnamed) stance. So while normally the defensive stance would give a player +20 to defense (or damage resistance), now it actually becomes a liability because the their opponent is COUNTERING that move (giving the player in a defensive stance a -20 to defense).

FEIGNing an attack would make players THINK their opponents had done one thing, while in reality they had done something else. Because of the way the system currently works, there's nothing I can use as an example here. But if we expanded the current skills and spells to have large scale attacks that once used left a character vulnerable for a few seconds, this might be the kind of thing that would work here. So for example, what if you could FEIGN that you were using new attack where the animation shows your avatar "charging up in a crouch" this signals to everyone that you're about to use the skill BURST (A completely made up skill that shoots a high level MELEE AOE attack out at anyone close to you). But instead, you're actually feigning that attack, and while your opponent is standing away waiting for that animation to end, you're in reality taking a bow out and readying a shot at range.

That's what a dynamic and sophisticated combat system would look like. What we have right now (and planned for the future) is just DPS.

 

Wow, you've been busy while i was away! Now I need to catch up... beware, long post incoming!

I said it before, and i'm going to say it again; actual combat system could work, but i don't find it awesome. I see more value in suggesting alternatives that could improve what we don't like instead of just saying that something is not going to work and arguing why it can work... In my opinion, both situations can happen, and it's more constructive trying to bring in suggestions to make it work and diminish the possibility of it not working. That being said, suggestions and a bit of idea recap (in spoilers and links, so it doesn't hinder reading for people who already read my previous posts).

SKILL VS AND THEORYCRAFTING
Indeed, combat should be part skill and part theorycrafting. In my opinion, 60%-40% are good figures. As @MalakBrightPalm stated, it's nice to see you won a combat because you made the right choices to fight a particular enemy. What's not fair is to find you win most combats because you choose the best of the best (i think this is what Drocis tried to state talking about his 10 year old son fighting with his best build). You still need skill, but in equal terms of skill, you're going to win most combats because there is a best build, and skill should be always over theorycrafting. This is something that needs to be addressed, why not address it by doing a completely unique combat system?

When deck system was first implemented Chris said that he'd fight against best builds; every choice while building your skill tree and your deck is supposed to be strong against something but have some weaknesses, and that's not true. At the moment, some factors brought in from previous games of the genre (Auto attack, Stuns, Defensive skills just recalculating stats) have a negative impact in what the game experience could be from my point of view. As i stated before, i don't think the system is as broken as Drocis thinks, but is not as functional as the WoW system is. We changed the way skills are dealt; we can't expect skills of the old system to fit like a glove. Only a new approach regarding skills is what can make combat system whole.

CONTROL, CONTROL, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
Control techniques are not counters; I appreciate counters as a preventive action that makes your enemy losing an action. Control skills are active actions that prevent the enemy for doing some actions. They're fundamentally different, one don't exclude the other.

Control skills: this are needed as a whole, but Stuns are not. As @MalakBrightPalm said hard stuns are unnaceptable in this system. To me this is not something that could be improved, it's a fact. Here's something I wrote early this month regarding stuns.

Spoiler

Stuns are the best of the impairment effects, and they're going to be picked over everything else. Do you guys think archers would use Disabling shot if they had a Stunning shot? oh wait, we do! discharge and aimed shot can be combined into a stunning shot... If i have both, i don't hesitate in using the latter instead of the former. Removing stuns and substituting it by other effects will increase diversity, keep control in sight, and tilt the scales to be a bit even. If it's possible, i'd like to hear @Kvow reasons to finds Malak proposal annoying. Are you against removing hard stuns? or you don't like the alternatives proposed?

