As damage dealing goes, i think an action combat is more engaging and gives a better short term thrill for players. However, i think most action combat systems lack the long term stability and strategic choices a Tab system does that really keep players engaged long term. Most games these days are so focused on mobility and players reactivity making combat more about who can be the most agile and quick reflexed player to succeed. As a player almost in their 40's I just don't find the fun in getting wasted by someone who is quicker with their fingers when in most situations when the smart decision is needed, I would win and succeed in.
I'm not against the action system, as ive played games with that type of system but I never stick around because usually the game around it is also about fast pace and getting to a structured end game that befits the highest end players. Which isnt the case in this game. For me, as long as its fluid with a bit of a trade off of choice in strategy vs reaction, i'm all for it something that is fun.
As a player almost in their 40's I just don't find the fun in getting wasted by someone who is quicker with their fingers when in most situations when the smart decision is needed, I would win and succeed in.
Thats what i mean.
Action combat is very fatigueing, especially as you get older.
If you want face pace adrenaline games, there are plenty of other genres, like Apex, Overwatch etc.
Im usually a top PvP player in tab target mmorpgs, but in heavy action combat ones, its just about clicking your skills as fast as possible rather than playing tacticly.
Tab target is vastly superior if you want to appeal to a wider audiance and not a niche small group.
I don't understand why people keep saying they don't know how big battles like raids and seiges will work with so many people.
Have none of you seen movies with large scale battles? Game of thrones, hobbit, or movies with real life wars to name a few.
Have you not played or seen action mobas? Overwatch, paladins, gigantic to name a few.
Well it's gonna look like a combination of the two. You have to focus on the enemies right next to you and keep going till you kill them all, to put it in simple terms. I mean I'm pretty sure they made a trailer that showed that as well.
Be honest and say you simply don't like the idea of it and not that you ''don't know how that would work'', cause I don't believe that for a second.
I don't understand why people keep saying they don't know how big battles like raids and seiges will work with so many people.
Have none of you seen movies with large scale battles? Game of thrones, hobbit, or movies with real life wars to name a few.
Have you not played or seen action mobas? Overwatch, paladins, gigantic to name a few.
Well it's gonna look like a combination of the two. You have to focus on the enemies right next to you and keep going till you kill them all, to put it in simple terms. I mean I'm pretty sure they made a trailer that showed that as well.
Be honest and say you simply don't like the idea of it and not that you ''don't know how that would work'', cause I don't believe that for a second.
Nobody has said it absolutely can't work, just that it will require a well thought out system to work well. This is in comparison with tab-target or true hybrid which can do it very easily and very well.
I'd stay away from putting words into people's mouths too btw.
Nobody has said it absolutely can't work, just that it will require a well thought out system to work well. This is in comparison with tab-target or true hybrid which can do it very easily and very well.
I'd stay away from putting words into people's mouths too btw.
Ok number one i have been following your argument with cypher and personally I'm on their side.
Number two and most importantly, on your response to them in the last paragraphs that you yourself wrote said you can't envision a 40 man raid with bdo combat.
You were one of quite a few people who made similar comments like that and those are what i am referring too.
I never put words into peoples mouths, but apparently you need to start to learn how to read peoples responses starting from your own
Nobody has said it absolutely can't work, just that it will require a well thought out system to work well. This is in comparison with tab-target or true hybrid which can do it very easily and very well.
I'd stay away from putting words into people's mouths too btw.
Ok number one i have been following your argument with cypher and personally I'm on their side.
Number two and most importantly, on your response to them in the last paragraphs that you yourself wrote said you can't envision a 40 man raid with bdo combat.
You were one of quite a few people who made similar comments like that and those are what i am referring too.
I never put words into peoples mouths, but apparently you need to start to learn how to read peoples responses starting from your own
How would you envision a 40 man raid going with BDO combat? Even if it was catered to more small battle scenarios it'd be hard to get that right. I'm not saying it's impossible, it would just require an amount of precise balance and creativity that would pull dev time and resources away from other things.
I don't think action combat can't work, I just think it requires a lot more thought and balance. The main thing I disagree with you on is how much you think hybrid combat, ESO Wildstar and yes GW2 combat, is outright bad.
