In order to make melee combat more interesting and dynamic VR has hinted at using melee stances.
My personal take on these is that instead of these stances like Offensive, Defensive, Stealth or whatever I would just prefer High,Mid, and Low stance.
A rogue that does a slashing ability from low stance would get a hamstring, from a mid stance would get a bleed maybe and from a high stance would get some kind of daze effect.
Defensively knowing when a mob is about to do an attack at your head and switching to a high stance would provide some extra level of protection.
Most people would probably just set it to mid and not worry about it but players who want to eek every little bit out of their characters could get good at stance switching for added benefits.
The more depth they add to combat and the longer it takes me to master all the little details of it the better imo.
Thanks in advance for reading and contributing to these great forums,
Kiz~
This is not the traditional form for combat stances, but I would like it as an active combat concept rather than a set it and forget it type of stance system I've seen in most games
Usually, the stance chosen is more in line with a person's playstyle... something like less chance to crit but increased chance to parry or increased chance to crit with less defense
Seems like the main issue would be the space required to hold 3 buttons just for the ability to aim at zones, and the real utility for this idea would only work on direct weapon damage types, as a fireball to the head has pretty much the same effect as a fireball to the belly... same goes for most (all?) spells and CC
If Player/NPC animations were detailed enough, this could be a really cool option for DDs that wanted a more active combat style, but NPCs would have to have the same fighting complexity available to them at least to some degree I suppose, which might be a pretty big ask
Usually, this kind of stuff is handled by different skills rather than stances, so you would have a stun/interrupt skill that is described as you hit the guy in the head or a CC skill that is described as you slice the guy's hamstrings
If you had stances as you imagine, what would your actual skills look like?
If you are not familiar with the older game Asheron's Call, they provided a "combat stance" if you will for High, Middle, Low. All it was when you were attacking you chose where you wanted your hits to connect at. Say you were fighting a flying wasp, Low attacks would do very little damage. Spells did not have this option, it was only bow/crossbow and any melee. Spells automatically just targetted. They also had a "strength/speed" slider so if you chose you could attack every second but it would not do nearly as much damage as if you had the slider halfway. You would hit for maybe 20 instead of 30-35. Some weapons had special attacks for this though, where if you were a dagger or sword user, and your sword/dagger skill was above a certain level, say 450, and you had the slider to MAX, you hit 2-3 times in quick succession for massive damage. I do not believe having stances where you need to switch if you see "Mob is aiming High, switch to High Stance, Mob is aiming Low, switch to Low." I think that would be a bit too much for quite a few people, maybe not those hardcore gamers, but for the casual player I think it would be a non-factor.
Maybe having stances that gave added benefits like Defensive stance you are given +5AC, CC reduced by 20%, Damage reduced by 5-10%. Offensive Stance you gain bonus damage, perhaps every 3rd hit you get some kind of a proc. You sacrafice defense for offense, so you take 10% more damage, but output 10% more damage. Something like that I think would be better.
I like the idea of dynamic combat that requires focus. Stances are certainly a way to accomplish that.
For example, if a warrior has three stances, Offense, Utility, and Defense, then you could have abilities that do someting different depending on which stance is being used. Maybe the skill, which we can call Ruthless Strike just for simplicity sake, would apply an armor sunder in Defense stance, a spell interupt in the Utility stance, and an increased chance to crit in Offense stance. The warrior would have to keep Defense stance active while he is tanking, but would switch to Utility whenever the mob starts to cast a heal, and would switch to Offense when the mob tries to flee the battle.
An example for casters would be a cleric having temperments insted of stances. Fiery temperment would give the spell Heal a short term fire resist buff, Icy temperment would give Heal a short term cold resist buff, and Heavenly temperment would give Heal a short term AC buff. The cleric would stay in Heavenly temperment and then change to Fiery temperment when the mob starts to cast fireball so that she can give the tank extra fire resist, and so on.
I like the idea of choices and reactions having a real impact on the game rather than just afk-face-roll-to-win. If I can play with my eyes closed I probably wont play for long.
I love the idea of traditional combat stances and think they could be used as a great complimentary tool for specializations. Monks have both Body & Soul, one which fulfills an off-tank role and the other being more DPS oriented. I think players should be able to switch their combat stance while engaged in battle but specialization could only be changed out of combat. The combat stances would allow players to adjust their play on the fly (dynamic) for maximum performance whereas specialization would be used as more of a preparation technique. This would allow monks to go into a fight with their DPS spec but have a little leverage on switching their focus between offense/defense as needed. Conversely, they could go into the fight with their off-tank spec but have a little flexibility with their offense/defense at the same time. I think both the "active" and "proactive" aspects of combat are extremely important and that stances/specializations could be a great way to offer both. Your preparation choice is going to stick with you unless you manage to get out of combat (there is some sort of cost for doing this, or the opportunities are limited) but you still retain a little flexibility to adapt to surprises and utilize some of the versatility that your class offers by actively switching combat stances. This all assumes that you have both specializations unlocked (and whether or not it's possible to do this in the first place) which in my opinion should be an extraordinary feat.
