Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Animation canceling - forum war
-
ZOS_RagnaradminWe have removed some comments from this thread that only served to bait and bash others. Please keep your posts civil and constructive going forward.The Elder Scrolls Online - ZeniMax Online Studios
Forum Rules | Code of Conduct | Terms of Service | Home Page | Help Site0 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »Olupajmibanan wrote: »Even game itself encourages you to cancel animations of light attacks with a spell, therefore animation cancelling is an officialy approved feature.
More like "We don't want to put the work in to fix the problem so we're just going to run with it"
Or you could just learn to press more than one button?! I know pressing buttons is hard, are you going to be ok?
Or you could just learn to appreciate an animation and let it play out without having to try and cancel it for MaX EfFeCt. I understand you guys have a short attention span so it might be pretty hard, but the animations are neat!
No one forces u to cancel YOUR animations, u can even watch them closely from first person perspective. The problem for us is taking the fluidity and responiveness of game. Imagine pvping, seeing incoming stunning projectile. But because u're ni animation u can just watch it coming. And get stunned. Cuz u couldnt stop your animation and block fast enough.
I don't think most people, who want it gone, are saying that they think the game should be slow and unresponsive; especially defensively speaking.
The main complaint is having to add it to a rotation, as a matter of course, for DPS (and/or other) reasons.
No one wants a situation where you can't dodge, or block, immediately.
Please explain to me then how it would work, if you fired off an animation then switched bars what would happen? lets say u press vigour then switch bars. vigour doesnt go off? or it doesnt allow u to switch? its got to be one of the 2. same with roll dodge and block. Please explain to me how it would work.
I don't know, I'm not a dev.
I'm just saying I would prefer it if I didn't have to, consciously, light attack in between every skill, that's all.
Most other games I have played have auto-attack.
So, presumably, it basically weaves for you?
So you want combat to be easier, when it comes down to actual alternatives none of the people against AC have any which is why all their arguments are based on nothing.5 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
Why are you ignoring my question?
I answer you?2 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should stayMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »
“It’s a glitch”
“It’s a glitch”
“gLitChHhH”
You have zero argument and contributed nothing worth of value for this discussion. It’s not just me who are sick of you. It’s literally everyone who argued with you lmfao. You’re like a flat Earther, seriously...
I don't get why you are trigger by me saying it is a glitch. The developers themselves said it was, and they could not fix it. So they embrace it.
What the heck is wrong with the truth? It was a glitch, they could not fix it. They tried too and failed. So instead of banning everyone for doing said exploit. They was force to accept it as part of the game.
That is a fact, that is what happen. To say that it was not a glitch, why did they attempt to fix it? Why did they say it was not intended?
I don't understand your logic at all. Some dude even showed proof of the developers saying it was not intended, and that still was not good enough. You posted a video of the developers saying they accept it. What choice did they have when they failed to fix it?
Please explain to me if they got rid of AC how it would work if lets say you press an ability then switch bars, does the ability not go off or do you not switch bars? same with roll dodge, lets say u press vigor then immediately roll dodge what would happen? Because if they simply didnt go off it'd be the same as cast time ultimates that feel awful. Im seeing a lot of campaigning against AC but no real answers about how it would work if it was removed.
I would think if you cancel the animation for the attack you cancel the attack. So instant blocks would still exist, but the attack that was canceled would do no damage.
Not really.
First, all skills are governed by a GCD just like in most MMORPGs. No player can violate that GCD. It is not possible as it is governed by the server.
Second, AC of skills is merely a desync between the client and the server. The server controls when the damage actually occurs. Gilliam has demonstrated this with block pre-U25 and the same should be relevant with a roll dodge.
Third, range attacks are a great example of why skills are governed by a GCD and not the animation. The greater the range the longer the animation. That would mean range builds would perform poorly and better in melee range. That would be detrimental to the game and horrible for trying to balance the game.
Finally, basic attacks are ranged attacks but they are also governed by a different parameter. The total damage they do is based on how long we hold down the button. Ofc, just like range skills it would be detrimental for them to be beholden to the animation of the attack hitting the player.5 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should go.InvitationNotFound wrote: »You really think that double the amount of actions in the same time which is planned for just one action is no server stress?-
You really think that tracking a cast time and a cooldown for every skill every player is using is no server stress?
More than that, it is planned that you will perform one GCD-bound action per 0.9 seconds. And no amount of animation cancelling can bypass that.