Do you mean this right here where I actually do not do what you say I do? Do you need to, as you just said, "learn how to read people's responses starting from your own"? Notice how I specifically say that I don't think it's impossible. Your passive aggressive "positivity" at the end is also kind of cringe and obviously hostile.
Maybe you thought I was implying something with that question but really I wanted to get his actual thoughts on the matter.
Maybe you can see why it seems like you're putting words into people's mouths. I'm not trying to have a hostile discussion, and this is getting off topic. I much prefer a discussion that doesn't rely on ad hominem or outright biases.
Edit: I will say I do thank you for having answered my question in your original comment. I initially disagreed with it but I'm trying to imagine how a 250v250 would play out with semi-overwatch style combat in an mmo and if there's any major flaws other than it devolving into what is essentially a pvp mosh pit before coming to a conclusion on that.
Seems like the ppl how want TT Are saying am.not quik enogh to be the best so AC is bad. Or am to old for AC combat in ny eyes , Even being almost blind and Well over 30 i think this Are some of the worst and egosentric arguments in this thread.
Its 2021 it has to be more action oriantated then not.
Girl i know you said you don't think it's impossible, i read every comment in this discussion. I was specifically answering to the envisioning part, obviously.
Also it's large scale events tt is not gonna make it any less of a mosh pit, whatever that is, obviously.
Its a game as long as they have the time every thing is impossible in a game no one doubts that.
As for the rainbows, smiles and positivity thats who i am from real life stuff that are none of your business. I'm too old to passively attack people on a theoretical discussion about a game, chill.
I'm just sharing my perspective and trying very hard to keep it a civil constructive argument to help the devs in whatever data they want from this
1
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Your response to me saying the abilities were unique and had a lot of utility and comboed with each other and their class was to link stale combat against a basic strong enemy and you say I'm being disingenuous.
My response included MUCH more than just a link, however your disingenuous, argumentative self won’t acknowledge anything else. You’re the type that will pick one thing from an entire argument and try to pick that one thing apart. Nothing you’ve said in response to me has had any substance or anything to back it up. It’s just been about me or the structure of the argument or in this case the exhibit I used. You even used this same tactic against RainFae by assuming they weren’t being genuine. That’s your bread and butter, assumptions and personal jabs. Without those all you have left is “nuh uh you’re wrong, tell me why you’re not wrong”.
Now, as far as this video goes, it’s completely relevant because your class will play like this video shows, no matter the level. Adding some environmental hazards or boss mechanics will not change that this is how your class will play, period. It’s boring, it’s repetitive, it’s shallow. It’s not skillful in the least. Again, adding boss mechanics that require skill or knowledge won’t change the fact that your class itself is shallow and repetitive and requires no skill to use the abilities. If you think they do, that says something about you and not the game.
I said that in response to you complaining about hotbar combat being repeating the same combo repeatedly. Yes I provided no argument against action combat, because that wasn't my intention. I was just showing you how hypocritical you were being.
I was not hypocritical. You said there is not a difference between using the most optimized order of hot key skills and using the most optimized order of action combos. I said okay then if that’s how you feel then why wouldn’t we use the more fun of the systems? I genuinely do not think there is any skill involved in GW2 abilities, based on my own experience in the game with multiple classes. I genuinely do think an action combat game has much more skill involved and additionally does not involve striking the correct key but rather combining and chaining your abilities. Still failing to see how any of that is hypocritical, but keep using your buzzwords big guy.
How would you envision a 40 man raid going with BDO combat? Even if it was catered to more small battle scenarios it'd be hard to get that right. I'm not saying it's impossible, it would just require an amount of precise balance and creativity that would pull dev time and resources away from other things.
I don't think action combat can't work, I just think it requires a lot more thought and balance. The main thing I disagree with you on is how much you think hybrid combat, ESO Wildstar and yes GW2 combat, is outright bad.
Very easily can envision a large raid with action combat. Again RainFae already covered this but I’ll add my two cents. The melee classes go to the front, the ranged classes go to the back.. WOW that was hard thank you for making me use my critical thinking skills today.
If you’re instead asking how you think it would go performance-wise? I don’t see there being a difference in today’s technological world. And beyond the computations, the skills in AoC for example are already overly flashy but will have settings to turn them down.
