Tab vs Action for Ashes of Creation

2

Comments

  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds
    Agreed, it all depends on what I am doing and how I am feeling.
    Also, for the less/more skilled side of this argument. Some players in an Action Combat will button mash and spam attacks, just like some players in a tab-target will set up a muscle memory rotation and be done. If Ashes does what the plan well, both combat types will feel natural/smooth and be equally effective.

    There was a mention earlier about making some classes weighted one way or the other, I think that would be a bad idea. As we can see, the room is still divided on what they would prefer and weighting classes would limit some players options because of that.
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

    I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

    I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

    Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

    Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

    I disagree with the comparison as target and aimed abilities are the same thing and not two completely different games. Yes, they are both strategy games but they are played in a very different manner. Abilities on the other hand aren't that different. The only difference between a point and click and a aimed ability is a point and click is garenteed to land on the target you click on.

    Yes, in games like league, characters compensate for there ability being a garenteed hit, there abilities usually have a drawback, like range, which might forces them to use some kind of strategy but you can get the same strategies with a free aim kit. My argument is there is nothing that makes a point and click kit inherently require more strategy.

    Do characters like zed or ahri require less of a strategy then annie? What about anivia? Is there no strategy to her kit? Which irelia required more strategy, new or old? A better comparison might be new and old aatrox.

    OK, let's imagine you have 2 different fireball spells. One is tab targeted, the other is manually aimed. Both spells have identical costs, ranges, damages, etc.

    The manually aimed fireball is harder to hit with because your opponent can dodge it. On the other hand the tab targeted fireball is harder to defend against because the only way to avoid it is to move out of range.

    Successfully defending against the tab targeted fireball requires you to pick the right moment to fight, because as soon as you are in range of your opponent you can get hit.

    By contrast, active dodging allows you more leeway since you can move into range of your opponent and still avoid getting hit.

    So how does the tab target one require more strategy? Yes, you have different options on the defensive side but i don't see how one is more strategic.

    Range is a factor in both scenarios, i can stay out of range of both the targeted and the free aim spell but the free aim spell gives me an extra option, i can try to dodge it. Does this extra option mean there is less strategy?

    You are also focusing on the defensive side of things for some reason. lets compare the offensive side. With the tab target, I just need to move into range and line of site and i hit them. With the aimed skill i have to do both those things but i also have to predict there movements as they can dodge. Once again, i don't see how the tab target spell requires more strategy.

    It's not so much that tab targeting has more strategy involved, but that it relies more on strategy than action combat does. You can of course employ the same amount of strategy in both systems, but if your strategy fails in action combat you can still win due to mechanical skill.

    This is impossible to do in tab target combat and the result is that strategic mistakes are punished more in tab target than in action combat.



    You kind of are oversimplifying things. You can't necessarily rely on mechanics to win, it depends on the strategy.

    For starters, tab targeting requires mechanics too, action combat just adds on top of those mechanics by requiring you to aim. Messing up your strategy in a tab target system is messing up mechanically and a person can win in a tab target system because they have better mechanics.

    Yes, mechanics play a bigger role in a free aim system but I don't think it's correct to say a person will win because they have better mechanics. It depends on the strategy and how reliant it is on mechanics. Think league, there are characters like Garen that don't require a lot of mechanics to be successful and then there are characters like zed that do. A player playing zed could have better mechanics then someone playing garen but loses because zed is more mechanically demanding then garen and they aren't able to fully utilize his strategy because of that demand.

    In ashes, we kind of had a good example of what could happen brought up in this thread. Nagash brought up that he would build his character/strategy around summons and AOEs. A strategy that doesn't require a lot of precise mechanical skill. He could go against someone who built a precise archer with small projectiles that require perfect aiming. Nagash doesn't necessarily need to have better mechanics to beat the archer. He doesn't need to be as precise with his aoes and summons, as the archer does with his arrows.

    Yes, mechanics play a bigger role in a free aim system and they can make executing a strategy harder but I don't think that means better mechanics wins in a free aim system or that strategic mistakes are more punished in a tab target system because of how strategies vary. The only exception is probably a mirror match.

