Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/12/2016 in all areas

  1. did some calculations... i was wrong. according to google, arrows fly around 150-300 km/h. so, i calculated that an arrow with 200km/h flies 40m in 0,72 seconds. in 0.72 seconds on earth (9.81m/s^2), things fall 5 meters. so, at 40m projectiles with 200km/h will arc around 2.5 meters. sorry for making wrong assumptions.
    5 points
  2. So here's the deal. All melee attacks (and most abilities cleave) and you're basically stuck next to your melee buddies performing elaborate animations. Archetypes like confessors are HEAVY aoe with no projectile wobble or arcing, meaning they basically have no choice but to shoot through you. Movement is better, but animation locking makes it feel extremely clunky. On top of this the game utilizes "minimal" healing, lowering if not eliminating any margin of error when it comes to friendly fire. Assuming everything stays relatively the same (maybe they inject more movement in, maybe they reduce the animation lock). How do you see them implementing friendly fire in to the game? Personally I see them doing something similar to shadowbane, where some ground targeted abilities will be flagged for FF, and other abilities (most) probably not. I don't really see friendly fire working any other way in the current iteration of combat. So sticking with the theme that games are supposed to be "fun" and challenging, how do you implement FF without making a huge mess using the current state of combat.
    4 points
  3. are we really back to the point where we have to explain that animation locks don't mean being rooted in place?
    4 points
  4. I doubt they are going to make a bunch of changes for FF. Just slap it on the Dregs... and people have to be VERY careful around each other. It will be uber hard not to kill your friends and thats the point of FF Not much else they need to do.
    3 points
  5. Realistically I don't think full friendly fire is going to happen in this game. I would expect that people within your party will be immune to each other's damage while anyone outside the party would be subject to friendly fire. I feel like this would be enough Friendly Fire to stop the deathballs where everyone is on top of each other but also not be insanely annoying. People have been circlejerking the idea of full friendly fire and I really don't see that working in the slightest. Especially now that we've seen how AoE and cleave heavy this game is. INB4 people get really insulted and delusional about this.
    3 points
  6. Oh man.. Hunger Dome helps a lot actually because it forces people to fight, but when a normal campaign mode is released, we're going to laugh so much at the current state of combat. In a 1vs1, one player can just run away indefinitely because: 1. You cannot attack him while moving; 2. The few ranged attacks you might have have a short range and it's so hard to aim while you're standing still and the other guy is moving. One of the only good powers was Champion's Hurlbat... guess what? Nerfed.... What was Blair solution instead? Add a poorly made sockston of CCs so that if you somehow manage to reach the other guy, you can deal some damage with stuns/slows. Still he won't die with 1/2 stuns of course, so he's gonna jump away and keep running... it's going to be hilarious to watch with benny hill song as background. Now he thought about a new solution, Dizzy status... so if you're out of combat and are hit your screen gets drunk. All because he is not admitting how overall gamebreaking these roots are. What happens in group combat? The bigger group is finally able to kill some players of the smaller group. Why? Skill? No, because they can stack all their CCs. Wow.... But wait........ what about friendly fire? Either they remove it completely / make it dull (again... wow), or it will be ridiculous. Ranged attacks have no arcing, so you're going to hit your melee friends all the time. And they're forced to stand still while attacking... so.. You seriously want Alpha3 fellows to see this clusterfu*k? I recently tried Gigantic, and while the game overall is a mess with its platform, the gameplay is light years away from CF. Like most of modern games (and some old ones)..
    3 points
  7. I agree, the current iteration of combat is in contrast with friendly fire. One of the many reasons why it should be changed... looking for workarounds such as "some ground targeted abilities will be flagged for FF, and other abilities (most) probably not" is pathetic. Would I play any game with this kind of combat? No.
