Tab vs Action Combat Philosphy

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

To clarify, you're being told, by testers and 'people who have been debating this on forums for months' that the aspects you're referring to are already covered, tested and verified in large scale battles, and function effectively at up to about 120ms ping (at last check).

The bulk of discussion on these forums relative to Action vs. Tab isn't 'can this be implemented', it is 'whether or not people will be happy with a given way it is implemented', and 90% of that is related to 'can I use this UI and still be effective'.

There have been a few complaints about 'not being able to hit anything due to lag' from what seems to be a minority, but we expect this because the two suggested methods for dealing with it haven't been showcased (possibly implemented) yet.

Might be arrogance/bias but I don't think we had anyone argue too strongly against the suggested methods, either, so we're moreso 'waiting on the next update' than 'concerned about the philosophy. That is what @maouw is trying to tell you.

EDIT: Reddit User profile data scrape completed, longtime Reddit user, poster, etc that appears to be 'late to forums'. Suggest: Wait for @beaushinkle to get up to speed on forum half of this discussion type. If they were already tracking forums, only then is this level of correction 'valid'.

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

Let me clarify.

I too am a fighting game player. I am part of a team of them. I teach people to play them. I know what you are talking about and I have been explaining to others why it is the way it is and how we need to work around it, for a while now.

What I am telling you is, that in all that time of doing so, of debate, clarifying information for players, talking about these aspects, etc, we have not generally had a difficulty in discussion of how to implement Action Combat in ways that would help deal with it.

What we have had is effectively:

"Ok guys so after much discussion this is how most of us believe Intrepid should implement Action Combat to make the game skillful, challenging, and get around most of the obvious netcode problems."
"Most people agree one way or another eventually, a subset of people argue against the very idea of basic principles required to achieve it, disliking either Action Combat or 'having to do certain things'."

You do not need to convince anyone or possibly even explain what the model should be like. We have a model. We technically have three models.

Disagreements occur because some people are arguing against the very idea of things like 'soft lock targeting', 'multi hit combo systems', 'using WASD-attacks instead of split body movement to help the server and players see predictable hitboxes', 'projectile behaviour', 'hurtboxes on large monsters and behavioural interactions intended to enable Tab Target players'.

So it may be harder to get traction on your posts, since it's 'stuff that has been covered already'. The people you need to convince are not 'those who have concerns about implementation', it's 'those who don't care about yomi', 'those who don't care about netcode', 'those who don't want different attack buttons because it makes the game too Actiony'.

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

That of course depends entirely on who you are talking to...

The last 'most basic Compilation' from the oldest thread was:

1. Sideways and forward animations for the Q/LMB to add variety and evasion ability, along with chase options, while either neutral Q/LMB or S+Q/LMB prevents any forward movement while attacking.
2. A Brace option that reduces damage and blocks CC unless the enemy has 'Overwhelm' on their ability. Some stamina cost here.
3. Possibly a small stamina cost for some versions of those directional Q abilities so we can have movement but not eternally.
4. Gated strings with different attack animations (we already have a combo attack like this, but some posters have asked for more variety)
5. Limitations on the usability of certain skills when the enemy is out of its attack cone, regardless of your Tab Target.
6. 'Sticky reticle' behaviour to enhance targeting, possibly assisting with the Tab Targeting itself, but not requiring it, to make the transitions between Tab and Action easier
7. Ability to dodge twice before Dodge Cooldown fully triggers (Dodge retains a stamina cost). E.g. Dodge once and it 'recharges your first dodge' but you have another you can always use. Dodge twice and now you can't dodge again until recharged.
8. Some telegraphs of the attack vector or cone of abilities (especially those that can be varied through augments)
9. A stamina cost tied to jumping (perhaps only when weapons drawn).

Recent further discussions have been based mainly around the fact that the Split Body Combat has some definite support, a concern due to its tendency to make the hit resolution more difficult relative to the Sideways (WASD) option. If you want to know how that one went (probably the most relevant to you) you can check that one here .

I'm sure you've seen much of this feedback since you track the game closely, but maybe not this half.

Other discussions recently have been more focused on hitbox/hurtbox interactions between mobs and players so that PvE isn't terrible while still maintaining PvP and even Tab Target PvP as viable. Ongoing.