    I can see where you are coming from, and what you say makes sense. However, after playing league for so long part of me says your theory is wrong. Maybe that's just because of the way the combat is made in league. In LoL, if a Zed player gets caught out of position (usually from not paying attention to the minimap or his opponent), he can still escape due to his kit and the action combat system. On the other hand, if a Garen player gets caught out of position they have very little tools to escape with.

    Again, maybe this is only because of the way the combat is implemented and how the map is laid out.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men
    elf wrote: »
    Damokles wrote: »
    Tbh, i like both. Tab-targetting is relaxing and depends for most parts on muscle memory, while action is a constant action that needs you to keep on you toes.

    I think you hit the nail on the head with this one; I find action combat exhausting and hard on the hands, whereas tab targeting no so much, and I do play a game to "relax". Perhaps that's why all the other MMORPG activities besides combat are so appealing.

    I think different classes also suit tab targeting such as healers and summoners
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • SarevokSarevok Member
    edited July 31
    I vote action combat over tab or even hybrid. Played Black Desert Online and really enjoyed their combat. They had some other really bad systems and mechanics for the game that pushed me away.

    +1 Action Combat
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds
    Nagash wrote: »
    I think different classes also suit tab targeting such as healers and summoners
    I'm not sure that will be the case in Ashes.
    For instance, in NWO, healers have to kill stuff in order to regain healing mana. NWO is all action combat. Sometimes other characters or mobs would block and/or spoil your aimed shot.

    The Ashes devs want Clerics to be more active during combat than just standing in the back focused on heals. I expect them to have the same philosophy for Summoners.
    So, even with healers and summoners - it's probably going to be up to each player to decide which form of combat they prefer.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men
    Dygz wrote: »
    Nagash wrote: »
    I think different classes also suit tab targeting such as healers and summoners
    I'm not sure that will be the case in Ashes.
    For instance, in NWO, healers have to kill stuff in order to regain healing mana. NWO is all action combat. Sometimes other characters or mobs would block and/or spoil your aimed shot.

    The Ashes devs want Clerics to be more active during combat than just standing in the back focused on heals. I expect them to have the same philosophy for Summoners.
    So, even with healers and summoners - it's probably going to be up to each player to decide which form of combat they prefer.

    that may be the case. I will have to judge it when I get my hands on it as apoc does not fill me with confidence
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • WololoWololo Member, Leader of Men
    Being biased, I prefer tab over action in MMO. More relaxing to play for long sessions and i think skilled gameplay in a mmo comes mostly from positioning, skill timing and making high IQ plays thinking far ahead of your enemy. And not so much from having godly aim or click accuracy. I want the brain to hurt from thinking before the wrist hurts from moving the mouse if that makes sence. Also other details like how freely the camera tempt to move and the time you have during combat to type and chat with other players makes me favour tab. I hope they make the hybrid system work ! That would surely make younger gamers try out Ashes. But like @elf sayd; will work with whatever we end up with :D
    Wololo.png
  • seaberseaber Member
    Almost every mmorpg has hybrid combat and it doesn't matters where on the spectrum AOC's combat lies.
    Some have bad combat with more targeting, like Bless.
    Some have good combat with more targeting, like FFXIV.
    Some have bad combat with more action, like Wildstar.
    Some have good combat with more action, like AA.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men
    seaber wrote: »
    Almost every mmorpg has hybrid combat and it doesn't matters where on the spectrum AOC's combat lies.
    Some have bad combat with more targeting, like Bless.
    Some have good combat with more targeting, like FFXIV.
    Some have bad combat with more action, like Wildstar.
    Some have good combat with more action, like AA.

    If its like final fantasy FFXIV or GW 2 I will be so happy
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
  • seaber wrote: »
    Almost every mmorpg has hybrid combat and it doesn't matters where on the spectrum AOC's combat lies.
    Some have bad combat with more targeting, like Bless.
    Some have good combat with more targeting, like FFXIV.
    Some have bad combat with more action, like Wildstar.
    Some have good combat with more action, like AA.

    This is not what Steven means when he says 'hybrid combat'. You're probably referring to his talk with @jahlon regarding what he considers 'action'. The idea is to combine Apocalypse action combat with traditional tab target which we've never seen before.
    signature.png
  • You know what I think we need? I think we need a completely new combat system to resolve this war between us, away from Action, away from Tab-targetting, something unheard of... something of the unseen... something that might just be ground breaking... hmm...