    3 points
  8. Actually, the natural "RNG" that I was talking about does not result from belly fat, keyboard layout, or any other such factors... I'm talking about the fact that a real time game like Crowfall naturally has simultaneous decisions that occur. Just like in Dark Souls, Chivalry, or any fighting game. In any game with simultaneous decisions to be made, players must predict each other. Top level players tend to attempt to be less predictable while attempting to still achieve a meaningful strategy and apply meaningful tactics. Being predictable in a game like that tends to cause loss... unless the mechanics are lacking so much that there's no way to counter obvious play and there's only a couple of "correct" decisions to make and no alternative strategies to work out due to emergent depth. If the game does have this depth, the natural "RNG" will occur indefinitely. BattleCon is the perfect example of this concept. I'm going to split this "sentence" up. You used commas where you really needed periods. "The "artifical" RNG on the other hand will implement an element of gambling" No, it won't. At least not gambling in any meaningful sense... taking a "gamble" in a game normally means that you should be able to make a calculated risk. You should be able to control when you take the risk and have some decision involved in it. Random crits are something that simply happen when doing ANYTHING during combat. It's not something that you decide you're going to ante up on or fold on. It's just... each hit randomly does variable damage.. just because. Beyond that, with simultaneous decisions between players, you don't need artificial RNG to cause randomness. Both players don't know what the other is going to do (unless the mechanics lack enough depth for there to be meaningful choices to make and there's only one right choice all the time)... so that automatically causes randomness. "giving even the least able players a chance to win, not big enough to completely offset the skill advantage, but probably significant enoguh to keep them motivated" Again, natural randomness will give bad players enough of a chance to get *close* to winning. That should feel good enough for them to enjoy the gameplay and want to try more and to learn from their mistakes. "read about Pavlov's dog on how that works." I know about Pavlov's dog experiments.. and this example is actually an invalid analogy. They're not similar concepts. Pavlov's experiments involved providing two separate stimuli, one that caused salivation naturally and another that normally wouldn't cause salivation. By *consistently* (not randomly.. though that's not even the point here.. because this argument was so off base..) providing the stimuli simultaneously, the dog's brain eventually associated both food and the arbitrary stimulus (a bell in his case) with causing salivation. Eventually, Pavlov was able to ring a bell and cause the dogs to salivate without having any food present at all. This argument really has NOTHING to do with the topic. It's a completely invalid analogy. Okay so... here you make three entirely invalid assumptions: 1) Crowfall players don't have any desire to take gratification in the intrinsic rewards of enjoying the actual gameplay...and the victories that come from it.. and only enjoy the extrinsic rewards So this is a very silly assumption. If the combat in this game is built well, I'll enjoy winning for the sake of winning. The loot is just a bonus. At least in the PvP. In PvE, I'll most likely be motivated by the loot... but I've play Dark Souls 2 PvP for hundreds of hours and there's no loot to be gained from that and I still enjoy it... and that's an RPG as well. You can have both. You're basically setting up a false dichotomy... 2) Getting lucky shots to win huge rewards is something that I (and transitively, everyone else in the world) would enjoy I can guarantee you that.. while I might feel a brief sense of excitement if that happened... it'd immediately be followed by a sense of disappointment that I didn't actually EARN my reward.. I just.. got it.. because lol rng... and the person that lost to the rng would feel like CRAP because they'll just be sitting there thinking "I just got SCREWED by the RNG... AGAIN! ...sigh..." 3) This one is related to a mix of assumptions between your statement above about how you need to be able to get lucky victories and the fact that you're saying that you need to get loot and vertical power progression for gratification.... You're assuming that it's impossible to have partial victories with rewards even if you lose and that you need to be able to win via RNG to be able to enjoy the game if you're bad... because if you always lose because you're bad, you'll never get loot and you'll never have fun (because the only fun is loot gain) So, there are definitely options to allow for partial power progression rewards for fighting, even if you don't win. For example: xp rewards for taking part in a battle, partial xp for kill assists, special achievement rewards for accomplishing specific combat goals (hit two people with your cleave attack twice in 10 seconds)... and tons of other options... Poker is actually mostly about playing against your opponent... it's a common misconception that poker is all about luck. Poker tournaments are consistently won by top tier players. Now, it still has a lot of randomness, and I really don't enjoy it as a game myself.. it just has really dry and boring core mechanics.. but when you give people a set pool of "money" (points) to gamble with, it's mostly about reading your opponent's tells and making calculated risks between rounds. More importantly, though, that's an incredibly invalid analogy. I'm going to make an assumption here.... that you're talking about winning money playing poker, right? Gambling? That's silly... people enjoy gambling because.. well for several reasons.. one is due to an issue with people's inability to properly understand probability due to how counter intuitive it is.... but more importantly... when people gamble, they're specifically going out to do something that is very easy and can possibly, randomly, give them money. They're not going out to enjoy a challenging experience. Poker CAN be a challenging experience, but only within a specific setting with specific rules in place.. and you're not winning or losing in high level poker DUE to the rng, you're winning IN-SPITE of it. Then why even have it? Also, what's your suggestion for "somehow"? I'm providing suggestions for actual solutions. What does "somehow" mean? From my perspective, all of your arguments seem to be ill-conceived or flat out logical fallacies, I'm sorry :/
    3 points
  9. Move while charging at 50% movement speed. Add a skill to the general ranger tree or the ranged oriented promotion (both?) to increase movement speed while charging. Animation upon firing the projectile has an animation lock. ^ Basically how Tera's archer would carry over to Crowfail. Speed every single animation up, I'm embarrassed for you.