It’s clearly not worth my time trying to continue on and on with you, so I’m going to end it here. Regardless of what contrived nonsense you try to reply with, it won’t matter. I’m sure you’ll be compelled to “own me” in some way, good luck with that and I hope it brings you some comfort. I’m summary, GW2 combat is boring and shallow and you’ve provided no substance to the contrary. Thank you for the ride.
I've already weighed in but I just wanna touch on something. I'm pretty much 50/50 on the whole argument, probably a slight TT bias, but I love action too. I'm good at fps games so I don't have some of the same concerns as the older people, although I'm definitely aging myself.
Anyway, this is probably going to be unpopular but oh well. I don't like combo systems in action combat. In my opinion, the "combo" should come from a person's mind, using the skills in the game. So in a TT or AC game, if I hit you with my fire weakness debuff skill, then I hit you with fireball, in effect I just combo'd you. Very simplistic example, but I used on my own will 2 skills back to back that synergize with each other. I didn't need some arbitrary combo system to tell me to do it. I don't need some arbitrary game added damage bonus from it other than the bonus that I used my own intellect to figure out - that lowering a target's fire resistance will make the ensuing fireball do more damage.
And that is what I think is the problem with some combo systems, is that they pigeon hole you into these set combo's that you have to do in order to be playing optimally. The fact of the matter is that even in the most basic of TT combat systems, players are constantly executing what are in effect "combos." Unless they're bad. Then they're just facerolling their keyboard.
Now there's a lot of nuance to all of the ways a combo system can be implemented in a game. And some of them can be really good. An extremely robust combo system where there's multiple different pathways of skills to reach combo bonuses could be good. But what I don't want is a combo system that pigeon holes me into doing the same sequence of skills just for arbitrary game added bonuses.
I prefer action. WoW combat was a lot of fun before I tried action. Nowadays WoW combat feels boring.
I really hope there will be plenty talent/build options because testing new ways to play the same class is a lot of fun.
I also feel like the way skills are built and blocks/counters/cc mechanics work is more important than choosing between tab/action.
"You're seeking for perfection, but your disillusions are leading to destruction.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
But what I don't want is a combo system that pigeon holes me into doing the same sequence of skills just for arbitrary game added bonuses.
I agree, combo's should be actively pursued by the player with the only benefits coming from the skills' inherently complementing mechanics.
Now it comes down to the complexity of, and number of, skills themselves. If a good number of the skills have a complex web of buffs/debuffs based on the augments available, or there are just a plethera of skills available to players, there are going to be a good number of people (those with less time on their hands who want to spend minimal time researching their skills and abilities) who will pigeon hole themselves into following an online build in order to be effective. Thus creating a meta combo system that takes a bit away from player agency.
I'm not saying a meta isn't going to exist naturally. There is always a meta. But, I believe limiting the number of additional effects imbued by skills and abilities, and the number of available skills and abilities themselves, will allow more people to take an active interest in the development of, and specific usage of their kit.
p.s. I have no idea what their plans are regarding skill effects and number of available skills, so all of this could easily be moot.
I will select the set of skills that maximizes my effectiveness in a given setting and situation. Hard to answer this without knowing the relative inter-skill balancing. For example, if an action skill is significantly more powerful that a similar tab skill, I'll likely pick the action skill. If its not that different in strength and the "miss" rate of the action skill is higher, then I'll take the tab.
In a perfectly balanced world, I would prefer more action abilities, but I'm not going to reduce my characters setting and situation specific effectiveness in a significant way to choose one over the other.
I definitely prefer action targeting over tab targeting for quick or instant cast abilities. It feels more engaging and visceral for me.
Tab targeting can be useful in a target rich or crowded areas when trying to focus a specific target.
If you think of tab targeting as left handed tools and action targeting right handed tools, it seems like the best option would be to have the choice of picking the correct tools for the job at hand.
Action combat for sure makes much more fun and gives more variations.
At least I expect that all stunning or knockdown skills will be action based, because those brings in combat significant impact and should not be perfectly realised just by pressing a button.
On another hand it is hard to imagine some skills like controlling pets action based. Or to imagine long PVE grinding phases with some archetypes only in action mode.
I.e. if you have melee damage - you don't need to aim all the time due to some hit range in front of you. But if you need to aim all the time as scout on long range it will be not such relaxed as warrior I believe.