See, i am programming since a long time and do parallel programming since a decade - a "timer" like it is required here is just a number, it is not ticking or anything, and to test it, is just a conditional jump after comparing 2 numbers (global system time and this "timer"). One of the cheapest operations on a CPU.
and yet are so sure people want to get cast time/cooldown on every skill in this game like literally in every other game of which many people is already bored of their slow combat?
we ahve what we have currently and most player like unique combat of ESO which is only here, i no any other game, we have it only here, in every other game you have slow peaced combat with cast times/colldowns on literally every skill
do you also know people's psycholgy enough to admit it everyone here in this game would accept this way of combat system even if they like so much AC here? I very doubt in it
Well, then keep it and stop whining about performance issues - but you don't,do you - so something has to go what you liked.
or just design game performance properly without unecessary codes in programming?
I have experienced mmos witch much more details, small deatails, with tons of people in 1 place and get no lag
my friend who also knows about what is programming..what he experienced in ESO he just claimed ESO have to much unecessary coding which is so slowing game performance, to much unecessary calculations which ZOS could get rid of them without problem but only if they written them all from 0 because this is to much implicated because of to much unecessary calculations
What expertise can you expect from a company who designed a client-server architecture and ignored the basic rule to never trust the client side - they break the most basic rules of programming sometimes, much like an amateur, who doesn't know better. And the funniest of all is that their sibling company Bethesda Softworks Studio repeated the same mistake with Fallout 76 - even they had some kind of cooperation in this (at least Todd Howard claimed this). It is perfectly possible that they do as well other things in an unusual and inefficient way.
so if this is so well known...then why after all ignoring it only to put full blame on single mechanic in this game which is not casing this problem so much? same was ignored thing about stacking zergs and spamming abilities with many effects just to say this is not affecting servers tham much as AC form single players in few places
I was referring to doing game relevant calculations on client machines instead of the server - this is a no-go, but ZOS and as well bGS did that in the beginning. This is one of the most basic rules to not do that, and still they did it. So there was simply not much of an expertise in designing something like this in the first place - which lead to promises when advertising the game, which couldn't be kept without to introduce botters and cheaters to the game, which in consequence would have ruined the game, if zOS wouldn't have changed it - but one of the consequences is, that the game cannot support that many players in Cyro as expected - and therefore to increase performance all these things, which contribute to server stress the most have to be hammered out - otherwise you guys will never see an acceptable performance in Cyro.
So your claim is that animation canceling, which is performed on the client, adds stress to the server because there might be an additional light attack between skills that are already on a global cooldown.
Sorry, but this is Nonsense.
Having to calculate twice the amount of actions in the same time segment, that is meant for just one, is certainly contributing to the lag - how much depends - it might not be 100% more, but it certainly contributes especially when other things stack on top of it - like zerging and stacked AoE effects. It is partly the combat system and partly player behavior which is causing it.
This is a fallacy. The time required for a basic attack is depending with how long we hold down the button which is the intended design since launch. The time required for a skill is governed by the GCD.
Anything beyond that is merely a desync between the client and the server.
Boiling it down to the basics, the server controls what we can do and there is no way for a player to exceed those server rules. That means there is no way to get twice the actions as is intended.
If you get more dps out of it - then it is more actions per time segment - it is in the word itself - damage per second. And if you don't get more dps out of it, why doing it then at all?- You guys want to keep it because you get more dps out of it, and this can just happen, if more actions per time segment provide it.
My point, based I actual fact, is that you cannot get more actions per time segment than the server will permit. That is a solid fact.
There is the time for a basic attack and it's damage is determined by how long we held the button down and the GCD required for a skill. No one can get more actions between them.
You do more DPS if you weave.
Otherwise, trust me, I wouldn't be doing it.
This is my experience as well - not that I would like AC, but it happens sometimes by accident and when it gets really critical, I might eventually use it as well intentionally (confessing) - but I would feel better if the system wouldn't let me in the first place.2 -
kathandira✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »Olupajmibanan wrote: »Even game itself encourages you to cancel animations of light attacks with a spell, therefore animation cancelling is an officialy approved feature.
More like "We don't want to put the work in to fix the problem so we're just going to run with it"
Or you could just learn to press more than one button?! I know pressing buttons is hard, are you going to be ok?
Or you could just learn to appreciate an animation and let it play out without having to try and cancel it for MaX EfFeCt. I understand you guys have a short attention span so it might be pretty hard, but the animations are neat!