    I'VE GOT THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR QUESTIONS!!

    WE NEED...

    some milk.
  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    I tend to look at it in terms of which system best simulates the ability/skill/spell.

    It's clear action-oriented skills that involve positioning, direction, and aim are most realistically simulated with action combat.

    But any class could have a skill or spell that only requires line of sight to a target without aim; i.e. you see your target on the field but don't need to face them or point anything at them. In these cases I'd say tab targeting is a more realistic system for simulating that skill than the action system.
  • @ravudha Agreed. Even if they go full tab, I believe there will be some action mechanics at least as much as ESO - requiring line of sight to aim as you said.
    signature.png
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Member, Founder
    kayra wrote: »
    @ravudha Agreed. Even if they go full tab, I believe there will be some action mechanics at least as much as ESO - requiring line of sight to aim as you said.

    Line of Sight is a very simple (yet effective) way of adding depth to a tab-target combat system. Other ways of adding depth would be multi-tasking. When I played FFXIV I immediately gravitated towards the Summoner class because I knew that having a pet that I could use to attack separately from me added depth and would be more interesting than the other classes.
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    kayra wrote: »
    The 'tab vs action' discussion has been going on forever as both sides fail to convince one another that theirs' is the better option. Tab target has been a staple in most MMOs as it's traditional and very easy to implement while action requires more money, time and technology. Tab target is successful and does work however, there's a growing number of people - especially young people think it is outdated and one of the reasons why the total number of people playing MMORPGs (Around 20 million players) is smaller than a single shooter game (Overwatch - 30 million players) that is considered 'dead' by many people. When the number is compared with the most successful game of our time (League of Legends - 115 million), MMOs do seem quite niche. They argue that these games are successful because they have fun and engaging combat, which draws young people who make up the majority of gamers today. However, we all know that there is more to MMOs than just the combat; it is a living world, and as the MMORPG community is somewhat diverse, many have different reasons to why they play MMOs. 'combat makes or kills a game' is still relevant tho. Ashes want to achieve a hybrid combat, and despite the fact they claim the player choice will determine play-style, the game will supposedly feel more like one or the other. So I ask you; what kind of combat would you like to see in Ashes; more tab or action-oriented?

    (Please note that this is part of a small survey I've been conducting and your answers will be of great help 🧝🏻‍♂️)

    Your numbers and stats are flawed

    Runescape has had over 200,000,000 accounts created.

    League of Legends is not the most successful game of our time, not sure what statistic you are pulling but you need to qualify and quantify your numbers.

    Plus, you've dragged all sort of numbers and genres all into one pot.

    Its like saying apples are better than orangutans because purple smells like 7.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • Magic ManMagic Man Member
    edited August 2
    @jahlon uhm not really. First of all, the numbers are approximates and show only concurrent players. Obviously they aren't 100% accurate but do give a good estimation collected from variety of sources. The most optimistic result comes from Newzoo ( Marketing Research for the Games Industry) which estimates that there are about 400 million total MMORPG players worldwide. The site also acknowledges Leauge of Legends as the most popular game of our time. Btw, If you want to talk about 'registered accounts', league of legends has about 204.000.000.sooo yeah :|

    Secondly, I dragged all those numbers and genres into one pot only for comparison for people who may not know as well as to show how combat is important for most gamers in the world.

    Lastly, I've never said 'this is better than that' - I merely stated that young people in general like games with an engaging combat and find tab target boring which is one of the reasons why they don't play MMOs (my personal opinion)

    Are you feeling OK Jahlon?...Here are statistics you asked for 😒:

    Screen_Shot_2019-08-02_at_02.56.11.png

    Screen_Shot_2019-08-02_at_02.39.36.png

    Screen_Shot_2019-08-02_at_02.45.31.png

    Screen_Shot_2019-08-02_at_02.57.32.png

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/251222/most-played-pc-games/
    https://wall-street.com/top-5-most-popular-online-games-in-2019/
    https://newzoo.com/insights/rankings/top-20-core-pc-games/
    https://mmo-population.com
    https://www.mmobyte.tv/top-10-most-played-mmorpgs-in-2019-what-mmos-should-you-be-playing/

    signature.png
  • kayra wrote: »
    @ravudha Agreed. Even if they go full tab, I believe there will be some action mechanics at least as much as ESO - requiring line of sight to aim as you said.

