Dodge Roll vs Quick Step and Dash

Simply, I believe that dodge rolls should not have iFrames, because rolling is for movement first. I did like what I SEEMED to experience in Alpha-1 where it reduced damage taken from AoE, but I don't remember if I could roll INTO the enemy. Could depend on the AoE.

In a world where one is fighting huge dragons and such, dodge rolling makes a lot of sense because those sorts of things often attack with weight and force and your primary option for survival is to get out of the way so if Ashes must choose one, knowing that 'big AoE' PvE will likely be 'most focused/interesting' relative to that enemy type, I say 'rolls'. Sidesteps and hops are separate because they can't send you forward, and for some things, it's balanced.

If you're in PvP and are a very martial class, you are probably blocking or using a special ability dash, and even if you did roll, if it had no iFrames, you would only use it when you expected the same sort of big attack, or if you wanted to cover a lot of distance, which is what rolls are for.

Magical 4-directional dashes, short 8-directional sidesteps and long but slow 3-directional rolls. That the stuff I'd prefer to see.

Magic dashes feel fine cause they're magic. Short sidesteps are fine because they are realistic. Big rolls should only go forward and to the sides and would have to be very precisely timed if you wanted to avoid any attacks with them.

I could maybe see a rogue or a ranger doing a backflip or some shit, but I'd have to see the animation for it first. We've already seen the ranger doing some air pirouettes, so backflips wouldn't stand out as much, but it should still fit the overall movement style.

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

Because in many games, there's a limit to how far those abilities 'curve'.

There's a cone, even if you're tabbed, for some games, and you could just roll out of that range and the ability would not hit you anymore. You could roll behind cover. You could roll behind your tank. All these things should still work just fine even if there are literal homing arrows.

Usually, rolling is faster than running or walking, and costs stamina to do, in my experience.

.

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

Definitely. But you don't need any iframes to dodge-roll...
- out of range (or out of the tracking cone, i.e. too far left or right)
- behind a rock
- behind your tank
and have the arrow miss you.

Dodging like that that should definitely be made to work.

Like Azherae was saying, the point of dodging is to make one of those things happen, and have the arrow hit something other than you. You don't need iframes for that. Just don't let arrows do u-turns.

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

I'm not sure if you mean me personally or not, so I'm going to assume you don't mean me and answer this relative to Intrepid design as I experienced it.

Enemies don't seem to have 'projectile attacks' as often, and they can't 'know you're going to dodge' the way a player can, so they fire off their abilities without 'aiming'. This also means they use a few more 'ground lines' and so on.

Those abilities would then be blocked by terrain if you rolled, and whether or not they hit you anyway if you didn't get behind something would be up to the ability and their design style. Ground Lines and other things like that, the roll does the job by getting out of the way, and the damage reduction is the reward for 'doing the right thing but not quickly enough'.

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

I am not entirely sure but I THINK, counterintuitive as it is, that this is actually the OPPOSITE of how it works.

When you're smaller, you roll both less far, AND less quickly (by a tiny bit). Rolling in Armor, if one rolls correctly and your armor doesn't suck, is basically the same, the realistic thing might be to have it take more STAMINA to roll in heavy armor, but rolls are one of the 'movement types' that are least affected by this.

I'll absolutely accept correction from someone with more experience on this than me.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

So you want soft-lock to also require iFrames to avoid?