    3 points
  10. Did he actually say that? Or is that your interpretation of the fact that he clicked "Like" on a post?
    3 points
  11. Well I think they commit to exactly what they said they want to do. When I read the combat FAQ that was published more than a year ago, it seems to me that they're still aiming for the same goal, which is as you mention a mix between strategy/tactics and action combat. Some players who are used to tab-targeting and find it too hard to aim by themselves may not like the combat. And some players who are used to Quake / Darkfall may find it too slow. But afaik the devs always said they were trying something new and not SB or DF 2.0. There are plenty of games that offer full tab-target or at the opposite extremely mobile /action focused combat. "1. DOES COMBAT USE TAB-TARGETING? No. We’ve tried to make combat in Crowfall a little more action-combat focused, than your traditional MMO. For instance, we have “dashes” that you use to avoid attacks, as opposed to a passive (randomized) dodge system. Finding the right balance on this one has been extremely challenging from a design perspective, but we think we’ve found a mid-point. Hopefully you’ll agree." "4. HOW WILL COMBAT “FEEL” IN CROWFALL? In deciding what we want combat to “look and feel like,” we are drawing a lot of our inspiration from other recent MMOs. We love the idea of action-combat – but we have to make sure the game doesn’t get too “twitchy” (i.e. require lightning fast reflexes or too much button-mashing). Combat has certain elements that are similar to Wildstar (our movement includes things like sprints, dashes, and double jumps) and other elements that are similar to TERA (combo attacks that have short “locked” animation sequences – chains which you can opt to continue or break, for a cost.) The result – when combined with our voxel terrain and physics based movement systems – is combat sequences that looks more fluid, feel more visceral and require more tactical thinking."
    3 points
  12. One of the key combat relationships I'm interested in seeing how Art+Craft handles is exactly this "archetypical" balance issue: Ranged vs. Melee How is "ranged advantage" presented (or not)? Will Ranged be allowed to kill at range? What magnitude (range of)and number of gap-closers will be available to Melee? What magnitude and number of CC effects will be available to Melee (snares, stuns, etc.)? What magnitude and number of CC effects will be available to Ranged (snares, stuns, etc. - delivered from range)? Will Ranged be allowed to kite to maintain Ranged advantage? My personal experience as a player has been that the Ranged vs Melee counter play is most often a SLIPPERY eel for a dev house to deal with. On the one hand you have the argument " . . . all that RANGE is such an advantage that . . .", but on the other in some of the games I've played the prolific application of gap-closers basically wiped Ranged advantage away for Ranged classes whilst handing melee classes a Ranged delivery mechanism for Melee attacks. Keeping me eye-balls peeled to see how the Crowfall Crew + Community Feedback gels this dynamic here.
    3 points
  13. If Crowfall's combat is to be skill based, it should not have RNG. Skill based combat means analyzing a situation and choosing the best course of action to turn that situation in your favor. To foster skill based combat, Crowfall should allow its players to learn from their past successes and failures and to apply that knowledge to future situations. This only works if players can clearly see what allowed them to succeed or fail in past situations, and if they can, to some degree, predict the consequences of their actions in future situations. RNG only obfuscates this learning process. For example, someone could blame a lost duel on a lucky crit his opponent had, rather than a mistake that he himself made. One argument in favor of RNG in combat is that it adds variance to what would otherwise be repetitive fights. But Crowfall is a PVP MMO, where we will primarily be fighting players with their own customized characters and playstyles, instead of groups of identical monsters. There will already be a lot of variance from any particular fight to another even without RNG, such as gear and status interactions, along with the fact that no player can predict his opponents' actions completely accurately. Another layer of RNG explicitly coded into the game would make these carefully crafted, deterministic factors pointless. One final argument in favor of RNG is that it gives less skilled players a chance to beat more skilled players, thus keeping the less skilled players interested in the game long enough to become good themselves. But a victory gained through RNG is less satisfying than a victory gained with the knowledge you spent effort to acquire. Besides, a less skilled player can still beat a more skilled player without RNG: we have all had times where, even as newbies, something clicks for a moment and we pull off something amazing. When we understand that something good happens purely due to our skill, unadulterated by RNG, we remember that experience and try to replicate it, becoming better players in the process. And even in defeat, no RNG is still better than RNG. When we lose because of RNG, the game feels unfair. But when we lose in a purely deterministic way, while we still feel frustrated, we understand the game is still fair and we retain our motivation to become more skilled at it. This is why I believe Crowfall's combat should not have any RNG.