    Line of Sight is a very simple (yet effective) way of adding depth to a tab-target combat system. Other ways of adding depth would be multi-tasking. When I played FFXIV I immediately gravitated towards the Summoner class because I knew that having a pet that I could use to attack separately from me added depth and would be more interesting than the other classes.

    Agreed. Dunno if you remember but In the caravan video there was a rock ability. I asked Lieutenant Toast and she said it was a LoS ability.
    signature.png
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    Runescape, when it set its world record had 254,994,744. (25 July 2017) so overall the largest game ever is still an MMORPG this is according to the Guinness Book of World Records.

    Your numbers are also flawed because concurrent vs total players is an important distinction.

    While LOL may have more average monthly players, they have less total accounts than Fortnite (250 million) and a lower concurrent player base (7.5 for LOL vs 10.8 for Fortnite)

    Also look at the age of your numbers, 2015/2016.

    Your argument gets derailed because you've taken statistics and just thrown them out there, but they have nothing to do with tab vs action.

    Combat is but one part of an MMORPG, but you are trying to show the popularity of one type of combat (action ala First Person Shooter)

    So really you need to go back and cut all of the extraneous and irrelevant numbers out of your question. They weren't needed to ask people if they prefer action or tab.

    But since you started it as a survey, a survey that is flawed at step 1 can only, and will only produce flawed and unusable data.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds
    Any proof started with a false assumption is logically true, or principle of explosion, or false premise. It's one of the most common forms of proof on the forums.

    False premise is the most used argument on the forums.
    This argument is one of the most common on the forums.
    Therefore this argument is a false premise.

    It's so much fun!
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • Magic ManMagic Man Member
    edited August 2
    @jahlon

    Runescape's world record has nothing to do with the fact that League of Legends is the most popular game of our time. In the last 3 years things might have changed and Fortnite *might* have taken the throne of League but this does not disprove my point that young people enjoy engaging combat in fact it proves it even more.

    Concurrent players, total players etc take your pick. Doesn't change the fact MMOs today are way down in the charts when it comes to popularity.

    uhm good to know fortnite has more total accounts than league...I guess.

    Unfortunately, it is very hard to find up to date data on this however, it would be silly to think in 3 years everything has changed. Besides, truth speaks for itself..no need to argue on that point.

    As I said thrice, numbers are there to show the popularity of games and how engaging combat is important for young people who make up the majority of gamers today. Obviously, it is a pro action combat argument..Before that I also said 'tab target is successful and does work' as most popular MMOs are tab target. The numbers are there to show the state of the genre compared to games with engaging combat...Not that hard to get really :/

    🤦‍♂️ I said the exact same thing. 'There's more to MMOs than just the combat, it's a living world'. And no, I gave examples from League which isn't FPS 🤨

    You may think numbers weren't needed to ask people whether they prefer action or tab and I respect your opinion on that. However, I don't see how it would make the survey 'flawed'. I simply take the opinions of all people who comment here and jot it down. Thanks for your concern tho 😅

    signature.png
  • AzathothAzathoth Member, Braver of Worlds
    I think there should be a mix, and that mix should be accessible and viable to everyone. Limiting or focusing on one side (tab vs. action) will limit the player base more, imo, than developing a good mix.

    I do agree that engaging, meaningful, challenging combat is needed for an MMORPG to do well.

    *slightly off point*

    Maybe younger players (as previously mentioned) care more for MMO's that are not traditional RPGs. Ashes will be a more traditional RPG in that it will focus on your character's development with a story line and not focus on PvP Battles (yes, that's a part but not the main focus).

    I only mention this because I don't always agree with "more people would prefer X, so you should add X." Mostly because of how I feel about most people though.
    57597603_387667588743769_477625458809110528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-lax3-1.xx&oh=16e82247154b84484b7f627c0ac76fca&oe=5D448BDD
    +1 Skull & Crown metal coin
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    kayra wrote: »
    @jahlon

    Runescape's world record has nothing to do with the fact that League of Legends is the most popular game of our time. In the last 3 years things might have changed and Fortnite *might* have taken the throne of League but this does not disprove my point that young people enjoy engaging combat in fact it proves it even more.

