Animation Cancelling Explained

UrQuan

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

Myxril

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

Ok watched it. Canceling the animation doesn't make the skill go off any faster, the skill is still insta-cast, it just cancels the useless animation allowing you to start casting your next skill as fast as the tooltip would lead you to believe. The lengthy animation flies in the face of listed cast times. By canceling the animation you're just sticking to cast times. No exploit.

It doesn't make the damage arrive faster. As I stated premature to this post of yours, it ends the used skill faster than normal which allows more skills to be used in rapid succession vs waiting through them. Hence, if you cancel skills, you can fire them off faster vs not canceling them; the damage still arrives the same regardless of whether it's canceled or not.

This gives Cancelers an advantage. Exploit.

Again, if someone wants to claim this is a 'l2p' issue, then ZOS should just remove the animations entirely so everyone's on equal footing and can just tap-tap-tap their skills off Instantly all day without any pesky animation taking up precious miliseconds of time between each usage.
If that sounds like a garbage idea to you...ohwait, it shouldn't. Since AC'ing is totes legit and not an exploit, everyone should be able to do it by default.

technohic

Sheesh. I'm not a fan of animation cancelling but the arguments against it are terrible. I don't buy the arguments for it either. It's just a preference thing for me. Still. It's been here since before launch and no signs of it going anywhere so better to learn to deal.

GrumpyDuckling

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

FriedEggSandwich

Myxril wrote: »

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

Ok watched it. Canceling the animation doesn't make the skill go off any faster, the skill is still insta-cast, it just cancels the useless animation allowing you to start casting your next skill as fast as the tooltip would lead you to believe. The lengthy animation flies in the face of listed cast times. By canceling the animation you're just sticking to cast times. No exploit.

It doesn't make the damage arrive faster. As I stated premature to this post of yours, it ends the used skill faster than normal which allows more skills to be used in rapid succession vs waiting through them. Hence, if you cancel skills, you can fire them off faster vs not canceling them; the damage still arrives the same regardless of whether it's canceled or not.

This gives Cancelers an advantage. Exploit.

Again, if someone wants to calim this is a 'l2p' issue, then ZOS should just remove the animations entirely so everyone's on equal footing and can just tap-tap-tap their skills off Instantly all day without any pesky animation taking up precious miliseconds of time between each usage.
If that sounds like a garbage idea to you...ohwait, it shouldn't. Since AC'ing is totes legit and not an exploit, everyone should be able to do it by default.

To the bit in bold: no it doesn't. The normal speed of the skill is listed in the tootip as the cast time. As I said in a previous post the listed cast time is what tells players how much time they have left before the game will let them do something else. Animation canceling doesn't override listed cast times, therefore no exploit. By claiming it's exploiting you're assuming animations are mandatory, which they're clearly not because they can be canceled and their duration is not included as part of the cast time in the tooltip. You could just as easily argue that players who don't animation cancel just wanna see pretty animations for "teh merjuns".

To your final paragraph: stop being argumentative; I already told you I'd be up for the removal of animations on insta cast abilities. I take no pride in being able to animation cancel better than others, I would like to see all players on an equal footing. But they are cos anyone can do it, and kind people like the op even make videos explaining how it's done. Swallow your pride and just ask zos to add a tutorial to the start of the game, cos any other change will be a detriment at this stage.

Edit to fix bold tags.

UrQuan

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

GrumpyDuckling

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

Saying "official word from ZOS" does not make it correct. Animation canceling is an unintended game mechanic that is used to gain a competitive advantage. By definition, that is an exploit.

If it helps you to understand, don't think of it as me being correct. Think of it as the necessity for language to be used correctly.

Myxril

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

To your final paragraph: stop being argumentative; I already told you I'd be up for the removal of animations on insta cast abilities.

Reaction achieved.
See? I give the simple idea of just letting people pewpewpew without even having to animation cancel, since animation (according to you and ZOS) isn't mandatory, and suddenly I'm being argumentative.
Pardon me for adding a clearer perspective to the anti-canceling point.

Swallow your pride and just ask zos to add a tutorial to the start of the game, cos any other change will be a detriment at this stage.