    3 points
  14. "RNG is part of MMOs" is not really a valid argument. It's part of a lot of MMOs.... but not because the games need it.. it's simply a pattern people are following somewhat habitually. The origin of RNG in MMORPGs is actually based on the first RPGs that existed.. which were not video games. They were tabletop games. In a tabletop game, RNG was generally used to come up with a quick way to simulate the outcome of events. This was done for several key reasons.. here's a few: 1) Combat isn't the focus: Most tabletop RPGs were not focused on depth of combat and tactics, they were focused on story telling between the "players" and the DM. They were about roleplaying.. not playing a role in a fight.. but role playing as in acting and story telling. Roleplaying and story telling are great, and can continue into video games... but the reason that tabletop RPGs used RNG was simply because they didn't care that combat was deep and tactical, they just wanted it to be unpredictable so the "players" (story tellers and role players) could roll with the flow of the story... sort of like improv. 2) Alternatives are too difficult: Some concepts simply can't be managed reasonably in tabletop RPGs. For example, a few posts above I discuss how random weapon procs shouldn't be implemented because you can use a plethora of other mechanics to control how special weapon effects work rather than randomness. These mechanics work GREAT in a video game where the computer is tracking all the variables for these effects... but in a tabletop RPG, it's just too much effort.. especially when the combat isn't even the core focus. It's just way easy to roll some dice..rather than to have your entire table filled with tokens to represent different effects and mechanics to keep track of the game state. 3) DM Control and Fairness: In a tabletop RPG, the DM controls all NPCs and if combat was actually tactical and deep... it would be extremely difficult for the DM to be unbiased either against or for the players... it would also require that the DM is extremely good at the combat mechanics for him/her to be able to make any kind of difficult fight. 4) The Story is Everything: When playing tabletop RPGs, the most important thing is the story itself and how interesting, cool, funny it is. Things like critical failures can happen where you went to shoot a giant in the face with a fireball and hopefully knock him off a cliff... but instead you mess up and make the ground explode and the whole cliff collapses and everyone falls and then you roll for landing or something and the giant lands first, dies and everyone lands on him and it's hilarious. Or you can end up as a wizard, picking up your downed warrior's greatsword and attempt to throw it at a giant... you require an insanely perfect roll to manage to do anything... you roll criticals all around and throw it through his eye and defeat him. Hilarious things can happen... for better or worse... thats the point though in a tabletop RPG. 5) No Alternatives for Aiming and Reaction: Tabletop RPGs simply don't have any system that could possibly work for aiming and reacting other than making the characters work randomly. This is related to #2... but it's basically because there aren't any realistic alternatives that they cared to implement. They just wanted to get the roleplay experience of telling a story. My point is simply that the origin of randomness in MMOs dates back long ago and it really never belonged in video games at all. The reason it formed into working as such was just the nature of the evolution of the genre over time. First people just looked to make it so they could do tabletop online.. then people started adding layers and layers of graphical fidelity and mechanics and real time gameplay.. ect ect... but never went and looked back at that nasty old RNG concept and thought about whether or not it was actually good or bad for the games they were making. They just kept it in there because it was there in all the games before it. It's time to drop this concept from action RPGs. It adds nothing.