So I guess the best would be to make as much as possible action based, but give also the possibility to relax the hand during some skills, which are maybe not so powerful and make them tab based.
I think I would prefer tab targeting, but I will choose on a case-by-case basis. Although everybody praises the game, my experience with Black Desert Online combat left me extremely unsatisfied. Again, I'm choosing on a case-by-case basis, but my experience shows me that tab targeting allows for more satisfying abilities.
I'm not saying a meta isn't going to exist naturally. There is always a meta. But, I believe limiting the number of additional effects imbued by skills and abilities, and the number of available skills and abilities themselves, will allow more people to take an active interest in the development of, and specific usage of their kit.
This is kinda getting off topic, but I generally agree. There has been somewhat of a trend lately of games over complicating their mechanics in order to differentiate themselves from other games and create skill gap(bro). Sometimes it works out well, most of the time it just adds busy work or gimmickyness to playing the game that is stupid imo.
I don't want a dumbed down game either though. Especially in an mmo there should be a certain amount of research and thought that goes into developing your character. But nothing insane, just the right balance.
Why not making some classes tab oriented and others more action oriented, or some trees of that class being more action or more tab oriented?
This works well in albion online, in albion i m frost mage, and my Q spam attack have a pool of skills i can choose , for example i can choose between tab target frost ball with less range, less damage, or action skill, ice meteor deal higher damage, and damage in area, but is easy to dodge...
I can build my frost mage if i want only with tab target or action oriented skills, except auto attack that is tab
... i can choose between tab target frost ball with less range, less damage, or action skill, ice meteor deal higher damage, and damage in area, but is easy to dodge...
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
This is obviously entering a semantics argument of "what is action combat", but that is a good argument to have because a lot of the discourse in the TT/AC threads has to do with what people consider Action Combat.
Because GT abilities exist in both TT and AC, I'd say the type of abilities that define Action Combat is linear projectile or raycast-detection abilities. Examples of these are firing arrows in any direction for linear projectiles, and melee/instant effect abilities for raycast. They require an active camera and precise aim, whereas all TT abilities don't even require the opponent to be visible on screen or require any aim at all (other than GT abilities).
Obviously one is more engaging while the other is more tactical from the get go. Action Combat just gives you more control over your character and it's actions in general, while TT lets you assess your surroundings without having to focus so much on precision.
This is why I feel AC in a large scale battle is going to be difficult to ascertain how well it'll be in practice. In AC you can only see what's directly around you and can only react to such. Hence you will charge and attack the people directly next to you. When you have 50 melee people doing that they're going to end up in a huge clump of swinging blades. This is what I meant by a mosh pit @Cypher and @RainFae . While it can be immersive in a GoT Battle of the Bastards kind of way, the level of "fun" and how much it detracts from strategy remains to be seen.
Meanwhile in TT large scale you can see clearly everyone around you. This is of course less immersive and you have less direct control over your character. If a caster is casting Rain of Fire on the mosh pit, people can see and peel easily to deal with it, whereas in AC you're just clashing blades with people as fire rains on you from some unknown area (which could be cool I do agree, but fun and fair is what I'm worried about).
If you've played Phantasy Star Online 2 and done the Emergency boss battles, you'll understand how hard it is to tell what's going on outside of what's directly around you in an Action Combat setting. Other than you and the boss, the other players are just chaos in the background, and that's only with like 30 players.
The Hybrid combat of games like GW2/ESO/Wildstar/etc. is not as immersive as AC but is definitely a very good compromise between the strategy of TT and the control of AC. (Though ESO might be the odd one out as it can be pretty immersive still)
But it's true that there's something to be said for going all in on TT or AC. Sometimes not committing to a side ends up in lackluster ideas.
I could be picking at straws yes, but games have failed for seemingly minor things like this before. Will people enjoy playing AC melee classes in large battles if it means they get stuck in the mosh pit every time? Though who knows, maybe a meta will arise from that where the two sides just have shield walls and the ranged classes just fire at each other over their line of melee defenses. This would be a neat outcome too, but is it fun or ideal? When you're talking about making good combat you have to look at every aspect of it.