Me swallow my pride? Color me amused.
No, rather than asking ZOS to put a bandaid on a moronic bullet wound via /tutorial on animation canceling/ (are you *** serious?!), how about they actually address the issue by:
1) removing animations entirely for Instants
or
2) making Instants's Cast Time match animation time

You tell me to swallow my pride while also telling me to just ask ZOS to sweep this under the rug via tutorial on AC'ing because it "will be a detriment"? Why not as AC'ers to swallow their pride and accept some goddamned realism in combat, yeah?
If they don't want #2, then there shouldn't be any complaints about #1.

UrQuan

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

Saying "official word from ZOS" does not make it correct. Animation canceling is an unintended game mechanic that is used to gain a competitive advantage. By definition, that is an exploit.

If it helps you to understand, don't think of it as me being correct. Think of it as the necessity for language to be used correctly.

No, I get it - I understand. You're right and ZOS is wrong. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit, regardless of whatever ZOS says. Can you maybe do a @GrumpyDuckling Live episode where you answer all of the questions people have posted in the Ask Us Anything thread? Since you're the ultimate authority on these things it would be really great if people could get the answers from you rather than get all these wrong answers from ZOS.

Whatzituyah

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

Saying "official word from ZOS" does not make it correct. Animation canceling is an unintended game mechanic that is used to gain a competitive advantage. By definition, that is an exploit.

If it helps you to understand, don't think of it as me being correct. Think of it as the necessity for language to be used correctly.

No, I get it - I understand. You're right and ZOS is wrong. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit, regardless of whatever ZOS says. Can you maybe do a @GrumpyDuckling Live episode where you answer all of the questions people have posted in the Ask Us Anything thread? Since you're the ultimate authority on these things it would be really great if people could get the answers from you rather than get all these wrong answers from ZOS.

Your just implying that ZOS doesn't know which direction to take ESO in terms of combat aren't you?

kevlarto_ESO

Animation canceling, when you cancel an animation you should not profit from the damage, it should just allow you to move to the next special if the situation changes, combat would still be fluid, it would eliminate, a lot of the spamming and spamming macro's we now have in the game, this has nothing to with being good or bad player, it has everything to do with the enjoyment of play, for a larger part of the player base. Just do away with the damage dealing when you cancel and it will be just fine.

GrumpyDuckling

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

Saying "official word from ZOS" does not make it correct. Animation canceling is an unintended game mechanic that is used to gain a competitive advantage. By definition, that is an exploit.

If it helps you to understand, don't think of it as me being correct. Think of it as the necessity for language to be used correctly.

No, I get it - I understand. You're right and ZOS is wrong. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit, regardless of whatever ZOS says. Can you maybe do a @GrumpyDuckling Live episode where you answer all of the questions people have posted in the Ask Us Anything thread? Since you're the ultimate authority on these things it would be really great if people could get the answers from you rather than get all these wrong answers from ZOS.

As it is obvious that you are dramatizing our discussion and misrepresenting my point in a way that does not prove helpful to anyone in this community, I will abandon this discussion with you. Thank you.

Kalante

You know what people who plain about animation canceling and strafing in fps games have in common? they never get good at the game and always always always paint the big bad players as the oppressors bringing them down. Then they ask devs to dumb down the game for them and they would still never be able to compete against a good player because a good player is good a player and a bad player will always be a bad player. I am in the middle of those players, i am not bad but i always try to improve my animation canceling. It is part of the game and it's what makes it fun in being able to learn something every day. Imagine if everything and everyone is the same. How boring would that be. There would be nothing to do, no goals to reach in getting better. What would be the point of playing if everything is learned in one day. People would not bother playing games with pvp if there was no challenges to overcome.

Myxril

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Giles.floydub17_ESO wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

I fail to see substance here. Especially since the devs have given their blessing to animation canceling over a year ago. The conversation about whether it is a legit part of the game is over. Animation canceling is appropriately part of the game.

I fail to see substance in your argument. Just because, according to your word, "the devs gave their blessing to animation canceling" doesn't mean that it's a legit part of the game. Perhaps animation canceling would take too much work to fix so they didn't consider it worth the time and effort, and instead prioritized other things.

If animation canceling wasn't intended, then it's not "appropriate." That's the definition of "exploiting a game mechanic."

OK, I don't really understand what your position is here. Are you saying that you've missed every time a ZOS employee has talked about animation canceling, or are you saying that ZOS doesn't get to decide what is and isn't an exploit in their game?

