Animation Canceling - My point of view and reflection on the subject

Shunravi

cjthibs wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

Shardaxx wrote: »

I can't believe this is even a debate. Animation cancelling is stupid and annoying! For those people saying they should be able to cancel an animation and switch to block or another move, this would be fine but that's not what happens because your original move, the one you cancel, still fires and does damage! It's just a cheap trick to create massive burst damage as you can pull off multiple moves in a fraction of the time they are supposed to take to do!!

It's too bad AC is in the game, it sucks to fight a master of it. It's clearly not how the moves are supposed to behave, I just wish ZOS could fix it but clearly they can't.

The combat in this game works just like real life.

Yes....especially all the elemental magic and daedra summoning.

Yup. If this universe also had magic, you can bet im not going to just be standing there if my spells cast instantly.

Zyrudin

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay i can extend my blade for a thrust, immediately transition to a slash/cut, and then position to block/parry. Thats three actions. Lests say a light attack, a skill, and a block. With one long sword. Thats three actions in under a second. I do not wait for my "thrust animation" to finish and only use another attack after i have come back to my centered stance. And the slash doesnt look like a slah, it looks like i was moving to my block/parry.

If i was using a light onehanded sword, there is a very real chance i would have something in my offhand like a dagger, buckler, or shield, and everything above will still apply. With the added bonus of that offhand tool not simply sitting there waiting for my attacks to finish, but also actively blocking themselves. If i can knock an oponents sword hand with my buckler to throw his attack of and allow for mine to more easily connect, you can bet i will be leaving a bruise (damage) or outright stabbing his sword arm with my bash.

For people who want things realistic, animation canceling is far more realistic than alowing skills to finish.

Indeed, but you would still only deal damage when the sword actually connected.

Shunravi

Zyrudin wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay i can extend my blade for a thrust, immediately transition to a slash/cut, and then position to block/parry. Thats three actions. Lests say a light attack, a skill, and a block. With one long sword. Thats three actions in under a second. I do not wait for my "thrust animation" to finish and only use another attack after i have come back to my centered stance. And the slash doesnt look like a slah, it looks like i was moving to my block/parry.

If i was using a light onehanded sword, there is a very real chance i would have something in my offhand like a dagger, buckler, or shield, and everything above will still apply. With the added bonus of that offhand tool not simply sitting there waiting for my attacks to finish, but also actively blocking themselves. If i can knock an oponents sword hand with my buckler to throw his attack of and allow for mine to more easily connect, you can bet i will be leaving a bruise (damage) or outright stabbing his sword arm with my bash.

For people who want things realistic, animation canceling is far more realistic than alowing skills to finish.

Indeed, but you would still only deal damage when the sword actually connected.

Yup, in the game your oponent also has the ability to block, parry, and dodge. Just like here, they will mitigate any intended attack. If you do not mitigate every attack, then just like in real life, the damage goes through.

xblackroxe

Shardaxx wrote: »

I can't believe this is even a debate. Animation cancelling is stupid and annoying! For those people saying they should be able to cancel an animation and switch to block or another move, this would be fine but that's not what happens because your original move, the one you cancel, still fires and does damage! It's just a cheap trick to create massive burst damage as you can pull off multiple moves in a fraction of the time they are supposed to take to do!!

It's too bad AC is in the game, it sucks to fight a master of it. It's clearly not how the moves are supposed to behave, I just wish ZOS could fix it but clearly they can't.

This is not how animation cancelling works. Educate yourself before writing bs.

Shunravi

xblackroxe wrote: »

Shardaxx wrote: »

I can't believe this is even a debate. Animation cancelling is stupid and annoying! For those people saying they should be able to cancel an animation and switch to block or another move, this would be fine but that's not what happens because your original move, the one you cancel, still fires and does damage! It's just a cheap trick to create massive burst damage as you can pull off multiple moves in a fraction of the time they are supposed to take to do!!

It's too bad AC is in the game, it sucks to fight a master of it. It's clearly not how the moves are supposed to behave, I just wish ZOS could fix it but clearly they can't.

This is not how animation cancelling works. Educate yourself before writing bs.

^

Shunravi

Zyrudin wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay you do not return back all the way to your base stance every single action.

I wasn't the one who brought up that comparison.

I was adressing the subject not necessarily the comment.