Active counters: I don't pretend counters to oust control mechanics, they're just another way of balancing things. Currently maces and polearms have control skills, but swords have nothing. Why not give some counters to swords? they're supposed to be balanced, making them suitable for defense and offense. That could make swords a more competitive skill tree. Quoting myself again, developing a concept given by Baron Drocis in a recent post:

Spoiler

Regarding the way the three weapons of choice are used, i'd assign some counters to polearms (you can ready them against a charge, or acquire a position to divert an attack and put your opponent off balance) but little to nothing to bludgeons (they are not quite designed for parry, but to crush). In the same fashion, magic Skill trees should have some active counters in regard how much "defense" concept is linked to the skill tree theme (i can see water having some defense, but not fire). Same for both types of armours, tactics, and a big etc. We already have some options about how to attack; active counters is the half that's missing in this combat system.

MY LIFE IN A BOTTLE.
It's true combat systems can be oriented into not having bars or hitpoints, but in my opinion that combat system is attractive in environments that don't pretend players to get involved into combat, as survival horrors where there are things you can't kill and most of the things you can are likely to kill you. As @Kwov said "got hit by a sword; my kidney was taken". One hit kill = realistic, but not fun. I want to be encouraged to fight stuff, and that's why think resources are needed to make a competitive system. on the other hand I think it could be done in a more interesting and manageable way. There are lots of approaches regarding resource management, and current approach is not horrible in my opinion, but once again, we can do better. My thoughts about that topic were discussed here in About health and focus management to everyone who didn't saw it.

ONE IS ALL? MASSIVE BATTLES BALANCE
A quick thought on this; i think optimal balance is the one who gives possibe builds advantages against certain aspects and drawbacks against others, taking care at the same time of this benefits and drawbacks not being stackable by having many players with the same build, giving an overall balance. Balancing a system in a one vs one basis is too hard; I prefer a design who develops skills with the first proposal done in this paragraph, and thinking about balance in massive combats; two groups with the same numbers of players should be equally competitive assuming they cover all the strategic points.

That's all for now. Thanks for reading!

 

Great post. You did a good job weeding through all the debate and using good examples to explain your points. The active counters section was particularly good. You have a solid understanding of what's needed to improve the combat system.

 

I think you misunderstood me. Malak liked my post because I was agreeing that hard stuns are annoying. I was not saying his post was.

You wall of text is excellent. Your spoilers are excellent. Your link is excellent.

All of these improve the likelihood that finesse will become the dominant force over dps. Combat would be interesting.

I really like your link about health and focus loss as I imagine someone with grievous woulds would need to go find a proper healer now and again.

 

I agree that there should be more variety and that the current actions that do influence (or propose) to influence blocks, counters, and feigns work better.

In the case of shields, work at all...

These concepts don't eliminate dps as a measurement tool but they do make fighting more interesting and more prolonged with potentially more balance and a chance to escape in the case of a victim (despite it being consented PvP).

However, they suffer from our worst enemy which is latency. At least with auto attacks and hit boxes I might get a hit in. If everything goes into full player control mode then it will be LATENCY > FINESSE > DPS.

Innate and passive skills are necessary to protect balance with regard to latency issues. You are asking for inherently active skills that make latency matter more.

 

It depends on the application of those skills. If you create a 3 second mandatory delay between attacks, that gives 3 additional seconds that latency doesn't matter, and that's a TON of time in today's world. The only problem with that is people crying about the delay.

To me, it's far more important to have competitive balance than it is to have the illusion of real time response.

 

I think the auto attack might need to be looked at. Due to latency you can stack two attacks at once which would make using your shield blocking skill only effective vs one hit. Unless they also make the shield a time based skill where it can block more then one attack. Block N=?seconds.

 

While I have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, games that allow me to display skill and finesse as a PLAYER that strongly influences the outcome of combat, I really feel that in an MMO the effects of latency and server lag mean that we are better served by a simple system that handles much of the dance of combat in automated background math. I'm not talking about making all dodge, block, and hit chances automatic, but I am suggesting that something like armor defense value, as well as a certain amount of the defense gained from parry skills or shield block ability should be. It's not the player at the keyboard who is adventuring, it's this avatar I have. It should be able to develop skills that it employs in it's own defense. My choices will have influence enough in selecting skillsets, gear, behavior, and storypath. The Avatar should be able to reflexively defend itself to a certain extent based solely on self preservation instincts and the training I arrange for it.