See that part of your quote that I put in bold? To an extent, the answer is yes. ZOS has nothing to gain by publicly labeling animation canceling as an exploit because then they would receive a lot of backlash about it not being fixed. Therefore, they will not call animation canceling an exploit.

That being said you still have to look at the fact that animation canceling was not intended, and players are using it to achieve better results against other players. That is, by definition, an exploit of an unintended game mechanic to gain a competitive advantage. Whether or not ZOS wants to classify it, publicly, as such is irrelevant. No one can logically deny the fact that animation canceling is an exploit.

So your word on the issue trumps the word of ZOS. Got it.

If we're talking about the truth of this particular issue, then yes. By definition, I am 100% correct in this matter.

If an individual is interested in fully understanding the truth about something, the best thing they can do is 1) look at who is telling the story/controlling the language, 2) follow the money, and 3) examine the language themselves to find the truth about the issue. That is simply all it takes. For this matter, I advise focusing on numbers 1 and 3, specifically.

Concerning this particular issue, one has to understand that if ZOS says that animation canceling is not an exploit, then they either have not spent enough time thinking about the definition of "exploit" to understand it, or they are attempting to change the definition. Assuming that ZOS is an expert concerning the definition of "exploit" because they made a videogame does not make sense, nor does it benefit anyone who is trying to understand what an exploit is.

Oh I get it. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit in ESO, and ZOS doesn't get a say in any of it. Is there anything else related to the game where your word overrules the official word from ZOS? I'm just asking so that people can start directing questions to you instead of to ZOS. People really need to know these things so that they can't be misled by people with ZOS in their names!

Saying "official word from ZOS" does not make it correct. Animation canceling is an unintended game mechanic that is used to gain a competitive advantage. By definition, that is an exploit.

If it helps you to understand, don't think of it as me being correct. Think of it as the necessity for language to be used correctly.

No, I get it - I understand. You're right and ZOS is wrong. You're the final word on what is and isn't considered an exploit, regardless of whatever ZOS says. Can you maybe do a @GrumpyDuckling Live episode where you answer all of the questions people have posted in the Ask Us Anything thread? Since you're the ultimate authority on these things it would be really great if people could get the answers from you rather than get all these wrong answers from ZOS.

As it is obvious that you are dramatizing our discussion and misrepresenting my point in a way that does not prove helpful to anyone in this community, I will abandon this discussion with you. Thank you.

When someone can't argue against your point in these forums, they generally do their best to hound you over a specific laser-focused thing. Usually something that's not even present in the back-and-forth itself; example, you stating 'ZOS said so' doesn't automatically equal fact gets you hounded with seething sarcastic rage about how you just knooooow sooooo much moooore than ZOS.
To hell with you clearly describing your position on the matter, you're just a know-it-all.

It's present in pretty much every thread I've read. Someone doesn't like another point of view, they can't debate against it for ***, so they harass the other person. Fun times.

Edit: Kalante just demonstrated my point with laser precision. Doesn't address the topic of discussion, but instead has to berate people who are anti-canceling (by bringing up the unrelated red herring of 'people who complain about strafing'). Pwahahaha. This forum's denizens never fail to amuse.

milesrodneymcneely2_ESO

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

If you cancel an animation before the listed cast time has ended it does cancel the damage. There is no canceling the damage of an insta-cast ability though; once the player has let go of the skill button the action is complete.

In that case, ZOS needs to alter the animation to fit the time-frame. If your developer says "We want you to play the game, not the UI" then the numbers and the meters need to be slaved to what's actually happening on the screen.

I'm in the camp that wants an interactive gaming experience with my friends in the Elder Scrolls universe. Maybe that's not important to anyone else, but if I wanted to play a game where I have to imagine part of the action, I'll go back to table-top RPGs.

YMMV.

FortheloveofKrist

technohic wrote: »

Sheesh. I'm not a fan of animation cancelling but the arguments against it are terrible. I don't buy the arguments for it either. It's just a preference thing for me. Still. It's been here since before launch and no signs of it going anywhere so better to learn to deal.

Man, that was weird. I was literally thinking the same thing as I starting reading your reply.