Shunravi

Now if they made animations smoother between different things when you animation cancel, like in my earlier realism example, you would have an attack move into a skill, into a block and you can see it. Which is something i am very much in favor of. The issue would arise in the coding on zos part.

dday3six

Zyrudin wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay i can extend my blade for a thrust, immediately transition to a slash/cut, and then position to block/parry. Thats three actions. Lests say a light attack, a skill, and a block. With one long sword. Thats three actions in under a second. I do not wait for my "thrust animation" to finish and only use another attack after i have come back to my centered stance. And the slash doesnt look like a slah, it looks like i was moving to my block/parry.

If i was using a light onehanded sword, there is a very real chance i would have something in my offhand like a dagger, buckler, or shield, and everything above will still apply. With the added bonus of that offhand tool not simply sitting there waiting for my attacks to finish, but also actively blocking themselves. If i can knock an oponents sword hand with my buckler to throw his attack of and allow for mine to more easily connect, you can bet i will be leaving a bruise (damage) or outright stabbing his sword arm with my bash.

For people who want things realistic, animation canceling is far more realistic than alowing skills to finish.

Indeed, but you would still only deal damage when the sword actually connected.

Yes, but we are talking about a video game, and as I've previously stated it's the hit box and not the actual character model that needs to be hit. Most actions will still hit far put of the range of either the animation or the weapon length would appear to connect.

Likely this was done to avoid the phantom range that plagues games like Dark Souls. Where the hit box is much closer to the size of the character model, but because of the latency of server relay between online combatants a player can be hit still when visually the weapon or action did not actually make contact.

salmoncat33

While we are at it, down with block casting as well. It makes no sense to have a whole trials team blocking and still doing damage and healing at the same time.

cjthibs

dday3six wrote: »

Zyrudin wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay i can extend my blade for a thrust, immediately transition to a slash/cut, and then position to block/parry. Thats three actions. Lests say a light attack, a skill, and a block. With one long sword. Thats three actions in under a second. I do not wait for my "thrust animation" to finish and only use another attack after i have come back to my centered stance. And the slash doesnt look like a slah, it looks like i was moving to my block/parry.

If i was using a light onehanded sword, there is a very real chance i would have something in my offhand like a dagger, buckler, or shield, and everything above will still apply. With the added bonus of that offhand tool not simply sitting there waiting for my attacks to finish, but also actively blocking themselves. If i can knock an oponents sword hand with my buckler to throw his attack of and allow for mine to more easily connect, you can bet i will be leaving a bruise (damage) or outright stabbing his sword arm with my bash.

For people who want things realistic, animation canceling is far more realistic than alowing skills to finish.

Indeed, but you would still only deal damage when the sword actually connected.

Yes, but we are talking about a video game, and as I've previously stated it's the hit box and not the actual character model that needs to be hit. Most actions will still hit far put of the range of either the animation or the weapon length would appear to connect.

Likely this was done to avoid the phantom range that plagues games like Dark Souls. Where the hit box is much closer to the size of the character model, but because of the latency of server relay between online combatants a player can be hit still when visually the weapon or action did not actually make contact.

I think what he actually meant to say was that damage should be applied when the animation reaches a point where a hit would make sense. We all know the animations don't line up 100% of the time.

Shunravi

cjthibs wrote: »

dday3six wrote: »

Zyrudin wrote: »

Shunravi wrote: »

In real life swordplay i can extend my blade for a thrust, immediately transition to a slash/cut, and then position to block/parry. Thats three actions. Lests say a light attack, a skill, and a block. With one long sword. Thats three actions in under a second. I do not wait for my "thrust animation" to finish and only use another attack after i have come back to my centered stance. And the slash doesnt look like a slah, it looks like i was moving to my block/parry.

If i was using a light onehanded sword, there is a very real chance i would have something in my offhand like a dagger, buckler, or shield, and everything above will still apply. With the added bonus of that offhand tool not simply sitting there waiting for my attacks to finish, but also actively blocking themselves. If i can knock an oponents sword hand with my buckler to throw his attack of and allow for mine to more easily connect, you can bet i will be leaving a bruise (damage) or outright stabbing his sword arm with my bash.

For people who want things realistic, animation canceling is far more realistic than alowing skills to finish.

Indeed, but you would still only deal damage when the sword actually connected.