This would mean, if fully implemented:
A character with a parry capable weapon would attempt to parry any incoming blow (in a 270 degree forward arc, or 360?)
A character in heavy armor and/or with a shield would attempt to defend, by blocking/bracing against all incoming blows (again, the shield might have a forward arc with a back attack window)

Right now, one of the most powerful places to build defense that *I* saw was in the Earth magick tree, where multiple levels of passive damage resistance and defense could be learned. While I approve, I think those levels will become required for all combat characters, as no-one wants to be the sissy wimp in a brawl. I would rather see ARMOR abilities and passives grant a significantly better contribution, such that what armor I choose to train for truly determines my defenses before I even put that armor ON.

 

I suggested stances lasting three seconds to maximize the window of countering, and i suggested a skill cost increase while in stance to reward players that uses them as a reaction (someting not everybody can do because of latency); that's just an example of how latency impact can be minimized from the design step.

If anybody played Soul Calibur can see a counter mechanic not desired for online playing. I enjoyed fighting in Soul Calibur IV against my friends on the same Playstation, it's a fighting game with a great "turn based real time combat", and counters were a regular action we took (latency = 0). When we tried fighting through the internet, it was horrible! latency the milisecond timed turns, and changed the game into something we didn't enjoy that much. We never tried to play online again (we were a lucky bunch, having people to play without the need of going online).

My point is turn based real time combat is possible, but it should be designed taking in consideration the environment where the game is going to be played. Soul Calibur IV did a great job in offline, but you will miss all the game potential if you play online. Taking it back to SotA, correct functional counters would require auto attack to be removed. If try to parry i'd like to parry something that will hurt me seriously; if auto attack is still on, everybody will just wait until auto attack lands and then unleash a skill (i'm also assuming that skills will do more damage than auto attack in the future, but who knows...)

Well... first cryer here This is something that could minimize latency impact, but it's also something i'd rather not have since it's a solution that "cripples" everybody to avoid the issue generated for some players "being crippled". I'd try other approaches before thinking about implementing that, since that delay would be extremely annoying for me. My knowledge in computer programming and network traffic is not backed by proffesional experience, since i never worked as a programmer, but my notions tell me it could generate other problems related with latency, instead of solving all of it. Competitive balance is indeed the factor most treasured while designing a combat system, but i don't feel this as the better approach.

I like that! armour values implying not only damage reduction but chance to deflect/parry/block attacks. Defensive stances previously suggested could raise those values up and give an additional effect if you parry/deflect/block successfully. I previously stated that missing is annoying... but after cooling off, i came to the conclusion that's probably because i'm not used to miss in auto targeted games.

 

Yeah i cant wait till they come online!!!

 

I'm not a fan of auto attack for this very reason. I brought that up in R10.

Auto attack is currently often a "free attack" that requires no timing.

I like the way the Defensive Stance skill works now. It lasts for a long time.

The ideal would be to have a Counter Attack that lasted (and only worked against that skill) for an equally long time. So if you've ever seen that scene in the Princes Bride where one swordsman says to his opponent, "So, I see you're using Vendetti's Defense against me" and his opponent says "I thought it fitting considering the terrain."

That's the kind of combat we want.



Regarding the shield, I could see that working in a similar fashion, I think this opens up a new kind of fighting. However it could also extend battles longer than 30 seconds (the goal of the devs) if we're not careful.

Here's a scenario I could see happening...

You and I are fighting. You have a sword and a shield. I'm dual wielding with a sword and a dagger. Your shield gives you some additional resistance to defense as it does right now, but it also opens up the shield defense skills to you, which now include (in this fictional scenario) several shield "guards". These work just like "Defensive Stance" only instead of adjusting overall damage resistance, they BLOCK (COMPLETELY) certain types of attack.