No one forces u to cancel YOUR animations, u can even watch them closely from first person perspective. The problem for us is taking the fluidity and responiveness of game. Imagine pvping, seeing incoming stunning projectile. But because u're ni animation u can just watch it coming. And get stunned. Cuz u couldnt stop your animation and block fast enough.
I don't think most people, who want it gone, are saying that they think the game should be slow and unresponsive; especially defensively speaking.
The main complaint is having to add it to a rotation, as a matter of course, for DPS (and/or other) reasons.
No one wants a situation where you can't dodge, or block, immediately.
Please explain to me then how it would work, if you fired off an animation then switched bars what would happen? lets say u press vigour then switch bars. vigour doesnt go off? or it doesnt allow u to switch? its got to be one of the 2. same with roll dodge and block. Please explain to me how it would work.
I don't know, I'm not a dev.
I'm just saying I would prefer it if I didn't have to, consciously, light attack in between every skill, that's all.
Most other games I have played have auto-attack.
So, presumably, it basically weaves for you?
So you want combat to be easier, when it comes down to actual alternatives none of the people against AC have any which is why all their arguments are based on nothing.
It would be a marginal change really. Using a controller, pressing RT in between each ability doesn't take skill. It's just tiring and repetative/boring.PS4-NA. Breton Templar Healer, Bosmer Stamplar, Breton Magplar, Orsimer StamDK, Dunmer MagDK, Khajiit StamNB, Dunmer MagNB, Argonian Warden Tank, Altmer Magsorc4 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »Olupajmibanan wrote: »Even game itself encourages you to cancel animations of light attacks with a spell, therefore animation cancelling is an officialy approved feature.
More like "We don't want to put the work in to fix the problem so we're just going to run with it"
Or you could just learn to press more than one button?! I know pressing buttons is hard, are you going to be ok?
Or you could just learn to appreciate an animation and let it play out without having to try and cancel it for MaX EfFeCt. I understand you guys have a short attention span so it might be pretty hard, but the animations are neat!
No one forces u to cancel YOUR animations, u can even watch them closely from first person perspective. The problem for us is taking the fluidity and responiveness of game. Imagine pvping, seeing incoming stunning projectile. But because u're ni animation u can just watch it coming. And get stunned. Cuz u couldnt stop your animation and block fast enough.
I don't think most people, who want it gone, are saying that they think the game should be slow and unresponsive; especially defensively speaking.
The main complaint is having to add it to a rotation, as a matter of course, for DPS (and/or other) reasons.
No one wants a situation where you can't dodge, or block, immediately.
Please explain to me then how it would work, if you fired off an animation then switched bars what would happen? lets say u press vigour then switch bars. vigour doesnt go off? or it doesnt allow u to switch? its got to be one of the 2. same with roll dodge and block. Please explain to me how it would work.
I don't know, I'm not a dev.
I'm just saying I would prefer it if I didn't have to, consciously, light attack in between every skill, that's all.
Most other games I have played have auto-attack.
So, presumably, it basically weaves for you?
So you want combat to be easier, when it comes down to actual alternatives none of the people against AC have any which is why all their arguments are based on nothing.
No need to try to put words in my mouth.
I didn't say I wanted it to be easier.
I said (above) that I find it annoying, clunky and immersion-breaking; not hard as such.
It's slightly awkward and it's too dependent on things like your internet connection for my liking, but it's not exactly hard hitting a light attack in between everything else, is it?
It's just badly designed.
Also, I made the point about other games having auto-attack and ESO not having it.Edited by Tigerseye on February 28, 2020 2:17PM3 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should stayInvitationNotFound wrote: »You really think that double the amount of actions in the same time which is planned for just one action is no server stress?-
You really think that tracking a cast time and a cooldown for every skill every player is using is no server stress?
More than that, it is planned that you will perform one GCD-bound action per 0.9 seconds. And no amount of animation cancelling can bypass that.
See, i am programming since a long time and do parallel programming since a decade - a "timer" like it is required here is just a number, it is not ticking or anything, and to test it, is just a conditional jump after comparing 2 numbers (global system time and this "timer"). One of the cheapest operations on a CPU.
and yet are so sure people want to get cast time/cooldown on every skill in this game like literally in every other game of which many people is already bored of their slow combat?
we ahve what we have currently and most player like unique combat of ESO which is only here, i no any other game, we have it only here, in every other game you have slow peaced combat with cast times/colldowns on literally every skill
do you also know people's psycholgy enough to admit it everyone here in this game would accept this way of combat system even if they like so much AC here? I very doubt in it
Well, then keep it and stop whining about performance issues - but you don't,do you - so something has to go what you liked.
or just design game performance properly without unecessary codes in programming?
