Feedback talk:User/Kuby8388/Brawling

Go here to see a list of my other GW2 suggestions and discussion contributions.

I don't speak from experience in playing any of the betas. However, I have watched several hours worth of video of the betas and - based on what I've seen to date - I have to agree with you. The art is absolutely gorgeous, but the combat interactions are lacking.

I also agree with you regarding not having any real solid suggestions, either. I'll start with what I consider the easier of the two issues to tackle.

Combat Interactions

First, the combat interactions; there aren't any. Well, it would be more fair to say they are too subtle rather than non-existent; but if they're so subtle as to be barely noticeable, they might as well be non-existent. By combat interactions I mean connection with targets, impact, recoil, rebound, vibration, shuddering, shaking, etc. As it appears now, either (a) all weapons in the game are massless and cause no visible impact on their targets or (b) everyone is infinitely massive such that no amount of contact with a weapon will result in a visible impact.

Players and enemies take blow after blow from all manner of weapons and spells yet don't even so much as flinch. Because this runs counter to our personal real-world experiences, there's a disconnect when playing the game. I've read many posts which have complained of this but have been unable to articulate it; it's been couched in vague terms such as the "feel" of the combat isn't right, it's "floaty", "unreal", "disconnected", or other similar words.

What it comes down to is there is a lack of real-world physics modeling. I realize it's a fantasy game, but the more you can establish a connection with what players know to be real in their own experience - even if its subconscious - the more immersive the game. Everyone knows if you get hit by an object that weighs a lot, is moving fast, or both, you're going to recoil from the impact. But that's not happening in the game; thus the disconnect.

As the easier of the two issues I will be addressing here, this one has obvious remedies. The problem is whether they can be implemented at this late stage of development. Ideally, every impact of weapon or spell on an enemy or player would cause the model to recoil. Furthermore, the recoil should be localized. For example, shooting a giant boss enemy with a little arrow isn't sufficient mass to cause the much greater mass of the boss to recoil. However, the pain of the impact would cause that portion of the boss' body to recoil. If shot in the shoulder, the boss' shoulder should move in a direction directly away from the point of impact. By contrast, shooting a scrawny Skritt with that same arrow would not only cause a localized pain recoil, but may indeed be sufficient to cause the entire Skritt to be pushed back a foot or two from the energy of impact relative to the mass of the Skritt.

Unfortunately, as I said, it's probably too late to animate these types of realistic reactions into the character, NPC, and enemy models now. The compromise is to simply make everyone (players and enemies) get pushed back a bit when taking a blow and/or have a single generic impact reaction animation for each model (which might already exist). It might become repetitive looking after awhile but it's better than just standing there unfazed by the impacts they're receiving.

Another solution which could be added in conjunction with the slight push back and impact reaction from above is to add an impact animation for each weapon and spell. Since it's probably too late to animate localized recoil animations for every model, this works as a substitute. For example, that arrow fired at the boss above will display an impact animation when it hits. I'm not suggesting a spurt of blood at the point of contact. Instead, in the case of the arrow, it could be a semi-transparent expanding ring of a light color, for example. In my head I'm seeing the equivalent of what it would look like to drop a stone in a pond with expanding concentric circles moving out from the point of impact and quickly fading out. This, in conjunction with the push back and generic impact reaction animation, would give at least some sense of connection between the arrow, it's impact, and the target. Each weapon (or class of weapons) and skill (or class of skills) would have their own impact animations. Though that might sound like a lot, it's certainly less than adding localized impact animations to every character and every enemy in the game.

