Ashes NEEDS these combat changes – Ashes of Creation



Read more about Ashes of Creation ➜ https://ashesofcreation.mgn.tv

Overview of Ashes of Creation’s combat systems, giving direct feedback to Intrepid Studios on how to make combat good. Surma then analyzes combat in its current ALPHA state and compares and contrasts Ashes of Creation’s combat against Retail World of Warcraft (WOW) and Classic World of Warcraft (WOW) (as well as some other games (Spellbreak, Chivalry 2, Call of Duty, New World, etc.). At the conclusion, Surma offers direct and concrete feedback on how to make Ashes of Creation’s combat amazing!

source

2 thoughts on “Ashes NEEDS these combat changes – Ashes of Creation”

  1. You are equating auto attacks with generic/weapon basic attacks that are class/energy agnostic.
    Understandable with the literary verbage used to differentiate it from specialist skills, but wrong in the functional sense.
    They are two different things.
    If basic-attacks are meaningless and irrelevant, there is no point in having them.
    Yet as you said, they are also there for when you dont have energy streams required for specialist skills, rather than stand there doing nothing, complaining about the massive cooldowns on the overpowered skills you just deployed.

    You dont need a larger spell book to have niche capability. You need to have a larger pool of spells to select from and place into that spell book. Choice, risk & reward, playstyle/class commitment. Thus having a smaller toolbar with a much wider selection to chose form, is what guarantees the widest variety of builds.

    That toolbar needs to be filled with situational slots. Some of those will be required categories for combat…movement +-, cc+-, damage+-, heal+-, mitgation+-, DoT+-, HoT+-..etc. The flavour of those required categories is what is provided by your class/build/playstyle. e.g push/pull/charge/escape are four unique and archtypal skills that are one duality group. Archetypes should excel in only one of these but not be omitted from using the others. Which means strength of effect is archetype dependant, which is where archetypal stat scope should come in anyway. Doenst mean any archetype has to focus into movement control skills rather than damage. But that would be their niche playstyle.

    Ashes is not WoW.
    Just because you are a WoW player does not mean that Ashes has to clone every detail of WoW.
    Using 're-inventing the WoW wheel', as a justification not to do things differently, is not a reason not to find better ways of doing things.
    That is simply a clone WoW request, in a different disguise.
    If you want a WoW clone…just play WoW.
    No WoW clone can/will ever be better than WoW.

    Having said that. A proper 'duality' counter measures skill system, with which to apply/negate degradation/enhancement effects, risk/reward skill system (aka commitment/time vs damage, rather than cancelling prematurely to avoid casting lock-in and still getting full damage, rather than using a low risk/damage skill without the casting/animation lock-in). Rock paper scissors system, driven by their own energy system to make skill specialisation a requirement and your preferred build/playstyle an impactful commitment. Which also means your build may not have the class based counter meausures required, if you play against an assymetric rather than opposing class (but that holds true for the adversary too..sacrifice/risk vs reward). Thats why you 'need' a proper multiway balanced duality system, with strength in one area countered with weakness in its opposite (and neutral between scope extremes as default), that is the very basis of the rock paper scissors system.

    Yet I also disagree with the whole concept of required/necessary rotations and tab targetting skills for similar reasons (as opposed to time consuming combo abilites as an alternative to channels). If you have time to stand there and run a repetitive script and win, you dont need to be there. A bot/macro can do that. No skill required. Tactile/mobile/responsive/fluid LMAO ? I am on the side of anything that makes botting impossible and genuine dynamic game play skill a necessity (ie using the right skill, on the right person, in the right place, at the right time, or be punished and lose. While not standing on the spot, unless you have first given yourself the time window to get away with that and cast a long spell/animation (aka risk vs reward)).

    On tab targetting, to me it is only required for single target skill, where there is multiple targets in the same cone of vision/action and thats arguable considering you should be hitting whatever happens to be the nearest object in the way and in range. Unless you use ground based AoE for drop range, rather than player based for direct melee/range.

    Truth be known, many games use soft vector targetting now, rather than exact precision hitboxes. They give you a degree of error/low skill window and allow you to merely point in the general direction (using a variable tolerance) to hit the target. Coupled with ground based targetting for range/area, these systems already appear a compromise between tab target and hitboxes. Range based angular diameter (world clipbox) vs player hitbox ? You can also use that vector 'tolerance' window to differentiate between low skill/level/damage/heal and high skill/level/damage/heal abilties. Soft vector targetting is like a new golfer playing with a handicap. Consider hitscans (instant) vs projectiles (dodgeable) too. A dualing game demands the opportunity for countermeasures. Otherwise you might as well be stunlocked to death.
    https://aiming.pro/hit-scan-projectiles-fps

    Reply

Leave a Comment