I have experienced mmos witch much more details, small deatails, with tons of people in 1 place and get no lag
my friend who also knows about what is programming..what he experienced in ESO he just claimed ESO have to much unecessary coding which is so slowing game performance, to much unecessary calculations which ZOS could get rid of them without problem but only if they written them all from 0 because this is to much implicated because of to much unecessary calculations
What expertise can you expect from a company who designed a client-server architecture and ignored the basic rule to never trust the client side - they break the most basic rules of programming sometimes, much like an amateur, who doesn't know better. And the funniest of all is that their sibling company Bethesda Softworks Studio repeated the same mistake with Fallout 76 - even they had some kind of cooperation in this (at least Todd Howard claimed this). It is perfectly possible that they do as well other things in an unusual and inefficient way.
so if this is so well known...then why after all ignoring it only to put full blame on single mechanic in this game which is not casing this problem so much? same was ignored thing about stacking zergs and spamming abilities with many effects just to say this is not affecting servers tham much as AC form single players in few places
I was referring to doing game relevant calculations on client machines instead of the server - this is a no-go, but ZOS and as well bGS did that in the beginning. This is one of the most basic rules to not do that, and still they did it. So there was simply not much of an expertise in designing something like this in the first place - which lead to promises when advertising the game, which couldn't be kept without to introduce botters and cheaters to the game, which in consequence would have ruined the game, if zOS wouldn't have changed it - but one of the consequences is, that the game cannot support that many players in Cyro as expected - and therefore to increase performance all these things, which contribute to server stress the most have to be hammered out - otherwise you guys will never see an acceptable performance in Cyro.
So your claim is that animation canceling, which is performed on the client, adds stress to the server because there might be an additional light attack between skills that are already on a global cooldown.
Sorry, but this is Nonsense.
Having to calculate twice the amount of actions in the same time segment, that is meant for just one, is certainly contributing to the lag - how much depends - it might not be 100% more, but it certainly contributes especially when other things stack on top of it - like zerging and stacked AoE effects. It is partly the combat system and partly player behavior which is causing it.
This is a fallacy. The time required for a basic attack is depending with how long we hold down the button which is the intended design since launch. The time required for a skill is governed by the GCD.
Anything beyond that is merely a desync between the client and the server.
Boiling it down to the basics, the server controls what we can do and there is no way for a player to exceed those server rules. That means there is no way to get twice the actions as is intended.
If you get more dps out of it - then it is more actions per time segment - it is in the word itself - damage per second. And if you don't get more dps out of it, why doing it then at all?- You guys want to keep it because you get more dps out of it, and this can just happen, if more actions per time segment provide it.
My point, based I actual fact, is that you cannot get more actions per time segment than the server will permit. That is a solid fact.
There is the time for a basic attack and it's damage is determined by how long we held the button down and the GCD required for a skill. No one can get more actions between them.
You do more DPS if you weave.
Otherwise, trust me, I wouldn't be doing it.
Ofc. But that is not doing more actions that intended.
Basic attack damage is determined by how long we have to hold down the button before the attack fires. That means that attack is still goverened and controlled.5 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
Why are you ignoring my question?
I answer you?
I can not see the answer, please explain if they got rid of AC what would happen if you pressed an ability then switched bars or roll dodged? would the ability not go off or would it stop you from switching or roll dodging? I am confused.0 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »relentless_turnip wrote: »darthgummibear_ESO wrote: »Olupajmibanan wrote: »Even game itself encourages you to cancel animations of light attacks with a spell, therefore animation cancelling is an officialy approved feature.
More like "We don't want to put the work in to fix the problem so we're just going to run with it"
Or you could just learn to press more than one button?! I know pressing buttons is hard, are you going to be ok?
Or you could just learn to appreciate an animation and let it play out without having to try and cancel it for MaX EfFeCt. I understand you guys have a short attention span so it might be pretty hard, but the animations are neat!
No one forces u to cancel YOUR animations, u can even watch them closely from first person perspective. The problem for us is taking the fluidity and responiveness of game. Imagine pvping, seeing incoming stunning projectile. But because u're ni animation u can just watch it coming. And get stunned. Cuz u couldnt stop your animation and block fast enough.
I don't think most people, who want it gone, are saying that they think the game should be slow and unresponsive; especially defensively speaking.