    3 points
  15. Why do you want random crits and random weapon procs? I don't understand the desire for these types of mechanics. You can make the game infinitely more interesting by making critical hits and weapon ability procs based on actual tactical decisions. Flanking, knocking the opponent into a "vulnerable" state, ect... Look at my post a few posts above to see more details about the game design concepts behind my reasoning for this. Same thing here, why would you want any forced RNG in the combat? For both of you, just to note, when I say "forced RNG" I mean things like random crit chances, random ability procs, random blocks, random evades..ect.. I don't mean more natural randomness like having some *slight* randomness in the pattern of a shotgun-esk ability or some ability that rapidly fires projectiles. In practice, this randomness, when designed correctly, has barely any impact on the outcome of a fight and mostly exists for visual effect... and could even simply be a visual effect in some circumstances.. and the actual damage could be a cone with increasing damage toward the center of the cone so it's not random at all. I just don't understand why anyone would want random crits to pop up when they could instead have major crits pop off when they hit their enemy in the back, or when tehy hit them while they're "vulnerable" after being staggered... or when tehy hit them while they're winding up or swinging with an attack that can do counterattack damage (ala dark souls). It's just far more interesting.. I don't get why anyone would want their weapons to RANDOMLY apply special abilities when they could instead be based on actual mechanics such as if you do certain combos with the weapon, it will apply the ability during certain steps in the combo... OR you need to build up a status effect on someone to make it apply. For example with a frost weapon that can randomly slow a target.. change that to.. does applies 10 frost. Frost is an effect that will slow you it is applied to you.... you need to have 100 of it built up onto you for it to apply. So the person needs to hit you 10 times with small gaps between hits (because the bar will drain when not having frost built up). This is how status effects work in dark souls... and it works very well... to poison someone, it's not a random chance on a weapon... you need to hit the person with enough things that can build up the poison status effect, quickly enough, to build up that bar... So now poison or whatever status effect depending on the specific details of how it applies, when it builds up, if it builds up even if you don't deal damage due to being blocked, how quickly it drains, ect ect ect.... now these things actually affect your playstyle and the person you're fighting's play style. You might not have done enough damage to put them at critical health, but you have filled their poison bar up to 90% and now they're terrified and trying to back away so you can't get the full status filled and poison them. This becomes apparent in their behavior.. so you can take advantage of it. It also changes how you fight because you'll want to be more aggressive and leave as little time between your attacks as possible so that the poison effect doesn't fade away. It actually impacts the gameplay rather than just being some other stat that just flies around in the background and makes the combat convoluted without adding actual depth. It just makes it random and frustrating for those on the receiving end.
    3 points
  16. This sounds terrible, but I agree. FF as an afterthought doesn't sound appealing to me.
    2 points
  17. I'm just gonna say a few words and hopefully not get too entrapped in this whole discussion, (because, frankly, I don't actually find it very interesting) but here goes in very broad and general terms, predictability is the enemy of intrigue. This concept can be reflected in many different areas of a given game. If there is always a single optimal option, that's what people are going to do. This concept also applies to the sorta similar discussion regarding player skill- if skill matters absolutely, the best player always wins. These things are cancerous to a game. On paper, they sound straightforward and reasonable- Yeah, the best player should always win! Yeah, the best strategy should always give you an edge! Yeah, the best piece of equipment should be what everyone always uses!- but if you ever actually create a game based around those principles, the game usually dies a slow (or sometimes quick) death. Even the winners pretty quickly get bored of doing the same thing they always have, and by that point the non-winners have long since left. Now, to be clear, this doesn't necessarily mean that you need RNG to have an interesting game. RNG is just one of a few possible ways to keep things from getting predictable- for instance, you can have an absolutely huge quantity of "build options" (like EVE) and that allows enough room for players themselves to be the unpredictable element (and also leads to a "metagame", which is almost always a good thing). But if you're trying to keep things "lean" and simple from a design standpoint, you need to be very aware of how easy it is to accidentally create something horribly bland. And you don't just need to avoid this in the "core gameplay loop", either- even individual system blandness can be really off-putting if it's bad enough. Being averse to using RNG where it might otherwise make things dynamic is a mistake. Anyway, that's my 2c, thanks
    2 points
  18. I'm surprised everyone is trying to figure out how thing would work if combat at release retained the same mechanics of the combat now. We're in pre-alpha by the way,just so you know. What i'm sure everyone would want to know is what is the final vision of the team on combat? Where do they want to go with it? (If the DEVs gave an extensive response on these questions i would build them a statue,but i suspect their answer would be we don't know yet T_T) Also,people,if you were expecting everything to work smootlhy while testing the combat of a pre-alpha i think you were getting something wrong. If you can't stand how combat is currently,stop and return in 3-4 months,or wait for the beta to judge instead of bashing everything. All i see in this thread is negativity,there is nothing constructive. And to add something in topic,no,i don't see a way to implement FF in a fun way with this kind of combat,i'm just hoping that the combat now is a placeholder to test all the functions around.I really doubt this is the final state of it as its clear to anyone it is not very fun right now.
    2 points
  19. its just, that FF is one of the biggest chance of small groups to have a chance against big zergs...
    2 points
  20. I'm pretty sure it's 100% out of the window but ACE doesn't want to let anyone know yet. They did say they would try it and see if it works, no? FF isn't make or break for me anyway, would be fun though.
    2 points
  21. It looks like a projectile to me ("an object propelled through the air, especially one thrown as a weapon") and it seems to be arched ("have the curved shape of an arch"). The assumption that the arrow isn't a real object in the game and that it can't be blocked by another object (players, walls) may be correct, but so far I've not read anything coming from the devs implying that it's the case.