Who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong and missing some vital piece of info that makes AC or TT flawless for AoC. Whatever IS chooses, I just want them to do it well and with passion. And to not be discouraged by any negativity of the community, because there will be negativity no matter what they choose.
Edit: Formatting because nobody likes reading long walls of grey text
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dreoh we agree on ground targeted AoE not being specifically tab or action.
In regards to losing battlefield awareness, I’m afraid we have to disagree again. In many games, including action combat games, you can change your camera zoom level on the fly. Some players stay zoomed in, some stay zoomed out, others go between the two. Even while zoomed in, it’s a 3rd person game and you can see what’s happening beyond your immediate reach. But that’s almost irrelevant anyhow because zoom levels almost always exist.
With Phantasy Star Online 2, I played both melee and ranged classes and in emergency quests I never had an issue noticing other players when I needed to. Sometimes, a lot of times, they disappeared into the background but only because it was irrelevant to me to know what they were doing. When I would play Force, and wanted to heal others around me I would adjust my situational awareness to find weak players and heal them up.
TLDR; with 3rd person view, and especially with your camera zoom being adjustable, any lost battlefield awareness is the fault of the player not the combat system or the game.
Also Dreoh that text formatting is excellent 🙂
1
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
I understand where you are coming from, but the definition you just gave makes the rules laid out by IS wrong. In Ashes, players can have up to 75% TT and 25% AC. Also, GT is counted as AC. So, a player can choose to have 75% TT & 25% GT (provided that enough abilities are available to the class). Under your definition, 75% normal TT + 25% GT = 100% TT. Your definition just doesn't match up with the definitions being used in this game to establish the requirements in game.
TLDR; with 3rd person view, and especially with your camera zoom being adjustable, any lost battlefield awareness is the fault of the player not the combat system or the game.
You could be right and I'm just not visualizing it correctly.
I guess one question I'd have is what about aiming skillshots like shooting bows? Even if you're zoomed out you're going to have to have your camera horizontal to your character if not lower to shoot enemies that are level with you or above you, and then you're in the scenario I described. Though I guess you wouldn't be in the mosh pit as a ranged character anyways.
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
I understand where you are coming from, but the definition you just gave makes the rules laid out by IS wrong. In Ashes, players can have up to 75% TT and 25% AC. Also, GT is counted as AC. So, a player can choose to have 75% TT & 25% GT (provided that enough abilities are available to the class). Under your definition, 75% normal TT + 25% GT = 100% TT. Your definition just doesn't match up with the definitions being used in this game to establish the requirements in game.
You've touched on another point that I've discussed on this forum once or twice. I think IS's completely arbitrary 25%/75% rule is a band-aid fix to force a hybrid system, all of which indicates a deeper issue, whether it be a minor or a major one. It's a rule that feels like it has no real substance behind it. If I'm being honest, I see it as a rule they made up because they aren't entirely sure how to balance players who only play action and players who only play tab, which in turn means they aren't sure how to balance tab abilities with action abilities.
It's akin to how Overwatch couldn't find a way to balance their heroes in a good way, so they came up with the arbitrary "only up to two of the same heroes" rule they had at one point. That rule didn't work either and they had to change the system entirely to be role-queue. Both of those rules were just band-aid fixes they used because they couldn't solve the inherent problems with their game. Now Overwatch requires much less creativity and improvisation in it's gameplay and is becoming stale.
How this translates to AoC I'm not entirely sure, I just see the same kind of thing happening here. Again, I could be picking at straws and be completely wrong, I admit. Maybe this arbitrary rule isn't so arbitrary and they actually have a plan. If I was to ask the devs one question about it, it would be, "Is there any gameplay reason other than forcing 'hybrid' to limit the skill selection to 75%?" Pretty much most of the discourse on these forums comes from lack of information, but that can't really be helped because it's in Alpha with an NDA.
Edit: Something I will add that's relevant is Wildstar was a hybrid game that had separate TT and AC abilities but didn't restrict the amount of either that you could have on your bar and it's praised for it's combat (sadly the game failed for other reasons RIP).
GW2 and ESO solve this by having all abilities be both TT and AC at the same time. Though ESO plays a lot more like an AC game because of how it's camera works and using TT is entirely optional and only used at the highest levels of play (you can melee enemies behind the closest one if you have the one in the back targeted and similar things).