Now, to tie it all together, add realistic reactions to the character or enemy using a weapon or spell. I realize there already exist weapon-use and spell-casting animations. However, those are tied more to the skill itself rather than the physical effect it has on the character or enemy using the skill. The best way I can demonstrate this is by example. Go to the video the OP linked to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orwa-lr8ECU). Watch the Charr who's firing the rifle (there's one at 0:22 and again at 1:26); there's a massive recoil. What's more is - in my opinion anyway - it looks really cool. But why? It's just a generic recoil from firing a rifle, right? No big deal. Now imagine the same Charr firing that rifle and not recoiling. It would look really...odd...wouldn't you agree? Why? Because it would be a disconnect between what we're seeing on the screen and what we know exists in the real world and our personal experience (especially for anyone who's ever fired a rifle). If the Charr didn't recoil, it wouldn't look real; which translates into breaking the game's immersion. This is an example of where the devs got it "right" with regards to the reaction of using a weapon.

Contrast this with the Ranger in the same video using the bow. Though I fully agree that a bow has nowhere near the recoil of a rifle, there's still some recoil involved. Yet this ranger must have the strongest bow arm in the known universe because there's practically no recoil at all. He just runs around with that bow arm outstretched as if forged from a block of pure titanium. To be fair, there is some reaction to the firing of the bow (and I'm referring to his left arm holding the bow, not the right arm pulling the bowstring); but it's so subtle it could be removed and you'd have a hard time telling the difference. The consequence is the bow has no sense of weight or mass and no effect on the Ranger when firing an arrow. The same could be said of the sword-wielders. Short of cleanly cleaving an enemy in two, every impact of the sword (or axe, or hammer, or mace, etc.) on a target should make the sword arm vibrate or shudder. Without this sense of mass, impact, and equal-but-opposite reaction, it leads to a sense of disconnection between the game world and what we know (even if only subconsciously) of the physics of the real world; this breaks immersion.

Lastly, on this topic, is the sense of kinetic impact. In a visual medium there's no way to convey this kinetically; short of wearing a full-body virtual reality suit, players are not physically experiencing the impacts witnessed in the game. To compensate for this, a common technique is to make the screen "shake" to indicate an impact. This can be done well and it can be done poorly; there's a fine balance between an amount that adds to the gaming experience versus an amount that distracts and detracts from the gaming experience. Since ArenaNet stated they were going to look into adding more of this shaking and vibrating to better indicate when a weapon or spell makes an impact, I'll withhold an opinion until I see the results. But while adding these shaking and vibrating effects, I also hope they will be working with the sound engineers to add impact noises which coincide with the visual effects.

In summary, the illusion of cause-and-effect and connection between game elements should be maintained down to the smallest detail and at all levels. The more this is done, the closer it comes to matching our personal experience in the real world; this translates into less suspension of disbelief on the part of the players and greater game immersion.

Combat Mechanics

This topic is perhaps the more difficult of the two to tackle. The former had simple solutions which involve adding or changing animations. This one is much more subjective and has more to do with the "experience" of the game's combat rather than quick and easy (comparatively speaking) technical changes.

I agree with the OP assessment that the combat is somewhat one-dimensional. Auto-attacking, auto-targeting, and auto-orienting a character to face the enemy all lead to less direct involvement of the player in the combat. I realize the alternative of making players having to micro-manage every combat action won't work, either. It would become overly complex and would alienate many of the current fan base; especially in light of their past experience with Guild Wars 1's static combat mechanics in which players didn't even have the option to move while using their skills.

So, how to make the combat more engaging/involving/immersive without also making it overly complex? I don't have a real good solution within the context of Guild Wars 2's current combat mechanics.

Mostly what I have to offer are observations of what I've seen in videos or what the OP offered as examples of how the combat isn't working with follow-up suggestions on how that particular observation or example could be improved upon.

First of all, bosses that just stand there while being ganked/mobbed/nuked by a few dozen players.