Along the same lines, I watched the video and finally realized why I usually get my brown eye handed to me every time I play PvP. I guess I better learn it too, otherwise just keep getting wiped.

FriedEggSandwich

Myxril wrote: »

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

To your final paragraph: stop being argumentative; I already told you I'd be up for the removal of animations on insta cast abilities.

Reaction achieved.
See? I give the simple idea of just letting people pewpewpew without even having to animation cancel, since animation (according to you and ZOS) isn't mandatory, and suddenly I'm being argumentative.
Pardon me for adding a clearer perspective to the anti-canceling point.

Swallow your pride and just ask zos to add a tutorial to the start of the game, cos any other change will be a detriment at this stage.

Me swallow my pride? Color me amused.
No, rather than asking ZOS to put a bandaid on a moronic bullet wound via /tutorial on animation canceling/ (are you *** serious?!), how about they actually address the issue by:
1) removing animations entirely for Instants
or
2) making Instants's Cast Time match animation time

You tell me to swallow my pride while also telling me to just ask ZOS to sweep this under the rug via tutorial on AC'ing because it "will be a detriment"? Why not as AC'ers to swallow their pride and accept some goddamned realism in combat, yeah?
If they don't want #2, then there shouldn't be any complaints about #1.

You're going down in my estimation. Reaction achieved? What are you a troll? You are now being very argumentative with me, it's all in the drama, the tone and the profanities. You're also using my ideas for the fixing of animation canceling but preaching them to me as if I'm some dirty cheater who loves to cheat and will do whatever to continue cheating. I'm beginning to think you just want an argument, so I'm off to bed. Night.

bronski

Myxril wrote: »

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

Ok watched it. Canceling the animation doesn't make the skill go off any faster, the skill is still insta-cast, it just cancels the useless animation allowing you to start casting your next skill as fast as the tooltip would lead you to believe. The lengthy animation flies in the face of listed cast times. By canceling the animation you're just sticking to cast times. No exploit.

It doesn't make the damage arrive faster. As I stated premature to this post of yours, it ends the used skill faster than normal which allows more skills to be used in rapid succession vs waiting through them. Hence, if you cancel skills, you can fire them off faster vs not canceling them; the damage still arrives the same regardless of whether it's canceled or not.

This gives Cancelers an advantage. Exploit.

it doesn't allow you to use more skills in rapid succesion (you cannot canxcel a skill with another skill) it allows you to connect "actions" that have a different priority together.

So for example when jack shows how to doge cancel cleasing ritual, what happens is that dodge roll has a higher priority then casting a skills, so it cancels the animation of your skill to allow you to dodge roll immediatly.

this is a good thin Imho, and what makes people say the priority system (maybe if we call it like this people stop calling it an exploit) is a big part of what makes the combat in this game feel soo smooth and fun (lag notwithstanding)

a lot of people animation cancel in pve (beside weaving light or medium attacks) probably without even realizing it, every time they react to something happening and they block or dodge and that happens instantly. Think about manticora stomp, what happens if you have to wait for the animation of the skill you are casting to finish before you can block?
You die and it seem you did because of a clunky combat system.

It might need some tweaking but it's nowhere close to an exploit but rather an integral part of what makes combat in this game so fun.

llSRRll

Ok so your telling me that using block, bash and roll dodge to stop an animation is not glitching???? I'm sorry this is stupid to me. Why even have the animation then and just have everything cast instantly? It seems more realistic to me for people to have to finish the cast of the skill in order to use it. Does this work with a spell that has a cast time like Dark Crystals? I see people defending this practice and apparently so does ZOS so obviously its not going away but I think it makes no sense but then again people falling off 300ft cliffs and walking away from it doesnt either so what do I know.

Myxril

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

Reaction achieved? What are you a troll?

You said you were for removing Instant animations. I then took it a step further regarding tap-tap-tap for everyone; you got defensive and called me argumentative. That speaks about you, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
As for the trolling/arguing that you keep labeling me with, that's just your attempt to divert attention from my point I'm making.

You are now being very argumentative with me, it's all in the drama, the tone and the profanities.

You allege drama where there is none.
You imply tone when this is text.
You mention profanities as if those are relevant to your discussion against anything I've said.
Reaction achieved.