    You may think numbers weren't needed to ask people whether they prefer action or tab and I respect your opinion on that. However, I don't see how it would make the survey 'flawed'. I simply take the opinions of all people who comment here and jot it down. Thanks for your concern tho 😅

    Here's the thing.

    If you present a set of facts (in this case your numbers) and then those numbers are disputed, you either need to be able to double down and prove your numbers or you need to abandon them.

    You say that the Runescape world record has *nothing* to do with the fact that League of Legends is the most popular game of our time. Except, by what standard?

    I did just show you that there are more Runescape accounts than there are League of Legends accounts. So your fact is now disproven.

    You also showed data from 2015 and 2016 about the popularity of League of Legends, however, Fortnite did not exist until September 26, 2017, which means using that data to claim "of our time" is likewise flawed. Now if you want to limit it to 2015 and 2016 Sure, that might work.

    Except, then I'd have ask ask how PUBG had 229 monthly players as of June 2018 and Pokemon Go had 147 million players to League of Legends 100 million.

    If you want to roll around and collect survey data, I personally thing that's GREAT. I love when people do data gathering.

    However, I've pointed out the flaws in your data early because sometime in the future you are going to make a statement along the lines of "I polled people on the forums and what I got was....(fill in your responses" and you are going to get shut-down immediately when it gets pointed out that you started from a flawed position and therefore everything you gather from a flawed position is considered flawed.

    The numbers you used are both inaccurate and irrelevant.

    I do highly encourage you though to double back, rewrite the survey/question without the bias, give your starting point a solid foundation and then come up with some solid responses you can use.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • seaberseaber Member
    kayra wrote: »
    This is not what Steven means when he says 'hybrid combat'. You're probably referring to his talk with @jahlon regarding what he considers 'action'. The idea is to combine Apocalypse action combat with traditional tab target which we've never seen before.

    PBAoEs, GTAoEs, linear skillshots, soft cc, invisibility, chain skills, directional protection, knock backs, linear teleports, summonable walls and leaving a trail are many of the skills in Apoc and they are all present in other hybrid(but probably what you call tab target) mmorpgs.
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    seaber wrote: »
    kayra wrote: »
    This is not what Steven means when he says 'hybrid combat'. You're probably referring to his talk with @jahlon regarding what he considers 'action'. The idea is to combine Apocalypse action combat with traditional tab target which we've never seen before.

    PBAoEs, GTAoEs, linear skillshots, soft cc, invisibility, chain skills, directional protection, knock backs, linear teleports, summonable walls and leaving a trail are many of the skills in Apoc and they are all present in other hybrid(but probably what you call tab target) mmorpgs.

    Yeah with this you have to come to the realization that its been years and years since we've had a Pure Traditional "Tab" game. Most of what we have been playing is Tab+ and like you said Tab bordering on Hybrid.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • seaberseaber Member
    Jahlon wrote: »
    seaber wrote: »
    kayra wrote: »
    This is not what Steven means when he says 'hybrid combat'. You're probably referring to his talk with @jahlon regarding what he considers 'action'. The idea is to combine Apocalypse action combat with traditional tab target which we've never seen before.

    PBAoEs, GTAoEs, linear skillshots, soft cc, invisibility, chain skills, directional protection, knock backs, linear teleports, summonable walls and leaving a trail are many of the skills in Apoc and they are all present in other hybrid(but probably what you call tab target) mmorpgs.

    Yeah with this you have to come to the realization that its been years and years since we've had a Pure Traditional "Tab" game. Most of what we have been playing is Tab+ and like you said Tab bordering on Hybrid.

    Tab+ ? Tab bordering on Hybrid?
    If it's 99% targeted and 1% calculated then it's a hybrid.
    Only games that are 100% targeted or 100% calculated are not hybrids.