This is just unrealistic. Unless the boss is defending something of such value to it that it is willing to die rather than retreat, this just doesn't work. Since bosses are almost always the antagonist, this explanation falls short. In most cases, bosses aren't there defending something, they're there to attack something; it's the players who are the defenders. Watching as bosses stand there as if wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" across it while player after player lob AoE nuke after nuke on it just gets silly after awhile. It's even worse when a boss is a dragon who can fly away from the scene of battle if need be, yet will continue standing there getting nuked to death. If it were me, I'd certainly fly away if I was down to 10% of my health; why doesn't the dragon? Or, conversely, if there's a weakness or opening in the players' front line, why doesn't the dragon charge through it or otherwise decide, "To hell with this! I'm just going to leap over their heads and go ransack that village a couple miles away where the pickin's are easier.".

I understand the need to compartmentalize a game's challenges, retain control over spawn points, the flow of the storyline, etc. So I do "get it" why The Shatterer, for example, isn't allowed free reign over all of Tyria and is, instead, limited to just the Blazeridge Steppes or wherever he (she?) spawns. Even with such restrictions though, I'd still prefer to see a boss who acts in its own best interests rather than devolving into an elaborately animated target for the players to shoot at. At a minimum, let the bosses move around within their theatre rather than be rooted to a specific location.

Before anyone counters that The Shatterer does move around, that's not what I mean. Yes, The Shatterer will fly up into the air on occassion, whip its tail around on occassion, rear up on its hind legs on occassion. But it's always done within a confined circle outside of which The Shatterer will not trespass. After flying up in the air, The Shatterer returns to the same location it launched from. After whipping its tail around, its right back to the same spot it started at. Let The Shatterer loose! Let it roam around the battlefield, let it attack the cannon or mortar (and crew) that's giving it the most grief, let it attempt to avoid enemy (player) fire, let this battle become a running fire-fight ranging across the countryside with a swath of destruction in its wake. Let The Shatterer (or any boss) be a moving threat rather than the stationary target at a shooting gallery.

Lack of Combat Variety

The OP wrote:

"Overflow of players ganking a melee mob/bosses makes combat simply about spamming."

and:

"That is the case in PVP, but in PVE you can't kite with a melee weapon. This makes the option of range weapon more dominate than melee in PVE, so what happens is you would see 2-3 guys tanking in the front while 5-10 guys just spamming auto-attacks & random skills from the back. It is simple meat shield + spam, and not very fun."

The theme here is one of a lack of variety in the combat mechanics. There are plenty of skills to choose from. Unfortunately, how those skills are used in combat lacks variety; it devolves into spamming with weapon skill #1 or, worse, putting weapon skill #1 on auto-attack. In some of the battles I've watched the players could have set themselves to auto-attack and simply walked away to go get a cup of coffee; that's how unengaging the combat was.

Again, this is a very subjective and nebulous area of discussion.

One suggestion for making combat more interactive as well as increasing the role of meleeists is to implement a system of rock-paper-scissors skill counters. This isn't anything new or revolutionary; it's been used in fighting games for decades. The reason it's been used in fighting games for decades, though, is because it works. I'm defining works as a combat mechanic which directly engages the player in the fight on a button-by-button push and makes their choices of what skills to use and when have a decided impact on the outcome of the battle.

For example, weapon skill #1 counters weapon skill #2, weapon skill #2 counters weapon skill #3, and weapon skill #3 counters weapon skill #1. By implementing this kind of counter system, players not only have to consider what beneficial effect they get from using the skill, but also how it can be used to counter an enemy's attack. Now they have to consider the cost:benefit of using the skill for its stated purpose or holding it in reserve as a counter. When used as a counter, it will not do any damage or trigger any of its effects; it will simply cancel the opponent's skill. Enemies would also have this ability; they could cancel players' skills by using the appropriate counter-skill. This might give players incentive to do more than just spam weapon skill #1.

Another option, either instead of or in addition to the above, is to create a "block" or "parry" move. Perhaps this could be tied to the Endurance meter; each use of a "parry" or "block" move will deplete the meter by some amount. This was also suggested by the OP:

"Implement a second dodge designed only for melee purposes (ie.a weapon block or evasion against auto-attacks from mob(s))."

and:

"In the game I posted "Gunz", after you block a blow you receive a stun massive which you can use back at the enemy."