You're also using my ideas for the fixing of animation canceling but preaching them to me as if I'm some dirty cheater who loves to cheat and will do whatever to continue cheating. I'm beginning to think you just want an argument, so I'm off to bed. Night.

You've all but proven to me that you're more than willing to offer the lip service about removing animations for Instants, but when I mention the actual outcome (tap-tap-tap) you puff up with this indignation that suddenly I'm just a troll who's trying to argue for argument's sake.
Looks like I hit a nerve by indirectly calling you out on it. The very fact that you're squirming about the whole 'cheater wanting to cheat' has confirmed: You were willing to agree with me that Instant should have no animation, but to actually put it into effect via tap-tap-tap would...well, I don't know what your actual statement on that would be, because you were too busy engaging the hyperdrive on the responses of "Argumentative! Troll! Just wanting to argue! AHHHHHH!"


With that said, I will point out one last thing about our back-and-forth: This entire time you drooled all over the idea of removing Instant animations but, despite your freakout at the mention of everyone getting tap-tap-tap by default (and even suggesting a tutorial for AC'ing LOL), not once did you ever suggest or agree with the idea of making Cast Times match animations.
It was always the other way around.
So, yes, I guess you could bluntly put it in crude words that I think you're "just a cheater wanting to cheat". You've outlined your desire for combat without cooldowns or pesky animations getting in the way, only conceding that animations should match skills with non-Instant casts.


My discussion with you on this has been enjoyable, even when you turned it into an attack against me by suddenly suggesting that I just want to argue and troll and be dramatic.
Good night.

DaveMoeDee

Gilliamtherogue wrote: »

GrumpyDuckling wrote: »

Animation canceling just flat out doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard the argument that ZOS makes for why players can't "hide" the physical appearance of Bound Armor? They say it's because it serves as an essential visual cue to other players about battle mechanics. With that logic in mind...

How in the world is animation canceling, which hides animations of attacks, an intended and fair combat tactic? I will never agree with anyone who thinks that animation canceling is good for a game.

But costumes...

Yeah. I've always thought that costumes shouldn't work in PvP. Otherwise, everyone should wear costumes.

nine9six

You add a tutorial to the game that explains the concept and how to execute the technique and I have 0 issues with.

But, as it stands right now, I'm not a fan.

-Someone Who Knows How To Cancel

bronski

llSRRll wrote: »

Ok so your telling me that using block, bash and roll dodge to stop an animation is not glitching????

yes i'm telling you (well actually ZOS stated it more than once) that it's a consequence of how the system works (global cool downs + priority system) and that is what makes the combat in this game feel so responsive.

of course they can change or tweak it if they feel it's not working like they want.

i'm also quite sure that while some of the effecs where unintended, some actually work as intended, for example that an action that as an higher priority like dodge roll would override the animation of a lower priority action like casting a skill.

FriedEggSandwich

I asked you to stop being argumentative when you came out with this:

Myxril wrote: »

If that sounds like a garbage idea to you...ohwait, it shouldn't. Since AC'ing is totes legit and not an exploit, everyone should be able to do it by default.

This after taking the time to explain to you where I stood on the issue. You sound quite young so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just being rhetorical. Gratz though, you successfully made me feel like I was banging my head against a wall.

Only trolls try to get reactions. Isn't this what you were doing?

Faulgor

It's pretty clear that their initial combat design revolved a lot around timing, resource management and risk versus reward. During beta, the use of mechanics like blocking power attacks to stun the attacker and exploiting their disadvantage was emphasized much more than skill use, as was the different risk/reward ratio of fast light attacks and slow heavy attacks. ESO was obviously intended to be much slower and more strategic in ability use.
Pretty much all of that went out of the door once players really got their hands on the game, and basically just spammed their skills and canceled the animations, which made light and heavy attacks so unused that they had to invent artificial new mechanics to make them useful (resource generation on HA, ultimate generation with LA, several set bonuses, etc). Animation canceling and skill spam removed a lot of control over skill balance, because without cast times / start ups / cooldowns and a sufficient amount of resource generation, the only defining factor of a skill is its damage, which ultimately leads to the damage-or-bust meta we have had ever since.

As you might guess, I'm not a huge fan of animation canceling. IMO they ruined the original vision for the game by embracing it. But there's probably no way back now. However, maybe there are still some tweaks worth considering.