What's important for our fight is that you have a GUARD that BLOCKS off-hand attacks. So as long as you have that guard up, you don't have to worry about my off hand attacks (which work correctly by augmenting my primary attack to do more damage).

So when I see you put this GUARD up, I now have two options on a tactical level. I can 1) Attempt to perform a move like TRIP that will automatically take down all your GUARDS, or 2) I can switch my attack stance so that I'm either using my off hand in a way that punches through your GUARD OR outright change the weapons I'm using so that now your GUARD no longer matters. (i.e. shealthing my dagger and using my own shield).

I think this would be a lot of fun (if balanced of course), and then the only remaining piece of the puzzle would be what do do about movement.

For movement I would suggest 1) Stopping players in combat mode from running THROUGH other players. I think this is very distracting and unbalanced. 2) Stopping players in combat mode from jumping. What's the point? You want to jump to get over something? Shealth your sword and jump then. Or create a "combat jump" skill that people can use. 3) I'd make turning around in combat mode a MUCH slower action in an attempt to reduce the amount of herky jerky movement that just causes latency.

Because this is really over the top for any type of PVE setting, I think this is where we might get into the need to have a PVP sigil with all these different stances and gaurds. We would need some for melee, archery, and magic, and they would all need to balance each other out. So you'd have stances that would handle melee attacks and stances that would handle ranged attacks, and yet more that would handle magic attacks. Then you'd need guards for every type of attack, and from the point of view of a caster, a ranged fighter and a melee person.

Yes, it's a lot to put in and I'm sure the devs didn't count on doing that (so they also won't want to do it). But I think this is exactly the type of thing that needs to be done with the current system if we want to have competitive and meaningful pvp.

 

Using this movie as an example is an automatic conversational win and is not really fair! I see your point and I do like the essence of that scene.

I do like the concept of combat jumping. We should also not be able to run backward as fast as I can run forward.

Eventually running through players needs to stop. For tight quarters I can see passing through the left or right third of someone but not right through the middle. I have been watching some Mortal Online and they get stuck on each other in tight spaces. This can unfortunately be used to grief. I watch you kill X mob down to 1/3 health and then I block your escape and let you die. I then finish the creature and loot whatever I can from the player when looting is implemented. (I'd never do this)

As for the auto attack they already 1/2 removed it for archers and mages. Having to stop to avoid penalties makes them vulnerable while moving and getting in range is actually beneficial for melee.

 

I'm ok with this as a tactic. PVP is optional and you don't have to fight mobs in open pvp areas unless you want to. It wouldn't be fun to have that happen to me, but I'd understand it as a bit of gamesmanship.

The problem with mages and archers is that they need to be able to kill melee fighters before they ever get to them. That means giving mages and archers a lot more power than they have now. Chris mentioned in the dev hang out yesterday that they were going to nerf the heck out of all the armor and swords. Which is kind of the same as raising the power of mages and archers. So I expect fights to go longer and mages and archers to have a better chance of doing some meaningful damage. But I don't know if that's enough to keep light armor (and light hp) folks from getting beaten to death because they can't get away from melee people.

The range for archery is laughable. See my R11 Feedback thread on that.

The range for spell casting is a little better, but as my video on the first page of this thread shows, there's no where to run or hide from melee. They can hit you even when it doesn't look like they can hit you. So the end result is that you don't get EVER cast a spell without taking serious damage.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about with DPS and cool downs working as your primary base mechanics in your combat system. Sure, nerf plate armor and two handed weapons! That sounds fine, but then the whole dynamics of combat shifts to another unbalanced setting. We just can't do this and expect it somehow balance one of these days.

I mean, what's the end result we're trying to get to here? Do we want mages and archers to survive and win battles? Because that means melee has to lose battles. That means that on average people using ranged weapons need to have the ability to get away from melee fighters. Well if they can get away, then they can always get away! So that just turns this whole thing on its head back in favor of archers and mages.

This is why BLOCKING, COUNTERING, and FEIGNING attacks is so important. Because it breaks out of the DPS cool down cycle and allows combat to be more than just who does the most damage.