Yes, but we are talking about a video game, and as I've previously stated it's the hit box and not the actual character model that needs to be hit. Most actions will still hit far put of the range of either the animation or the weapon length would appear to connect.

Likely this was done to avoid the phantom range that plagues games like Dark Souls. Where the hit box is much closer to the size of the character model, but because of the latency of server relay between online combatants a player can be hit still when visually the weapon or action did not actually make contact.

I think what he actually meant to say was that damage should be applied when the animation reaches a point where a hit would make sense. We all know the animations don't line up 100% of the time.

Issues about when the game registers a strike vs when it shows on the animation are a very good point to bring up. Care to provide examples?

Isellskooma

If they remove animation canceling, I'm positive that 95% of actual good players would quit. Animation canceling is the only thing that separates terrible players and good players.
The game just wouldn't be fun anymore, everyone would be good.

Ermiq

Isellskooma wrote: »

If they remove animation canceling, I'm positive that 95% of actual good players would quit. Animation canceling is the only thing that separates terrible players and good players.
The game just wouldn't be fun anymore, everyone would be good.

I read such thoughts in every game in every discussion threads. But people still continue to play all that games, and there still are good players and bad players.
I think those who vote here for AC to stay as it is, don't even understand what the others talking to them. Nobody says that AC must be completely erased. Also AC doesn't turn bad player into good player automaticaly.
The thing is AC just doesn't work properly. AC is nessesary for game mechanics, yes. But in it's current state AC seems like a fundamental mistake in the game design. If the game was designed with blocks and other 'action' battle system attributes, then this game should work as an action game. If one player throws a fireball then his opponent should be able to react on this and block that fireball even if he was trying to cast something, yes. But if player blocking fireball, then his own spell he doesn't casted completely yet should be canceled. If some skill is an instant skill, then its animation should be placed in 0.9s GCD period. If some skill has animation longer than GCD period, then it's animation should be completed to deal a damage because it seems like that skill was designed as skill with a cast time longer than GCD. Also player shouldn't be able to fire light attack right after another skill even if that skill was instant because of GCD. In action game damage should be dealed only when the skill was completely finished. If the moment of damage deal is not bound to animation of the skill, then it's not an action game at all.

Xerton

Eremith wrote: »

Isellskooma wrote: »

If they remove animation canceling, I'm positive that 95% of actual good players would quit. Animation canceling is the only thing that separates terrible players and good players.
The game just wouldn't be fun anymore, everyone would be good.

I read such thoughts in every game in every discussion threads. But people still continue to play all that games, and there still are good players and bad players.
I think those who vote here for AC to stay as it is, don't even understand what the others talking to them. Nobody says that AC must be completely erased. Also AC doesn't turn bad player into good player automaticaly.
The thing is AC just doesn't work properly. AC is nessesary for game mechanics, yes. But in it's current state AC seems like a fundamental mistake in the game design. If the game was designed with blocks and other 'action' battle system attributes, then this game should work as an action game. If one player throws a fireball then his opponent should be able to react on this and block that fireball even if he was trying to cast something, yes. But if player blocking fireball, then his own spell he doesn't casted completely yet should be canceled. If some skill is an instant skill, then its animation should be placed in 0.9s GCD period. If some skill has animation longer than GCD period, then it's animation should be completed to deal a damage because it seems like that skill was designed as skill with a cast time longer than GCD. Also player shouldn't be able to fire light attack right after another skill even if that skill was instant because of GCD. In action game damage should be dealed only when the skill was completely finished. If the moment of damage deal is not bound to animation of the skill, then it's not an action game at all.

You guys don't understand what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the hardest content in this game?
If for example in vMoL HM my skills would not deal any dmg the moment i had to block/dodge i would literally deal no dps at all. Because there is so much *** going on it would be impossible to do dps.

If tanks could not block cast, they would die. There are only a few seconds during this boss fight where the tank does not have to block and that is basically when he switches platforms.

MakoFore

my 2 cents on the matter- animation cancelling is great- love it- but at least make the cancelling only occur AFTER we can see the skill. if its so fast we can't even see what s being used- its hard to counter- i think that would be fair.

Zyrudin

.

Shunravi wrote: »

Yup, in the game your oponent also has the ability to block, parry, and dodge. Just like here, they will mitigate any intended attack. If you do not mitigate every attack, then just like in real life, the damage goes through.