    2 points
  22. You know what I meant, everybody knows what I meant. Are you evolving into a troll? Since you're forcing me to state the obvious... news flash: those AOEs aren't composed of projectiles. Anyone standing inside the circle gets the damage, there's no real projectile flying in the air and arcing. Standing in front of the ranger's bow wouldn't stop the AOE from happening, for example. Now look back at my post: "One more very sad thing to note: no arcing on projectiles whatsoever." projectiles projectiles ..
    2 points
  23. It's not only that man. Combat is SOO simplistic. There is no "figuring out" how to kill someone in this game, since obstacles like "healing" are usually not present. This might (and I hope) change with the introduction of the druid and other things, but right now it feels like I'm playing a very slow third person shooter with swords and magic. Combat currently caters to the COD generation, where people want to put little thought in to actually killing someone, they just want to do it. Right now on knight you basically: Stun them with 1 or 3 Knock them down Charge up 2 and let it loose Repeat. Maybe you try to pull them if they start running, but that skill is counter intuitive and if there's the slightest amount of lag, extremely unreliable in most situations. If you DO pull them, they go flying past you in the opposite direction. Maybe you block too, while walking slowly, inching towards them, as they laugh. Don't get me started on combos. When I heard they were going with a combo system, I assumed it was going to be something similar to DCUO (blair actually worked on this) or even better, BDO. Disappointment .
    2 points
  24. Would like to add that most of the time people don't like the removal of RNG simply because they're not used to play without it,and after it is removed they feel bad about it missing,not because RNG is essential or a meaningful mechanic. The only use RNG has is to simplify gameplay,nothing else. Edit: If you can't win without RNG,then off you go to another game please.Either get better or stop playing if that feels frustrating for you,don't you dare blame something like the lack of RNG for it.If you NEED RNG to win then clearly you're not playing the game properly.
    2 points
  25. 5 stars for the customer support! I had some account questions and Gordon and Pann got it sorted out within a day
    2 points
  26. JamesGoblin was officially sighted at citystategames on twitchTV on 3.11.16 at approximately 9:20pm EST extolling the virtues of Crowfall
    2 points
  27. I think most archetypes won't have split body animations, so far there's only the Champion ranged attack that works this way. https://youtu.be/13f1-w8IPsY?t=56m8s https://youtu.be/dcigy2eD9Jw?t=34m36s
    2 points
  28. Considering I said "seem to think," I'd wager it's my guesstimate of what he believes regarding the Ranger's design. It was formulated based on what he actually said in this thread (he did actually post) AND the contents of the post that he "like"ed. I don't feel that I've unreasonably forced words into his mouth. He simply seems to think all-stationary is the way to go and feel that mobile-shooting would only cause problems, and/or is simply a design he isn't interested in. Remove his name from my prior post and I'm still responding to a number of people's concerns about mobility breaking things. I don't know why it's noteworthy to question my general estimation of what Blair has expressed. It simultaneously addresses what I do know AND invites him or anyone else with further knowledge to correct me and/or further elaborate on the ideas and sentiments in question. Almost like... a forum made purely for collaborative discussion or something. O_O
    2 points
  29. 2 points
  30. he should come in here and explain then, as it seemed to have caused some confusion...
    2 points
  31. I'm quite calm, thank you. I apologize if it seemed like I was upset, but I'm simply a wordy fellow. I don't reserve multi-paragraph posts for when I'm irate. There are iterations yet to come, yet many in this thread (including ACE's own Thomas Blair) seem to think that any amount of movement in conjunction with archery attacks is archetype-breaking. I don't find it unreasonable to say "Please just consider this for future iterations." Do you?
    2 points
  32. I don't see anyone staying still with these types of changes. 70% movement speed is too fast, especially since you are going from the current design of 0% speed up to 70% speed (and we don't even know how much momentum attacks will keep when implemented). The charge cap doesn't reduce dps and only would reduce burst potential and consume more arrows (50% charge means 50% damage, but also means 50% less time charging), so the severity of this drawback depends on arrow scarcity. To reduce dps you would need to slow the charge time as well. But the more penalties you put on movement, the less people will move while firing, and instead will revert back to staying still while firing and then re-positioning, which is what the current design is. If you can move while firing, the melee tray becomes less necessary, and really it is a waste if it is only the out-of-arrow combat tray. They have already stated they are not balancing the game on any 1v1 scenario. So 1v1 fun is not part of the stated design intent. There will be archetypes that are just better and more fun 1v1. If the Ranger needs more mobility in a group setting, it should get it, but that sort of balancing will happen later.