Playing a fair bit of fighting games, animation canceling is not really foreign to me. And it's not a problem there at all, because it's incorporated into the core system as combos. I think this is the direction ESO could improve its combat in.
Currently, you can repeat animation cancel chains ad infinitum. This is not possible in fighting games, where you need to get a hit first (hitconfirm) to be at frame advantage and cancel the animation into the second hit of the combo, and so on. You cannot hit your opponent when he is blocking.
So what I'd propose is simple: You cannot cancel the animation of an attack that hits a blocking opponent.

Considering how much blocking has already been nerfed, this seems like a reasonable improvement to me that keeps animation canceling very much alive, is in the spirit of ESO's original game design and takes from other game genres with similar systems.

Great video, by the way.

Myxril

FriedEggSandwich wrote: »

I asked you to stop being argumentative when you came out with this:

Myxril wrote: »

If that sounds like a garbage idea to you...ohwait, it shouldn't. Since AC'ing is totes legit and not an exploit, everyone should be able to do it by default.

This after taking the time to explain to you where I stood on the issue. You sound quite young so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just being rhetorical. Gratz though, you successfully made me feel like I was banging my head against a wall.

Now you associate me with being young, as if my age (or lack thereof) would have any relevance to my words.
In regards to the quote you posted, I wasn't being rhetorical. I was taking what you and I had already discussed at length and put it into words that, in the end, didn't sit well with you at all.
That comment was not inflammatory. It was not derogatory. It was not insulting. It simply put your viewpoint on the matter into harsh words. If you can't grasp the concept that I painted a truthfully ugly picture that summed up the conversation... I don't know what to tell you.

i]snip[/i

PS: That quote of mine you referenced wasn't directed specifically at you, despite it applying to part of our conversation. That was meant to be a general commentary in response to everyone here defending AC'ing and deciding that anti-AC'ers are just terrible players / just whining / can't PvP to save their life / wanting the game dumbed down, etc.

Moderator Edit - Edited for profanity

bronski

nine9six wrote: »

You add a tutorial to the game that explains the concept and how to execute the technique and I have 0 issues with.

But, as it stands right now, I'm not a fan.

-Someone Who Knows How To Cancel

i guess the idea was that you really didn't need a tutorial for it. some of the things jack shows in the video were maybe unintended but i think a lot fo people that ask for animation canceling to be removed don't realize how often they "animation cancel" just doing normal things in pve.

Every time you are in a dungeon and you dodge roll out of an AOE and your charcter actualy dodge rolls, or you hit block to block an attack an your character actually blocks, chances are you just did animation cancel a skill or a light/heavy attack animation with your dodge roll or block.

Oherwise you'd be just stuck ther pressing your buttons over and over waiting for animations to end, upset at the game for being so unresponsive.

Myxril

bronski wrote: »

Oherwise you'd be just stuck ther pressing your buttons over and over waiting for animations to end, upset at the game for being so unresponsive.

Damn that pesky realism getting in the way of things.


It's official. Let's just remove the animations entirely and unlock AC by default. No need to play the dodge/block/ult cancel game of 'stfu l2p scrub'; everyone can just pewpew without 'AC skill'.

bronski

Myxril wrote: »

Damn that pesky realism getting in the way of things.

It's official. Let's just remove the animations entirely and unlock AC by default. No need to play the dodge/block/ult cancel game of 'stfu l2p scrub'; everyone can just pewpew without 'AC skill'.

it is unlocked by default that's the point. And every players use it everyday in combat whether they realize it or not, just by playing the game.
What they see is their characters doing what they "tell" them to do in a responsove way.

Probably things like for example "light attack/puncture/bash" to dish out a lot of damage in a very short time were not "intended". Some people think it adds a layer of skills and depth to the game, some people don't.

Either way it seems very difficutl to get rid of the second without heavily affecting the first part, and the way the combat system works is one of the strenghts of this game.

Miszou

bronski wrote: »

Every time you are in a dungeon and you dodge roll out of an AOE and your charcter actualy dodge rolls, or you hit block to block an attack an your character actually blocks, chances are you just did animation cancel a skill or a light/heavy attack animation with your dodge roll or block.

That's fine.

But while you're cancelling the animation, you should also be cancelling the effects of the skill. You know, since you didn't finish casting it...