The main complaint is having to add it to a rotation, as a matter of course, for DPS (and/or other) reasons.
No one wants a situation where you can't dodge, or block, immediately.
Please explain to me then how it would work, if you fired off an animation then switched bars what would happen? lets say u press vigour then switch bars. vigour doesnt go off? or it doesnt allow u to switch? its got to be one of the 2. same with roll dodge and block. Please explain to me how it would work.
I don't know, I'm not a dev.
I'm just saying I would prefer it if I didn't have to, consciously, light attack in between every skill, that's all.
Most other games I have played have auto-attack.
So, presumably, it basically weaves for you?
So you want combat to be easier, when it comes down to actual alternatives none of the people against AC have any which is why all their arguments are based on nothing.
No need to try to put words in my mouth.
I didn't say I wanted it to be easier.
I said (above) that I find it annoying, clunky and immersion-breaking; not hard as such.
It's slightly awkward and it's too dependent on things like your internet connection for my liking, but it's not exactly hard hitting a light attack in between everything else, is it?
It's just badly designed.
I personally like the feel of the light attack weaves, especially between dizzying swing. Its what activates poisons and enchantments too so its pretty integral to the game.3 -
BlueRaven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »
“It’s a glitch”
“It’s a glitch”
“gLitChHhH”
You have zero argument and contributed nothing worth of value for this discussion. It’s not just me who are sick of you. It’s literally everyone who argued with you lmfao. You’re like a flat Earther, seriously...
I don't get why you are trigger by me saying it is a glitch. The developers themselves said it was, and they could not fix it. So they embrace it.
What the heck is wrong with the truth? It was a glitch, they could not fix it. They tried too and failed. So instead of banning everyone for doing said exploit. They was force to accept it as part of the game.
That is a fact, that is what happen. To say that it was not a glitch, why did they attempt to fix it? Why did they say it was not intended?
I don't understand your logic at all. Some dude even showed proof of the developers saying it was not intended, and that still was not good enough. You posted a video of the developers saying they accept it. What choice did they have when they failed to fix it?
Please explain to me if they got rid of AC how it would work if lets say you press an ability then switch bars, does the ability not go off or do you not switch bars? same with roll dodge, lets say u press vigor then immediately roll dodge what would happen? Because if they simply didnt go off it'd be the same as cast time ultimates that feel awful. Im seeing a lot of campaigning against AC but no real answers about how it would work if it was removed.
I would think if you cancel the animation for the attack you cancel the attack. So instant blocks would still exist, but the attack that was canceled would do no damage.
So basically itl be like the cast time on dawnbreaker and onslaught that everyone absolutely hates but on every ability. Sounds greaaaaat....
The more exclusionary the combat system, the less people will utilize the content that depends on that combat system. I just don’t want this game to turn into wow where the combat became so exclusionary they had to make multiple difficulty versions of everything to justify the budget for them.
If you love ac then fine, just do not expect much trial or pvp dlcs, there is no audience for it because the combat system is restricting participation.4 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goStaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. Can you make any other argument other than that same crap?
At the time, The developers tried to fix it. They said it was not intended. It was a glitch. You posted the meaning of what a glitch was, and that is 100 percent what AC is. To the core.
They changed their minds later on and made it a feature. Well they could not fix the glitch, so they was force to do it. That does not change the fact that IT WAS NOT INTENDED. i don't understand how you could type that meaning, and not understand that AC is a glitch. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.5 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »
“It’s a glitch”
“It’s a glitch”
“gLitChHhH”
You have zero argument and contributed nothing worth of value for this discussion. It’s not just me who are sick of you. It’s literally everyone who argued with you lmfao. You’re like a flat Earther, seriously...
I don't get why you are trigger by me saying it is a glitch. The developers themselves said it was, and they could not fix it. So they embrace it.
What the heck is wrong with the truth? It was a glitch, they could not fix it. They tried too and failed. So instead of banning everyone for doing said exploit. They was force to accept it as part of the game.
That is a fact, that is what happen. To say that it was not a glitch, why did they attempt to fix it? Why did they say it was not intended?
I don't understand your logic at all. Some dude even showed proof of the developers saying it was not intended, and that still was not good enough. You posted a video of the developers saying they accept it. What choice did they have when they failed to fix it?
Please explain to me if they got rid of AC how it would work if lets say you press an ability then switch bars, does the ability not go off or do you not switch bars? same with roll dodge, lets say u press vigor then immediately roll dodge what would happen? Because if they simply didnt go off it'd be the same as cast time ultimates that feel awful. Im seeing a lot of campaigning against AC but no real answers about how it would work if it was removed.