 

I didn't get that out of the Hangout. I thought he was specifically teasing Darkstarr.

What he said which I think is the true culprit is that melee scales with leveling right now while archery and magery does not. Before "nurfing" melee I assume they are going to have them scale correctly first.

I fully agree with blocking and countering. Feigning in a world with mages, archers, and melee seems like the first of the three to go. It would work better if everyone was using a sword. You mentioned earlier that you could crouch but actually be taking out your bow. Bit complex for lag and a melee fighter would still want to hit you in the crouched position or the taking out your bow position. A mage is still going to finish casting despite what your avatar is doing.

 

I'm guessing you would still have it happen in open world PvE. They get your kill and your loot but not the stuff on your corpse.

Hard edges on things feel synthetic and I hope we can slide past each other without walking through each other.

I need a coffee. You're an epic responder.

 

This is from the transcript of the conversation yesterday (see below). But Chris actually mentions nerfing melee type stuff several times. I think in general, both Chris and Starr like to see the evidence from the log files that show who's using what. And their log files show that everyone is pretty much using plate and two handed weapons in pvp.

What I don't really agree with is just using that as your basis for change. I mean, I think rather than listen to a few guys on the forums whine about "things being OP" this is probably a good habit to be in. But there's so much more to combat than just DPS, I'm not sure that making changes like this really get us anywhere closer to balance so much as they get us closer to fixing one problem and creating three others.

 

Wonderful ideas, i think this post is full of win (apart from the princess bride scene ). Just read the Hangout transcription and my attention was drawn to a certain comment, where they stated almost nobody was using defensive buffs, and thinking about ways of giving it a twist. If they don't take in consideration this thread and other related with the topic, we can throw the towel and think they won't. I'd love to see this post swarming with people arguing and discussing about these ideas, to give Devs something even worthier of their time.

In fact, i'm surprised not seeing around other people who usually discuss this matters. Is that they don't like what we are suggesting? i think if that's the case they should say it, so we could polish this by generating feedback through discussion. If the do, showing their support is the best way to show Devs this ideas are worth considering.

Back into the topic; I more or less agree with everything said here, but i'll give some comments about certain points.

• Player collision: I'd love to have that implemented, but i think is something that requires a hard amount of work. I think a disuassive factor can be included, taking out some focus from both players who collide against each other. Assuming is doable, best should be to remove more focus from the one that intiated the collision.
• Feigning: I love this one so much i keep wondering how it could be implemented... but i keep smashing myself against the lack of combat animation recognition (putting magic aside). I feel Blocking and Countering easier and more suitable to be implemented in the current system, so in my opinion we should focus on these. But not to drop this! keep bringing it up, so they know we'd love to have it.
• Archery range: it's odd indeed. Range should be incremented, even if it's at expense of damage. Archery range should work there is a range where damage is optimal, and as you reduce/increase that distance, your damage drops proportionally until you can't hit your target because he's too far/too close (yes, too close. I fought an elder wolf a melee with my bow last time i went online for testing purposes... it seemed to do less damage, but it's annoying to be able to do that). I think it works more or less in that way... but i think it's worth checking when they work to improve archery.
• PVP Sigil: This is something i don't like. PVP skills could be distributed in different branches of the same skill trees, but creating a PVP Sigil is putting a fence between the two playstyles. Skills and combat should be designed to be useful in both situations, and i don't think it would be hard since they're working on AI to behave a bit like a Player. Supposing counters are implemented, an intelligent enemy (elves for example) who sees the player acquiring a defensive stance should use a light attack to avoid it, or simply wait as your focus drains. As for jump in combat, it's true it doesn't make any sense unless you give it some meaning. Why not using space while in combat to trigger the dodge? sometimes hitting the key don't work.

As true as Lord British has a braid. Combat does need tweaking, but i think is more needed of mechanics as these to make it whole. Let's keep making combat awesome!!