    I've changed to saying calculated instead of action because that's what decides if something is 'tab' or 'action'. Targeted skills are simple player X takes Y damage. Calculated skills require area checks, ray tracing, or communication with many clients.
  • JahlonJahlon Member
    seaber wrote: »
    Jahlon wrote: »
    seaber wrote: »
    kayra wrote: »
    This is not what Steven means when he says 'hybrid combat'. You're probably referring to his talk with @jahlon regarding what he considers 'action'. The idea is to combine Apocalypse action combat with traditional tab target which we've never seen before.

    PBAoEs, GTAoEs, linear skillshots, soft cc, invisibility, chain skills, directional protection, knock backs, linear teleports, summonable walls and leaving a trail are many of the skills in Apoc and they are all present in other hybrid(but probably what you call tab target) mmorpgs.

    Yeah with this you have to come to the realization that its been years and years since we've had a Pure Traditional "Tab" game. Most of what we have been playing is Tab+ and like you said Tab bordering on Hybrid.

    Tab+ ? Tab bordering on Hybrid?
    If it's 99% targeted and 1% calculated then it's a hybrid.
    Only games that are 100% targeted or 100% calculated are not hybrids.

    I've changed to saying calculated instead of action because that's what decides if something is 'tab' or 'action'. Targeted skills are simple player X takes Y damage. Calculated skills require area checks, ray tracing, or communication with many clients.

    The only danger to that is damage and accuracy are also mathematically calculated in tab combat.
    PQHgamQ.png
  • leonerdoleonerdo Member, Settler
    edited August 2
    The parts about action-oriented systems that I enjoying are:
    • The camera/mouse controls -- The traditional way of using mouse buttons to select things and turn the camera is both tedious AND a waste of mouse buttons. Locking the mouse to camera controls and using left/right click for attacks feels much better to me.
    • The increased focus on mobility within skills -- Some skills are used primarily for movement, some lock you in place for big attacks or big blocks, some just have a little nudge to add impact to the attack, and some let you move more freely. The variety and impact is what makes it interesting and fun.
    • And the active defense -- Not just moving out of the way of attacks, but also blocking/countering/iframing. Also, it's nice to watch boss animations rather than just looking at danger-colored polygons on the floor. I've had enough of casually walking out of telegraphs.

    What I don't care about is the targetting scheme. You can have all of the above and still include tab-targetting, and I would consider it action-oriented.

    And ugh, I really want to rant about the shooter mechanics Intrepid has been testing (headshots, really?) because I don't know if it'll work out or not. But maybe it'll be fine. I'll just say I have a lot of reservations about putting precise-aiming gameplay into an RPG. I'll wait for us to get our hands on the game before I lament any more.
  • leonerdo wrote: »
    The parts about action-oriented systems that I enjoying are:
    • The camera/mouse controls -- The traditional way of using mouse buttons to select things and turn the camera is both tedious AND a waste of mouse buttons. Locking the mouse to camera controls and using left/right click for attacks feels much better to me.
    • The increased focus on mobility within skills -- Some skills are used primarily for movement, some lock you in place for big attacks or big blocks, some just have a little nudge to add impact to the attack, and some let you move more freely. The variety and impact is what makes it interesting and fun.
    • And the active defense -- Not just moving out of the way of attacks, but also blocking/countering/iframing. Also, it's nice to watch boss animations rather than just looking at danger-colored polygons on the floor. I've had enough of casually walking out of telegraphs.

    What I don't care about is the targetting scheme. You can have all of the above and still include tab-targetting, and I would consider it action-oriented.

    And ugh, I really want to rant about the shooter mechanics Intrepid has been testing (headshots, really?) because I don't know if it'll work out or not. But maybe it'll be fine. I'll just say I have a lot of reservations about putting precise-aiming gameplay into an RPG. I'll wait for us to get our hands on the game before I lament any more.

    I agree with everything you've said. They said headshots will count as a critical hit while people with mostly tab target oriented skills will always have a fixed chance of critical hit. So basically action combat allows you to rely less on RNG and more on skill.
    signature.png
  • seaberseaber Member
    Jahlon wrote: »
    The only danger to that is damage and accuracy are also mathematically calculated in tab combat.

    Or not. And in 'action' combat or not.

    That's the damage being calculated, not the skill.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men
    Its funny as I can see the hybrid combat fail to grab the attention of both camps
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Sign In or Register to comment.