As a player who will be maining a warrior (and main-tank for a raiding guild) this kind of flexibility would be wonderful. I always tune my character to be as defensive as possible for raiding purposes but this has always left me feeling very one dimensional when it comes to grouping or solo play, and seeing that the vast majority of the game will be designed around grouping, I would definitely welcome some degree of flexibility. I would re-level my warrior 6 times if that's what it takes. I would never expect my warrior to compete with actual DPS classes regardless of spec or stance ... but it would be great if we had some sort of flexibility similar to how monks have been described. A pure tank spec and then an off-dps spec would be great and would also open up the possibility of utilizing multiple players of the same class on a given raid. One huge issue I have had with MMO's of the past is that ALL group content requires a tank but when you get to raids extra tanks are usually inferior compared to DPS. This lead to a feeling of "We need you ... but it's mostly to help other classes level up. After that you'll mostly be assigned to bench warming duties." A second guardian in offensive stance isn't going to cut it a majority of the time but if you allow that warrior the option to switch their spec to berserker, there will be a lot of happy campers. The key is balance and role interdependence. If there is no way to allow warriors this kind of versatility then it is what it is, but it appears that's the plan for monks so hey ... wishful thinking.
Generally, I want systems that emphasize slow-burn group tactics over dynamic individual combat. I want everybody in the group to be thinking abstractly about combat; about positioning, collaboratively managing the ebb and flow of threat, and optimizing resource expenditure. This means that stabbing shouldn't demand too much attention because you'll need to be thinking about when you're stabbing, why you're stabbing, and how long you can keep it up.
All that's to say: stances are great as long as they're not twitchy.
There are generally three types of stance design concepts:
1) Toggle Stance with Passive effects and a selection of exclusive active powers
2) Tactical Stances, Low medium High attacks, grapple range, punch range, kick/weapon, polearm range
3) Trade off sliders: Aggressiveness VS Caution and Speed Vs Strength
I actually like all three independent of each other.
Option 1 allows for unique mana sources and the ability to fulfill different group roles in the same character but not simultaneously.
Option 2 builds in a level of tactical choices in combat that allow you to treat combat more as rock paper scissors rather than just give me the biggest rock I can find.
Option 3 creates a system of tradeoffs to fine tune a players response throughout a stream of encounters. Higher aggression will yield higher damage but at the expense of safety and higher agro generation. High strength will give you the ability to alpha strike hard and penetrate resistances but at the expense of efficiency and maximum dps, assuming that max speed is higher DPS than max strength on a 0 damage resistance target.
Will be interesting to see what VR comes up with for each class.
I'm generally not a fan of stance dancing but I could see stances being a core mechanic for a class or two. Monks might have different stances/fighting styles that allow them to use their fists to inflict different types of damage (blunt/slash/pierce).
With a limited action set having different stances can be a lot more limiting, especially if moves require certain stances. At the same time if each ability has different functions in different stances then the LAS is kind of turned on its head when some melee have upwards of 30 abilities in 10 slots.
I think combat stances in general are a good idea. I agree with trying to avoid a "set and forget" style for it. I like dynamic combat and one of the more interesting systems I've seen had a chained options with different trees you could go down based on what you chose. This meant each time you executed a particular attack, you could choose to be more offensive or defensive with your chained actions (or single target vs aoe). But once you went down a path, you were somewhat locked into it unless you wanted to start at the beginning of the tree. So you had to plan your attack sequence but it was flexible enough that you could switch it up based on what was going on in the fight. They did this in Age of Conan and was one of the few things done well in that game.
I support the idea of combat stances, but I'd like to inject some more lore into them than just have them be generic "offensive, defensive, etc"
I'd define each stance as a "style". I'll use swords as a reference.
Everyone who picks up a sword and learns to swing it can use the "basic" style, which offers no bonuses or penalties.
However, those who devote time to mastering the sword can learn distinct styles. The Bending Reed style, which focuses on defensive parries and counterattacks. The Demon's Claw style, which focuses on vicious strikes and fast, slashing attacks to keep opponents off balance. The Dragon's Tooth style, which focuses on defeating armored foes.
There can/should be many styles, and part of mastering a particular weapon should be traveling to learn more of them. And I do mean traveling - because styles are meta-abilities that might modify multiple abilities you use during combat, to learn them you should have to seek out masters or schools that teach that particular style, and spend time with them learning and practicing their unique methods.
The reward, of course, is that you are then able to change styles during fights, adjusting your strategy on the fly to suit the situation you're in.
Needless to say, I also think that there should be many different combat styles, and not just for swords either, but for the vast majority of martial weapons. So if your weapon of choice is a hammer or a mace, or a spear, or dual daggers, or even a crossbow (just to name a few).... there's styles for you to learn and master.
I think some form of stance system is almost mandatory in order to provide variety without also having 50 different buttons that need to be tracked. I prefer a passive offenseive/deffensive/balanced system but it needs to be able to be switched on the fly with no penalty. Having some kind of cooldown or lockout prevents reaction to events. I think having some kind of buff associated with the stances would be an additional way of adding variety.
For example, offensive stance gives me a passive 15% boost to damage, 10% reduction to armor and 15% boost to mana/stamina regeneration. Then I can pick an additional buff that I'm able to switch out. I boost my offensive stance so it buffs 2hd damage and adds 5% haste.
So everyone gets the same basic boosts from the stances but the number of buffs and types of buffs would be the variable. This would allow a lot of customization for each character and allow people to min/max to their hearts content. Someone who doesn't like flipping stances can choose a balanced loadout while someone who prefers more micromanagement can have a dramatic change when they change stance.