I would think if you cancel the animation for the attack you cancel the attack. So instant blocks would still exist, but the attack that was canceled would do no damage.
So basically itl be like the cast time on dawnbreaker and onslaught that everyone absolutely hates but on every ability. Sounds greaaaaat....
The more exclusionary the combat system, the less people will utilize the content that depends on that combat system. I just don’t want this game to turn into wow where the combat became so exclusionary they had to make multiple difficulty versions of everything to justify the budget for them.
If you love ac then fine, just do not expect much trial or pvp dlcs, there is no audience for it because the combat system is restricting participation.
If they removed AC I'd be removing myself from the game pretty quick tbh. I'd rather no DLC.5 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should goStaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. But obviously you’ll just try to twist my words or make up a nonexistent point for your argument. It’s pointless showing you evidence
the latter is an OR clause - it doesn't work as well as it should - so it is a glitch.3 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. Can you make any other argument other than that same crap?
At the time, The developers tried to fix it. They said it was not intended. It was a glitch. You posted the meaning of what a glitch was, and that is 100 percent what AC is. To the core.
They changed their minds later on and made it a feature. Well they could not fix the glitch, so they was force to do it. That does not change the fact that IT WAS NOT INTENDED. i don't understand how you could type that meaning, and not understand that AC is a glitch. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
Please answer my question above.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. Can you make any other argument other than that same crap?
At the time, The developers tried to fix it. They said it was not intended. It was a glitch. You posted the meaning of what a glitch was, and that is 100 percent what AC is. To the core.
They changed their minds later on and made it a feature. Well they could not fix the glitch, so they was force to do it. That does not change the fact that IT WAS NOT INTENDED. i don't understand how you could type that meaning, and not understand that AC is a glitch. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
I think we are putting words into the mouth of Zos. I am sure Zos looked into this but that does not mean they attempted to fix it. It would stand to logic that they would realize it required a complete revamp of the combat system and as such change how the game was played. Granted, I am guessing here but just as much as you are.5 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
Why are you ignoring my question?
I answer you?
I can not see the answer, please explain if they got rid of AC what would happen if you pressed an ability then switched bars or roll dodged? would the ability not go off or would it stop you from switching or roll dodging? I am confused.
My way of doing it would be like this.
Depending on the animation of said skill. Your GCD will be longer or shorter. So that way you can still dodge or whatever, but if you pick to do a heavy hitting instant attack. Depending on the animation and damage whatever. It would be a longer GCD before you could do another skill.
That way it requires you to think what skills need to be used. Bypassing animations would not matter, and the game could be balance for choices being made in combat more so than normal.
I should be paid
1 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should gorager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. Can you make any other argument other than that same crap?
At the time, The developers tried to fix it. They said it was not intended. It was a glitch. You posted the meaning of what a glitch was, and that is 100 percent what AC is. To the core.
They changed their minds later on and made it a feature. Well they could not fix the glitch, so they was force to do it. That does not change the fact that IT WAS NOT INTENDED. i don't understand how you could type that meaning, and not understand that AC is a glitch. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
I think we are putting words into the mouth of Zos. I am sure Zos looked into this but that does not mean they attempted to fix it. It would stand to logic that they would realize it required a complete revamp of the combat system and as such change how the game was played. Granted, I am guessing here but just as much as you are.
I think that is a quite educated guess even - it will cause a major revamp of the skills and overall damage output of weapons to make up for removing it.1 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
Why are you ignoring my question?
I answer you?
I can not see the answer, please explain if they got rid of AC what would happen if you pressed an ability then switched bars or roll dodged? would the ability not go off or would it stop you from switching or roll dodging? I am confused.
My way of doing it would be like this.
Depending on the animation of said skill. Your GCD will be longer or shorter. So that way you can still dodge or whatever, but if you pick to do a heavy hitting instant attack. Depending on the animation and damage whatever. It would be a longer GCD before you could do another skill.
That way it requires you to think what skills need to be used. Bypassing animations would not matter, and the game could be balance for choices being made in combat more so than normal.
I should be paid
A GCD does not vary per skill. It is why it is called global. Further, your idea would make range builds to difficult to balance or would require their damage to vary based on the distance to the target, hence more serer load.4 -
MCBIZZLE300✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
Why are you ignoring my question?
I answer you?