    2 points
  33. Shout out to Pang for doing werk in this thread. The only way I see PVE being adapted into this game is as a secondary system to provide crafting resources and minor obstacles in the world. I don't know why people keep forgetting this is going to be a game about PVP. It's not about killing some big, scary pile of pixels that has the same strategy over and over. We have games for that. It's about creating relationships: enemies and friends. Allies and nemesis'. It's about the people. Any AI that comes into play is going to serve that Unity of Vision. Also on the note of user created content: Don't. It'll be bad. And people will feel bad.
    2 points
  34. I think the main problem with a lot of concerns right now is that it doesn't even seem like the devs know what they want to do. It's like they're trying to make a game with strategy/tactics/etc. while trying to make action combat but slowing it down to allow for the slower strategies/tactics to work. So it seems like the end product is gonna end up being some sort of broken half/half thing because they can't commit to what they really want to do. If they want a slow-ish strategy/tactic-based game they should have just gone with traditional tab-target combat. If they want an action combat game then they need to speed things up and forget about trying to force the combat to be slow with long animations, rooting, etc. You can't really combine these 2 things and just hope for the best, which is what it seems like they're trying to do, sadly.
    2 points
  35. Just read it. I gonna go buy an extra ship now in Star Citizen... . ... ... . Damn! Guys! People! There must be a way out of this Dark Age of (Online) Gaming! Somehow! Somewhere! Why are you all blind and celebrate such pitiful, awful jokes of online games like The Devision?! Wake up! Its 2016 now already! There must be more than this, there have to be! Whats wrong with this gaming industry? Everything it seems!
    2 points
  36. You get it. Most ppl here understand it. Question is : Does Ace get it ?
    2 points
  37. Heres a fix for everything lol . Allow ranger to attack while moving but implement a 30% movement reduction while charging her shot, cap the charge at 50% while moving and if possible, make the accuracy decrease 5% (its a bow so no recoil penalty). If you implement something like that. It will probably make people want to try snd sit still to get a harder hitting shot thats easier to hit, but will keep ranger vs ranger fun.
    2 points
  38. Reinventing the wheel again....... Worried about kiting ? Ranger has 50-75% speed while shooting / charing shoot / 2 sec after shooting. Bunny hoping ? While jumping 1 hit = knockdown. Way better then Ranger not being able to move at all in Ranged tray and then magicly jumping more then her shooting distance when she switches to Melee tray.... like... what teh f ?
    2 points
  39. I would prefer being able to move during most attacks, at a slower walking speed and maybe even an accuracy debuff of some kind. But overall I'm in favor of what ever works best for the game regardless of what my personal preference is. If being more stationary works for the best then so be it.
    2 points
  40. I fully understand the difficulty of creating such systems, I'm actually working on making a game myself (a top down PvP focused melee combat game heavily inspired by Dark Souls).. I agree that creating tons of mini game systems and such for gear can be quite difficult. Randomness in crafting and such isn't as important to me, personally.. However, I have a different feeling from most about vertical progression in general. I don't like it. I prefer diagonal with a heavy focus on giving capabilities/variety instead of raw power. This discussion doesn't belong here though lol so I'll stay off of that. I need to refocus lol, I let myself go onto a bit of a rant. The main thing I wanted to address in your post was the statement about headshots. I don't like headshots. They don't require a tactical or strategic decision (well they do a little bit.. but it can be mitigated by reaction and coordination. The decision is whether or not you want to spend the time and mental energy trying to focus in for the headshot or just go for the quick and easy body shot.. but I don't think it's enough.. especially with how heavily mitigated that decision can be with enough training.. it can get to be almost a non-decision). I prefer "crits" or boosted damage to be based on actual tactics and decisions. Hitting in the back is meaningful. It means that you flanked them or that you evaded an attack and got behind them or something tactical. Hitting an enemy while they're in some vulnerable state.. like while they're winding up an attack and exposed or after they did some big attack like some spin move that leaves them vulnerable for a little bit or if they were hit with a status. Things of that nature.. decisions.. responding to the current state of the fight/predicting what your opponent might do so you hit them during a vulnerable frame. That's key in general, though. Predicting, not reacting... tactics, not hand eye coordination. Those work better in an online game anyway, since there's always lag to deal with. Extremely tight reactions and extremely tight hand eye coordination don't really mean anything when lag is present.