Not exactly the same, because mitigating implies a hit, that is that the movement completed and there was a parry or a dodge. In real-life swordplay (merely the metaphor being used that I didn't bring up, anyway) if whatever striking movement isn't completed and is cancelled, then there is no hit and therefore no mitigation.

Moreover, all movements depend on the visual queues the two opponents are giving each other. Some are feigns some are real, just like in boxing. You still have to land that hit to do damage, though, and for that, the movement has to actually reach the point of connection.

Zyrudin

Xerton wrote: »

You guys don't understand what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the hardest content in this game?
If for example in vMoL HM my skills would not deal any dmg the moment i had to block/dodge i would literally deal no dps at all. Because there is so much *** going on it would be impossible to do dps.

If tanks could not block cast, they would die. There are only a few seconds during this boss fight where the tank does not have to block and that is basically when he switches platforms.

It is the way these fights were designed that is the problem, not a correction to AC.

Ermiq

Xerton wrote: »

Eremith wrote: »

Isellskooma wrote: »

If they remove animation canceling, I'm positive that 95% of actual good players would quit. Animation canceling is the only thing that separates terrible players and good players.
The game just wouldn't be fun anymore, everyone would be good.

I read such thoughts in every game in every discussion threads. But people still continue to play all that games, and there still are good players and bad players.
I think those who vote here for AC to stay as it is, don't even understand what the others talking to them. Nobody says that AC must be completely erased. Also AC doesn't turn bad player into good player automaticaly.
The thing is AC just doesn't work properly. AC is nessesary for game mechanics, yes. But in it's current state AC seems like a fundamental mistake in the game design. If the game was designed with blocks and other 'action' battle system attributes, then this game should work as an action game. If one player throws a fireball then his opponent should be able to react on this and block that fireball even if he was trying to cast something, yes. But if player blocking fireball, then his own spell he doesn't casted completely yet should be canceled. If some skill is an instant skill, then its animation should be placed in 0.9s GCD period. If some skill has animation longer than GCD period, then it's animation should be completed to deal a damage because it seems like that skill was designed as skill with a cast time longer than GCD. Also player shouldn't be able to fire light attack right after another skill even if that skill was instant because of GCD. In action game damage should be dealed only when the skill was completely finished. If the moment of damage deal is not bound to animation of the skill, then it's not an action game at all.

You guys don't understand what you are talking about. Have you ever seen the hardest content in this game?
If for example in vMoL HM my skills would not deal any dmg the moment i had to block/dodge i would literally deal no dps at all. Because there is so much *** going on it would be impossible to do dps.

If tanks could not block cast, they would die. There are only a few seconds during this boss fight where the tank does not have to block and that is basically when he switches platforms.

As I said, battle system has a fundamental mistakes. And ESO makes HM content with their broken AC in mind. What we've got in the end? Good players use AC, ZOS makes content for them. Literally, ZOS makes content for AC.
They've made a beast and they must deal with it now. That's sad.
Howbeit, Ive seen how other games made overhaul their battle systems, they've even completely remade all classes. And they're still alive, people didn't quit them. And ZOS could make something with their mistakes, but they don't want to.

Xerton

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.
Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

Zyrudin

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.

This is an argument in a discussion. It is an opinion and it is very valid and pertinent.

Xerton wrote: »

Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

This is not, however.
Stop QQ and L2D (learn to debate).

Ermiq

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.
Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

Would they? For now you can do what you want whenever you want. If you need to block then you still do damage and then you block. And your DPS is high enough. Casual.
With really cancelling skills you would think when you should do damage and when you should prepare for blocking instead. Without AC the battle system would be more about strategy and timing than it is now.
Of course if you prefer fast and easy battles, then you'll be upset. But HM is not for fast and easy run, am I right?

Xerton

Zyrudin wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.

This is an argument in a discussion. It is an opinion and it is very valid and pertinent.

Xerton wrote: »

Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

This is not, however.
Stop QQ and L2D (learn to debate).

I am sorry. Those constant "AC destroys this game" threads are triggering me.
And no i will not stop posting in them. Because there need to be people standing up against this nonesense.

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

Removing AC would result in having a more static and slow gameplay and thereby complete changing the product we bought.
The game would no longer be the way it has been advertised.
So there is no way they should ever change it.