So as of now, multiple people are in support of using more 'set movements' and brace/blocking to help with netcode issues, given that the current gameplay seems to be server authenticated (this may change, or may just have been implemented so well that we can't tell the issue, even in Sieges). Attack animations allowing you to proc things on the third or 4th hit which is itself a more committed attack, to allow for whiff punishes and similar.

Soft-lock/sticky Reticle, some arguments have been given for how to allow this to retain some RNG elements, others have spoken out against any RNG for Accuracy and Evasion, debate ongoing relative to iFrames, but these are minor. The current tilt is 'away from iFrames' which would also help a bit with the netcode concerns, and I personally have suggested 'factoring how precise one's targeting is relative to the reticle' to determine how much Accuracy and Evasion multipliers to use, basically 'fuzzy hurtboxes' in total implementation, to remove some of the 'hit or not hit' lag/rollback artifacts.

So overall, 'how it's going' is best understood by reading some or all of the 'Melee Combat Feedback Post 7/30 Livesetream' thread. Let us/Intrepid know where you stand.

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

I didn't figure you'd want to slog through all of this one . In either case, if that was the conclusion, I'm glad that I pointed you to read them instead of just asserting anything. I'm sure my own bias about 'what people understand or don't' came in.

The other part you're missing is the threads from the Alpha Test forum itself, which aren't all 'stuff non-testers can't see', but rather because they could be that, there are some. I don't think it will affect your final conclusion though.

So, please proceed, I'll hope for your efforts at consensus to be fruitful. In case it helps, here's yet another data compilation that you may be able to use to get a general idea of... something.

We have not received permission from beaushinkle to share the quoted post.

As of the timing of the main conclusions of those threads, the general perception of players seemed to be 'it's Alpha One, let's wait and see the Combat Revamp'.

It is unclear whether or not the Combat Revamp was 'delivered' as Intrepid intended it. What we got was the 7/30 Livestream related Split Body Combat option, hence the reference to it and my personal concern over the test and the 'strong support' the change received.

As of now, I personally am waiting for the next Development Livestream on this Friday to see what, if any modifications have been made to Combat. By the nature of the 'stance I took during Compilation' I neither expect nor 'want' any direct Dev contact, as the topic is still 'sensitive' and it's easier for Intrepid when people aren't complaining directly at them about every little aspect.

Therefore, if I may suggest, please add anything you have in mind, and wait until Friday. The reasoning is simply as mentioned before. Those who explicitly want Action Combat have managed to pare down most of their disagreements to something sort-of workable, (with the Split body vs Root Motion being the big issue now), so any discussion against the main models tends to be 'I don't want to need to play Action'.

The Content Creator scene is something I don't have full view of yet, due to time. The ones I'm aware of tend to be either 'don't care', 'play Mage', 'think Intrepid should maybe give up on Action Combat', but I only know about 8 of them in terms of 'watched their content seriously', so far.

The current flow for Action/Hybrid Combat fans is just 'design and clarify as much as we possibly can' just in case Intrepid needs the feedback or 'help' in terms of definitions, but as you saw from the Combat Discussion thread, there's a lot of information that needs to be covered for players. Your links do a lot of this, it's just that you haven't got much of a response yet from many 'people who don't like the model, don't fully understand, or don't agree'.

One could carry on therefore assuming 'well that means if they implement it, it should be fine', but as noted, there are other threads you can't see.

As for the other aspect I forgot to clarify (this might be repetition), we've tested exactly how most things work in the Alpha-1 client, so, for example, projectile based skills act as Projectiles even when Tab Targeted, leading to the somewhat funny situation of a Light Spear attempting to home in on a target and ending up circling them due to the usual arc resolution issue.

Skills work in Action Targeting mode fairly naturally, but attack cones are not all tuned yet. So, given that, is there anything you'd want to note for this thread? I believe we've been holding off on 'discussion of targeting' because Melee attack cones are currently 180+ degrees in most cases, and any changes of these will constitute a significant change that will likely cause another debate.

I'd assume that your position would be 'no, that cone is too big, it doesn't allow for outplay or mind games', but I have learned not to assume anything.