    2 points
  41. How does the RNG make the engagements interesting? They just do things randomly. As far as being varied, they CAN make it more varied.. but only if the core combat mechanics didn't make the gameplay naturally varied. Look at BattleCon. It's a COMPLETELY 100% deterministic game in terms of ability resolutions and there's no random card draw or dice rolls or anything. Any action you take will always have the same result. It's also turn based... however since the game is SIMULTANEOUS turn based, you need to predict your opponent's tactics and strategy. This creates an extremely engaging and varied experience. You don't need artificial randomness (like crits, special effect procs, random misses/blocks/dodges/ect) to create a varied and interesting fight. RNG doesn't even necessarily make a fight varied. A lot of RPGs have tons of unnecessary RNG but you still end up playing out the same ability cycles anyway. It doesn't really change anything in a lot of cases. Simply putting enough depth and counterplay into the game will cause natural variation due to the player's choices. This is the type of combat I want to see in Crowfall. RNG is just a crutch to make a fight "interesting" and "varied" when you failed to make the actual mechanics have enough counterplay to prevent obvious and consistently repetitive interactions.
    2 points
  42. If people actually hated rng, they'd hate the tetris style rng of the map generating system (name escapes me). You don't intrinsically hate rng, you just hate rng in a style you've considered to represent rng. The skinner box wouldn't work if people hated rng. IN FACT I think you actually deeply appreciate RNG, and just hate how its been hackily executed in the past and shoved into games lazily.
    2 points
  43. People whining about RNG imo. don't have a full grasp of what they're saying. You don't dislike RNG, you dislike a style of RNG you've encountered in the past. There are too many factors in RNG to simply go "durr rng sucks" its like saying you dislike pie, when you actually dislike cake. They're deserts. RNG is as broad as that, at the least.
    2 points
  44. I think the best way to simulate variation in actions is to have an accuracy condition on all actions. Similarly to hitting a head shot in a shooter, if your melee attack has a 90 degree cone in front of you, the center could cause full damage while the outer edges of the cone can produced marginally less damage. This makes room for achievers to outperform other players by angling and avoiding the sweet spot of an attack hit box on opponents. If the game calculates the side of the opponent and how closely to center, or to the sweet spot in your strike box you land an action on a foe, you'd have a system where varied results can occur in a deliberate manner that rewards skill. For a projectile, it could generate more damage based on how close your attack is to center, for a spell it may have greater damage up close, or at center, for special weapon interactions, something like a spear may deal more damage at the second half of the hit box and less at point blank. Operation and understanding of your own hit boxes and your opponents can allow you to manipulate your actions to more efficiently attack and receive attacks to outplay your foe. That would be far more desirable than RNG.
    2 points
  45. How it looks to me so far: When i'll be able to put her face on sonic instead is the time you'll get me into testing.
    1 point
  46. Hm, I'm kinda liking the slower combat style. Don't get me wrong, it's still has plenty of chinks and needs to be way smoother, but overall the speed doesn't really bug me. And honestly if you're going for a less mobile ranged character, I can understand that and it can be fun, since complete mobility with range could make her quite OP (not that you're going for Archetype balance, but I think you know what I mean). However, when she switches to melee, I think complete mobility is necessary. I mean, the whole purpose of it is to be able to hold her own for a bit before backing off and switching to her bow and arrows again. It's not a long-standing form (unless she promotes to make it more so) and exists only to give her a chance to survive and escape to a safe distance. So I definitely think mobility is a must. Stationary with a bow, mobile with blades. Just my two cents, loving the progress ACE <3 Oh, and out of curiosity: smoothing out combat is obvious and I'd be surprised (and a little put off) if a dev came on and said "Nope! This is what the end's gonna look like!" Obviously there will be changes, but I wanna know something. Is the end-goal for combat going to be much faster than this, or is the speed of combat going to be about the same (with smoother transitions and bringing skills down to spec, of course)? Are certain Archetypes going to be faster in combat that others, or will there be skills in the trees specifically oriented towards speeding up powers and normal attacks? I know you guys mentioned increases to movement speed, but attack speed? I don't think I've seen that mentioned.
    1 point
  47. What happens at level 20 that makes TERA combat feel much better? Tried it but only got to level 10 because pve questing puts me in a coma these days
    1 point
  48. If it's completely luck based, I'm actually fine with it. As long as it's not some type of "I can train up my "lucky percentage" and it will happen more likely. If it's in the game as a backup for all archetypes, of equal percentage, I'm fine. I'm fine losing a keep to a centaur from getting kicked, if that same luck he got, I used to steal a ton of gold from some bandits earlier in the month.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...