I can not see the answer, please explain if they got rid of AC what would happen if you pressed an ability then switched bars or roll dodged? would the ability not go off or would it stop you from switching or roll dodging? I am confused.
My way of doing it would be like this.
Depending on the animation of said skill. Your GCD will be longer or shorter. So that way you can still dodge or whatever, but if you pick to do a heavy hitting instant attack. Depending on the animation and damage whatever. It would be a longer GCD before you could do another skill.
That way it requires you to think what skills need to be used. Bypassing animations would not matter, and the game could be balance for choices being made in combat more so than normal.
I should be paid
It's already like that in the form of cast times though like with dizzying swing, a prime example of a hard hitting ability which takes time to land. Same with snipe and dark flare. Certain abilities have cast time because they hit hard. So your idea is already in the game and working as intended? I dont understand what specific abilities you think are bieng cast too fast.6 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goI think that is a quite educated guess even - it will cause a major revamp of the skills and overall damage output of weapons to make up for removing it.
I don't recall what patch it was. But people got to understand the game at the time was not the same as we have now. I mean we still had toggles for basic attack bonus from some classes.
If I recall, they tried to add a delay with light attacks, to prevent the animation cancel, but it ended up making swings even more clunky and it caused problems with heavy attacks not going through.
This was a long time ago, i don't even know if it was a beta patch or not. But I do recall them trying to fix it because it was a huge deal back in the day.2 -
Tigerseye✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »
I personally like the feel of the light attack weaves, especially between dizzying swing. Its what activates poisons and enchantments too so its pretty integral to the game.
Well, yes, it's integral to the game, now, in many ways.
That is because they realised it was, let's say, an unintended mechanic (lol) in the game, but they couldn't be bothered to fix it, so they "embraced" it and proceeded to design everything around it.
Doesn't mean them doing that was the correct decision.
4 -
StaticWave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭should stayStaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. But obviously you’ll just try to twist my words or make up a nonexistent point for your argument. It’s pointless showing you evidence
the latter is an OR clause - it doesn't work as well as it should - so it is a glitch.
No it exceeded everyone’s expectations. It made clearing content so much faster, and does not lag the server whatsoever. There’s essentially zero setback when AC is around. That is why it is not a glitchPlatform:
PC NA
Main:
Static Wave - AD stamsorc5 -
jadarock✭✭✭✭✭You are trying to take away from the fluidity of combat and what makes this game different from most of the others . If you dont like it there are plenty of turn based mmos out there.
Put the time in and l2p Please stop trying to ruin this game7 -
idk✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should stayrager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »But they never said it was a glitch? I gave you a clip of Wrobel, and someone gave you a picture of a zos dev stating it’s unintended, BUT NOT A GLITCH. You’ve constantly put words in people’s mouth and made up nonsense in your argument. At this point you should be reported for intentional trolling.
In the other post, you got developers saying it was not intended, in the early patches. They tried to fix it, with adding some delays to attacks. It failed, and they stop talking about it.
When at last we asked them when it was going to be fixed. They said. Oh it is not an exploit now! Well no matter what they said it was. They admit it was not intended, and that is a glitch. Even if they accept it. The players force them to accept it because they were not good enough to fix it.
That does not change what AC is. A glitch, it was not intended. Wrobel if you knew the guy. You knew he was wishy washy with what he said.
To me something that was not intended is a glitch. You can't say I am wrong because i said to me. Go look up with a glitch is.
See this is what I’m talking about when I said you constantly put words in people’s mouth or twist their statement. Unintended IS NOT EQUIVALENT to glitch. You want me to look up what a glitch is? This is the definition according to Merriam Webster:
Definition of glitch
1a : a usually minor malfunction
b: : a minor problem that causes a temporary setback
2: : a false or spurious electronic signal
This is the definition of a glitch on Cambridge:
a small problem or fault that prevents something from being successful or working as well as it should
Animation canceling does not prevent the game from running successfully. It is also not a malfunction either. Hence it is not a glitch. Can you make any other argument other than that same crap?
At the time, The developers tried to fix it. They said it was not intended. It was a glitch. You posted the meaning of what a glitch was, and that is 100 percent what AC is. To the core.
They changed their minds later on and made it a feature. Well they could not fix the glitch, so they was force to do it. That does not change the fact that IT WAS NOT INTENDED. i don't understand how you could type that meaning, and not understand that AC is a glitch. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this.
I think we are putting words into the mouth of Zos. I am sure Zos looked into this but that does not mean they attempted to fix it. It would stand to logic that they would realize it required a complete revamp of the combat system and as such change how the game was played. Granted, I am guessing here but just as much as you are.