To answer the question of why bother using a "block" or "parry" move when we already have the "dodge" mechanic, I would suggest the following:

• The "block" or "parry" move would use less endurance than the "dodge" move per use; maybe 25% of Endurance as compared to "dodge's" 50%.

• Unlike "dodge", "block" or "parry" does not move the player away from their target; they get to stay within melee range if they were that close to their target to begin with.

• Lastly, unlike "dodge" which commits the player to that movement for its entire animation cycle, "block" or "parry" will permit the player using it to immediately follow-up with an attack of their own.

Also, per the OP's original suggestion, perhaps a successful "block" or "parry" will confer some additional benefit such as gaining a stun which can then be used against the opponent who was blocked or parried; it's the reward for having displayed sufficient skill in timing their "block" or "parry". It might require making a few successful blocks or parries to gain this reward. For example, a small meter above the skill bar fills up after each successful block or parry. Make three successful consecutive blocks or parries and now the player can use a stun against their target by pressing the same key assigned to the "block" or "parry" move.

Furthermore, make it so the "block" or "parry" would only spare the player from receiving damage from their current target; it won't protect them from AoEs or from taking hits from enemies other than their current target.

All of these factors then have to weighed by the player to decide when to use "dodge" versus when to use "block" or "parry". The "dodge" mechanic would largely be used for getting out of a bad situation/AoE while "block" or "parry" would be used more often in one-on-one or melee fights. This would further the goal of adding variety to combat (especially melee) rather than exclusively relying on weapon skill #1 auto-attack.

Lastly, make positioning influence damage. I realize there are currently skills or traits which increase some proffessions' damage if they manage to hit a target from the side or from behind. However, I'm suggesting making this universal rather than limited to the handful of skills and traits that currently employ flanking to advantage.

I'm not suggesting removing those skills or traits; especially as many of them trigger additional effects beyond merely increasing damage. Instead, simply add increased damage modifiers for any flanking or rear attacks as well as an improved chance to make a critical hit if striking from the side or from behind. The increases don't have to be so great as to permit "one-shotting" bosses. To the contrary, the increases can be modest; a flanking strike may increase damage 2.5% while striking from the rear increases damage by 5%, for example (or whatever testing reveals to be the best percentages). By implementing these damage and critical hit modifiers, it rewards players who take advantage of body positioning rather than just standing toe-to-toe with an enemy while spamming weapon skill #1 ad nauseum.

All of the above suggestions are intended to apply to enemies, as well; they, too, could use weapon skill counters, block and parry the players' attacks, and increase damage and crit chances from flanking and rear attacks. These additional skills could even be scaled according to an enemy's "intelligence". A deer, for example, probably won't be expert at countering a player's weapon skills. The Kraitt or a boss, however, would be devastatingly effective at utilizing the entire spectrum of these additional combat mechanics. There is even an opportunity to add some scaling within a single race. For example, a single Skritt may only manage to use flanking attacks and none of the other more sophisticated combat mechanics. Put a group of Skritt together, though, and - benefitting from their hive mind - they will start to use more and more of these skills as their numbers grow.

Taken together, these suggestion would create the opportunity for much more engaging combat in which players are taking an active role rather than fighting on auto-pilot. The other advantage is it doesn't prevent players from relying on auto-attack, auto-target, auto-facing, etc. If someone wants to play that way, there's no penalty to them for doing so; just walk up to an enemy and knock yourself out spamming weapon skill #1 to your heart's content. For those players who want a more engaging combat experience, though, their effort in timing their skills, positioning their characters, and weighing pros and cons of what skills to use and when will be rewarded with blocks, extra damage, and counters. All of this feeds into what has become an axiom of Guild Wars: "Easy to learn, hard to master".

Thank you for reading. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)