[!] ESO needs Weapon momentum follow-through

Tethalion

Hello Forum and ZoS,


Probably most noticeable on a Great-sword or any two-handed weapon, but IMO just as obvious on anything from daggers to staves (maybe with the exception of the bow).

I believe the developers mean for us to use light/heavy attack more, whether it's for resource management or just to create greater combat dynamics. But the problem is, every time I use a light/heavy or even some of the weapon skills, it feels like fighting a strong current while wading in quicksand.

Your character neither turn nor spin with the usage of a weapon, and the following strike is quite often (if not entirely) coming from the opposite direction, so that there is no flow of combat, just stagnant moves that feels and performs clumsily like desperate whacks of blind repetition. In other words the character is not at all one with his or her weapon, but instead an angry child with whatever was at hand.

- Is it possible to have some sort of follow-up combat system where one swing/attack can feed into another? - Because no matter the lore of which culture, or the school of which combat, just about every successful system of fighting is based on some kind of momentum that turns individual attacks into a stance or rhythm.


Thank you for reading.

@ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_Wrobel @ZOS_EricWrobel

Gan Xing

As awesome as this post is, unfortunately I might have to burn it down. Something like changing the combat system to incorporate "stances" would be very difficult (or easy depending on how you go about it). I'm sure there would be a lot of rage if, for some reason ZOS was like: hey, you can have a more "defensive stance" (would prolly have to rename that Sw & Sh skill) but you need to invest skill points, and change up the entire dynamic of fighting for both PvP and PvE.

I'm already getting that feeling that some players will say: "That is what animation canceling is for", but I must disagree. Animation cancelling is a kind of exploit (that ZOS says is ok) that players who are capable of timing their clicks (and have a really decent computer) are capable of doing, but not the average casual gamer.

Again, something like a stance (such as that in an upcoming game Absolver) would be really cool, but possibly difficult to incorporate into the system.

Tethalion

Perhaps it's my usage of the word "stance" since that's a common game mechanic.

In the original post I didn't mean, add an actual game mechanic of "stance", so that there's a skill or toggle that changed your character's combat mechanics into a separate system. I was just using it as an expression of fighting flow and form.

For example when one makes a Light-Attack on a two-handed weapon, then followed by another, he or she would arc the weapon one direction, then attack again in the same manner only in reverse. Could the character not follow-through with the first attack and spin around to attack once more?

I guess what I'm proposing is if it's possible to have a 1-2-3-4 or 1-2-3-(heavy)4 ((or anything similar, these are just examples)) combination of Light/Heavy attacks, as well as more innovative ways of incorporating weapon skills into an actual combat rhythm instead of isolated punting of moves.

Avran_Sylt

After reading your second post I think I see what you mean. You're talking about having abilities use different animations based on the end frame of the previous ability animation. In a sense what consecutive light attacks do (left right each have animations that flow into one another), but also implemented in ability animations as well, right? Such as using uppercut one after another would cause the next uppercut to ready up on the other side of the character, following that figure-8 pattern.

Tethalion

Yes that is correct.

I can certainly see how creating an entirely new combat mechanic like shifting stances would be problematic to say the least, but I don't see why the animation of existing combat must remain as clumsy as a brain-addled beast.

Your example with upper-cut is precisely what I mean, just an alteration to existing combat so at least it makes some semblance of martial sense. Also Gan Xing mentioned something about passives in his post, now I think that is a great opportunity for making combat more fluid without having to change too much.

If a weapon passive allowed the extension of attack combos (e.g. level one allows you to chain 3 attacks together and level two allows 4, etc.) and perhaps each link within the chain is a simple deduction in the pause between consecutive attacks, almost similar to Hawk-Eye, only instead of stacking damage buff, it's a slight decrease in wait time between the attacks within a single chained combination.

You would not need to restructure anything (apart from the passive), and would add an actual element of "fighting" to an otherwise bland brawl of unwieldy combat. Not to mention the devs might achieve what they so longed for, which is to get people to use light/heavy attacks in a meaningful way.

Having said all that, yes you are right, some simple thought and work into the animated flow of combat would in my mind already suffice.

Gan Xing

Now I see what you were aiming at.

Changing the animation for fighting is something that I would agree on, and is feasible. Afterall, they did change the animation for the Stave attacks, so why wouldn't they be able to change the animation for weapon attacks too.

I think the only issue was skills. Weaving skills in with attacks makes animation fluidity more complicated, especially with animation cancelling (which a lot of higher tiered players do).

from what I understand, the current system does show a fluid animation with 3 attacks (and in some ways with heavy attacks mixed in), but it struggles to fluidly include skills.

Xvorg

Tethalion wrote: »

Yes that is correct.

I can certainly see how creating an entirely new combat mechanic like shifting stances would be problematic to say the least, but I don't see why the animation of existing combat must remain as clumsy as a brain-addled beast.

Your example with upper-cut is precisely what I mean, just an alteration to existing combat so at least it makes some semblance of martial sense. Also Gan Xing mentioned something about passives in his post, now I think that is a great opportunity for making combat more fluid without having to change too much.

If a weapon passive allowed the extension of attack combos (e.g. level one allows you to chain 3 attacks together and level two allows 4, etc.) and perhaps each link within the chain is a simple deduction in the pause between consecutive attacks, almost similar to Hawk-Eye, only instead of stacking damage buff, it's a slight decrease in wait time between the attacks within a single chained combination.

You would not need to restructure anything (apart from the passive), and would add an actual element of "fighting" to an otherwise bland brawl of unwieldy combat. Not to mention the devs might achieve what they so longed for, which is to get people to use light/heavy attacks in a meaningful way.

Having said all that, yes you are right, some simple thought and work into the animated flow of combat would in my mind already suffice.

You want to make combos based on secuence of "logical" moves, right?

Like a steel tornado that ends up in a light attack without losing the momentun. I think the idea is cool enough, but there's one immediate problem: certain weapons must work with certain attacks, and that pigeonholes you...

For example, I'm currently using a bow blade that can fight in close quarters. She uses SA weaving with the bow. If ZoS takes your idea, then she woud have no advantage while playing, because SA followed by bow lightatack have no natural momentum...

Same happens with a stamplar weaving LA with a bow and using jabs or javelin. Not to mention silver shards and bow

Haxer

Completely agree.

I think you guys are making it a lot more complicated. Basic attacks "feel bad" and "look bad", that's it. There is no need for large game mechanic changes.

They look bad because they are not animated super well. Light attacks alternate between two very slow animations. Heavy attacks don't vary at all.

They feel bad because they have a slight delay from the time you click, and slow drawn out timing between them.

Compare this to a game like Tera for example. Obviously these are apples and oranges, different games with different combat systems. But we can still learn and incorporate something from that when it comes to look and feel. In Tera the combat "feels good" and "looks good" because light attacks are more responsive (happen without a noticeable delay from the time you click) and chain together in a 4 swing.

This wouldn't require game breaking attack speed changes. You can increase the speed of the attack itself and still leave a break in between so it just looks and feels better. This results in snappier more responsive attacks, without increasing the number of hits over time.

---Time-->
ESO: ONNEE TWOOO ONNEE TWWO
Tera: ONE...TWO...THREE...FOUR!

So...I'm hoping that makes sense. 1) Chain light attacks in combos of four, all animated 2) make the attack itself happen faster, even if the overall number of attacks over time stays the same. It makes the attacks feel snappier and more responsive.