I think that is a quite educated guess even - it will cause a major revamp of the skills and overall damage output of weapons to make up for removing it.
I agree that I was making an educated guess. Thanks as I tried to make that obvious with how I made the statement. The person I quoted seemed to be pulling the comment out of thin air.2 -
Lysette✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭should goWell, when you weave it anyway, why not just make this an automatic action then - in this case it could be computed in a single go and would not have much of an impact anymore.4 -
BlueRaven✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »MCBIZZLE300 wrote: »rager82b14_ESO wrote: »StaticWave wrote: »
“It’s a glitch”
“It’s a glitch”
“gLitChHhH”
You have zero argument and contributed nothing worth of value for this discussion. It’s not just me who are sick of you. It’s literally everyone who argued with you lmfao. You’re like a flat Earther, seriously...
I don't get why you are trigger by me saying it is a glitch. The developers themselves said it was, and they could not fix it. So they embrace it.
What the heck is wrong with the truth? It was a glitch, they could not fix it. They tried too and failed. So instead of banning everyone for doing said exploit. They was force to accept it as part of the game.
That is a fact, that is what happen. To say that it was not a glitch, why did they attempt to fix it? Why did they say it was not intended?
I don't understand your logic at all. Some dude even showed proof of the developers saying it was not intended, and that still was not good enough. You posted a video of the developers saying they accept it. What choice did they have when they failed to fix it?
Please explain to me if they got rid of AC how it would work if lets say you press an ability then switch bars, does the ability not go off or do you not switch bars? same with roll dodge, lets say u press vigor then immediately roll dodge what would happen? Because if they simply didnt go off it'd be the same as cast time ultimates that feel awful. Im seeing a lot of campaigning against AC but no real answers about how it would work if it was removed.
I would think if you cancel the animation for the attack you cancel the attack. So instant blocks would still exist, but the attack that was canceled would do no damage.
So basically itl be like the cast time on dawnbreaker and onslaught that everyone absolutely hates but on every ability. Sounds greaaaaat....
The more exclusionary the combat system, the less people will utilize the content that depends on that combat system. I just don’t want this game to turn into wow where the combat became so exclusionary they had to make multiple difficulty versions of everything to justify the budget for them.
If you love ac then fine, just do not expect much trial or pvp dlcs, there is no audience for it because the combat system is restricting participation.
If they removed AC I'd be removing myself from the game pretty quick tbh. I'd rather no DLC.
So not a target customer then.
The amount of people doing trials, pvp, etc is at an all time low. They just got godslayer on consoles and the amount of people who got it on pc is pretty minimal. It’s the casual player who is keeping the lights on.
You may not want more content but I do. I want the game to grow and the combat system is the main hinderance to that growth. So zos (if they were to read this [they won’t]) has a choice to make, make combat and content for the masses, or make content for people like you who doesn’t want to give them money.5 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should goMCBIZZLE300 wrote: »
It's already like that in the form of cast times though like with dizzying swing, a prime example of a hard hitting ability which takes time to land. Same with snipe and dark flare. Certain abilities have cast time because they hit hard. So your idea is already in the game and working as intended? I dont understand what specific abilities you think are bieng cast too fast.
Like I said, it just depends on the skill, animation and damage.
Mage fury would be fast. So when using it. You get a faster gcd.
Now pick a normal heavy hitting skill that has a bigger animation or whatever. It would cause a slower gcd.
What I want is your skills require a choice and thinking on when to use them.
I mean this is just one idea. I'm not a fan of the spamming of skills anyway. I want it to be more focus on attacks, blocking, and waiting for the right moments to use skills. Instead of this boring unskilled combat we got now.Edited by rager82b14_ESO on February 28, 2020 2:30PM1 -
rager82b14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭should go[
So not a target customer then.
The amount of people doing trials, pvp, etc is at an all time low. They just got godslayer on consoles and the amount of people who got it on pc is pretty minimal. It’s the casual player who is keeping the lights on.
You may not want more content but I do. I want the game to grow and the combat system is the main hinderance to that growth. So zos (if they were to read this [they won’t]) has a choice to make, make combat and content for the masses, or make content for people like you who doesn’t want to give them money.
You are 100 percent right on this. I don't know how many times I tried to get new people to play, and it always ends up being just how stupid the combat is. This does not feel like elder scrolls game. Spamming attacks for resources? I swing and hit like a wet noodle.5
This discussion has been closed.