I am certain that 90% of the people complaining are pvp only players.
If they had a good ping in cyrodiil there would be no reason to complain for them and it would rly only be a l2p issue.
With the ping you have sometimes AC does not rly matter because a good enemy would destroy you anyway.

And the reason there are not that many pve players here in this thread is because ZOS eliminated a big part of the scene when it took them so long to get new content and because of the insane RNG.
Raiding the same two/three raids for years just is not fun.

And last but not least:
For gods sake the devs said it is here to stay, so deal with it!

Xerton

Eremith wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.
Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

Would they? For now you can do what you want whenever you want. If you need to block then you still do damage and then you block. And your DPS is high enough. Casual.
With really cancelling skills you would think when you should do damage and when you should prepare for blocking instead. Without AC the battle system would be more about strategy and timing than it is now.
Of course if you prefer fast and easy battles, then you'll be upset. But HM is not for fast and easy run, am I right?

Even with AC HM is hard (what a surprise). Why do you think it took months for the first group to kill vMoL HM?
Because it is insanely hard.

Zyrudin

Xerton wrote: »

I am sorry. Those constant "AC destroys this game" threads are triggering me.
And no i will not stop posting in them. Because there need to be people standing up against this nonesense.

I think nobody would want you to do that, in the same way you wouldn't want to limit other opinions from participating, even if anyone considers them to be nonsense.

Xerton wrote: »

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

Removing AC would result in having a more static and slow gameplay and thereby complete changing the product we bought.
The game would no longer be the way it has been advertised.
So there is no way they should ever change it.

I am certain that 90% of the people complaining are pvp only players.
If they had a good ping in cyrodiil there would be no reason to complain for them and it would rly only be a l2p issue.
With the ping you have sometimes AC does not rly matter because a good enemy would destroy you anyway.

And the reason there are not that many pve players here in this thread is because ZOS eliminated a big part of the scene when it took them so long to get new content and because of the insane RNG.
Raiding the same two/three raids for years just is not fun.

And last but not least:
For gods sake the devs said it is here to stay, so deal with it!

I totally understand your reasoning, believe me on that. We are players and we are customers, even if some of us are also actual game developers, so it is not for us to be able to come up with valid implementation solutions.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that forcing the trigger of the effect to be linked with a certain point of the animation (let's call it "connection point" for argument's sake, or as someone else named it "active frame", I think it was) could be implemented in such a way that would not make the game slower and would, on the other hand, make it far more interesting in terms of gameplay.

It would be less a "I have to hit this sequence of buttons in exactly 1.6 seconds mechanically on the target" and more a "I have to manage the abilities I equip, use and cancel to block or dodge", although that is just my opinion.

Ermiq

Xerton wrote: »

Zyrudin wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.

This is an argument in a discussion. It is an opinion and it is very valid and pertinent.

Xerton wrote: »

Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

This is not, however.
Stop QQ and L2D (learn to debate).

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

The game always had 0.9s GCD. You was and you will be playing with this limit. The only thing that will be changed if they'll fix AC someday is your DPS will be a little bit lower. And yeah, no 2 seconds fights anymore.
I think I have to repeat: if you prefer fast and easy macros-style battles then you'll be upset, yes. But did this game ever been advertized as a game with 2sec long battles? I don't think so. TES never was of that kind.

Faulgor

Xerton wrote: »

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

Removing AC would result in having a more static and slow gameplay and thereby complete changing the product we bought.
The game would no longer be the way it has been advertised.
So there is no way they should ever change it.

Well, and some people would like the more strategic, resource-based combat back this game had at launch. When they bought the game. So I guess we're at an impasse.

Xerton

Zyrudin wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

I am sorry. Those constant "AC destroys this game" threads are triggering me.
And no i will not stop posting in them. Because there need to be people standing up against this nonesense.

I think nobody would want you to do that, in the same way you wouldn't want to limit other opinions from participating, even if anyone considers them to be nonsense.

Xerton wrote: »

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

Removing AC would result in having a more static and slow gameplay and thereby complete changing the product we bought.
The game would no longer be the way it has been advertised.
So there is no way they should ever change it.

I am certain that 90% of the people complaining are pvp only players.
If they had a good ping in cyrodiil there would be no reason to complain for them and it would rly only be a l2p issue.
With the ping you have sometimes AC does not rly matter because a good enemy would destroy you anyway.

And the reason there are not that many pve players here in this thread is because ZOS eliminated a big part of the scene when it took them so long to get new content and because of the insane RNG.
Raiding the same two/three raids for years just is not fun.

And last but not least:
For gods sake the devs said it is here to stay, so deal with it!

I totally understand your reasoning, believe me on that. We are players and we are customers, even if some of us are also actual game developers, so it is not for us to be able to come up with valid implementation solutions.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that forcing the trigger of the effect to be linked with a certain point of the animation (let's call it "connection point" for argument's sake, or as someone else named it "active frame", I think it was) could be implemented in such a way that would not make the game slower and would, on the other hand, make it far more interesting in terms of gameplay.

It would be less a "I have to hit this sequence of buttons in exactly 1.6 seconds mechanically on the target" and more a "I have to manage the abilities I equip, use and cancel to block or dodge", although that is just my opinion.

There already is that "one point" in every animation. You cannot cancel every skill the same way.
Some you can't cancel at all if you want their effect. Most of them are channels with a few exceptions.

---

@Eremith if you had read this thread you would know that i am very much aware of the gcd and even pointed it out to others claiming one could use 3 skills in one second using AC.

---

@Faulgor do you play with a competetive build? Because if you would, you would know that ressource sustain is an issue and that you and your support have to be at the top of your game to sustain ressources.
For example: If magicka support is bad my sorc runs out of magicka within less than a minute. If it is perfect however i can sustain.
It is not like you could do whatever you want and don't run out of magicka. At least not as long as you don't put cost reduction on your rings/necklace.

xblackroxe

Eremith wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

Zyrudin wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

These fight are SO much more interesting the way they are now compared to what they would be without.
They would almost feel static.

This is an argument in a discussion. It is an opinion and it is very valid and pertinent.

Xerton wrote: »

Just stop qq and l2p. That's it

This is not, however.
Stop QQ and L2D (learn to debate).

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

The game always had 0.9s GCD. You was and you will be playing with this limit. The only thing that will be changed if they'll fix AC someday is your DPS will be a little bit lower. And yeah, no 2 seconds fights anymore.
I think I have to repeat: if you prefer fast and easy macros-style battles then you'll be upset, yes. But did this game ever been advertized as a game with 2sec long battles? I don't think so. TES never was of that kind.

What will happen to weaving then? Cuz I guarantee you, if all you do is change block and dodge cancelling 2 sec fights still exist. Heavy attack into soul harvest is still gonna be one shot for all non tanky players. And this works like you describe cuz the heavyattack actually fires before you start the skill animation. So no AC involved.

Faulgor wrote: »

Xerton wrote: »

The reason i and many others play this game is because of its fast paced action.
We don't want to stand around and press a button every 2 seconds.
We want action and that is what we get and what we always got.

Removing AC would result in having a more static and slow gameplay and thereby complete changing the product we bought.
The game would no longer be the way it has been advertised.
So there is no way they should ever change it.

Well, and some people would like the more strategic, resource-based combat back this game had at launch. When they bought the game. So I guess we're at an impasse.

Fights weren't strategic at the start because ppl didnt really know AC. They were strategic because nobody could have infinite sustain paired with good damage and good defense all the time. People had to think what to use because if they weren't careful they'd run out of ressources and die.

Once again the anti AC side proves they really have no idea what they are talking about.

DannyLV702

Wrecking_Blow_Spam wrote: »

There's that one guy who calls anyone who animation cancels a "cheater/exploiter".

Wonder if he'll show up...

@raidentenshu_ESO lulz @Wrecking_Blow_Spam

SwimsWithMemes

Until there are better server options for people who currently have >300 ping, combat should be entirely reworked. If I want to cast Elemental Blockade, bar swap, Liquid Lightning, block cancel, frags, it should take at least 3.6 seconds thanks to GCDs. This would be fair if the block cancel stopped the lightning from going off, but currently it acts as a "free" action.

ZOS could even change it so that only some non-chaneled abilities can be cast while blocking! Let taunts, and other tank abilities work, but if you want to deal serious damage (Liquid lightning, mage's wrath, poison injection) then you can't block until the damage portion has actually started.