If AoC's 25/75% system works as a third functional hybrid system then I support it. I just hope it's more thought out than I think it is.
-Sorry for my long posts-
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
I understand where you are coming from, but the definition you just gave makes the rules laid out by IS wrong. In Ashes, players can have up to 75% TT and 25% AC. Also, GT is counted as AC. So, a player can choose to have 75% TT & 25% GT (provided that enough abilities are available to the class). Under your definition, 75% normal TT + 25% GT = 100% TT. Your definition just doesn't match up with the definitions being used in this game to establish the requirements in game.
You've touched on another point that I've discussed on this forum once or twice. I think IS's completely arbitrary 25%/75% rule is a band-aid fix to force a hybrid system, all of which indicates a deeper issue, whether it be a minor or a major one. It's a rule that feels like it has no real substance behind it. If I'm being honest, I see it as a rule they made up because they aren't entirely sure how to balance players who only play action and players who only play tab, which in turn means they aren't sure how to balance tab abilities with action abilities.
If the reason for the 75% / 25% split is balance, then I would think you are probably right.
There could be some other reason though. They could be trying to make sure that each player tries the other system (either TT or AC). It's generally in the best interest of developers to design a game in a way that causes players to use as much of the content as possible. Allowing players to only use their preference would result in less use of one or the other by each player.
If the reason for the 75% / 25% split balance, then I would think you are probably right.
There could be some other reason though. They could be trying to make sure that each player tries the other system (either TT or AC). It's generally in the best interest of developers to design a game in a way that causes players to use as much of the content as possible. Allowing players to only use their preference would result in less use of one or the other by each player.
That's very true and something I hadn't considered, that wouldn't be a terrible reason for the rule. Players are known for optimizing the fun out of a game, though they'd still do so even with the rule but probably to a lesser extent.
0
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
TLDR; with 3rd person view, and especially with your camera zoom being adjustable, any lost battlefield awareness is the fault of the player not the combat system or the game.
You could be right and I'm just not visualizing it correctly.
I guess one question I'd have is what about aiming skillshots like shooting bows? Even if you're zoomed out you're going to have to have your camera horizontal to your character if not lower to shoot enemies that are level with you or above you, and then you're in the scenario I described. Though I guess you wouldn't be in the mosh pit as a ranged character anyways.
That’s an interesting point but as you said, the ranged characters are likely out of harms way (and could still zoom out real quick to get a look around and then back in to snipe).
On another note for the overall thread, I assume the player will be able to customize their reticle, it’s position on screen and how high/low the camera is when zoomed in or out. Certainly something I hope they are planning. For any kind of combat system I think those should be mandatory inclusions for the players!
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
The concept of TT combat refers to the necessity of having the target of a PC/NPC character to attack or use skills, even tho there is a single type of AoE that is considered a TT skill (AoE in the path or around the chosen target of the skill) All other AoE skills that doesn't require a character target are inherently AC skills.
As ground AoE doesn't require a character target it falls under the AC category of skills.
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
The concept of TT combat refers to the necessity of having the target of a PC/NPC character to attack or use skills, even tho there is a single type of AoE that is be considered a TT skill (AoE in the path or around the chosen target of the skill) All other AoE skills that doesn't require a character target are inherently AC skills.
As ground AoE doesn't require a character target it falls under the AC category of skills.
You are correct, but you didn't seem to really read at what I was getting at.
You're talking about Tab Target, but we're talking about Tab TargetCombat
I agree that they are action abilities, but they aren't strictly tied to action combat the way linear projectile and raycast abilities are.
And like I said, ground targetted abilities exist in almost every TT game, so wouldn't they then also be considered tab-targetcombat abilities? And thus, NOT something you can attribute to action combat.
If anything, GT abilities are the purest form of hybrid combat
This is the exact reason I wrote that entire block of text. This is another part of the same semantics argument, which I'm glad to have because it's important to create a clear distinction.
And like I said, ground target abilities exist in almost every TT game, so wouldn't they then also be considered tab-target combat abilities?
The same way a target locked or target assisted skill in an AC game doesn't make the skill action,
a AC skill in a TT game doesn't becomes a tab target ability.
And like I said, ground target abilities exist in almost every TT game, so wouldn't they then also be considered tab-target combat abilities?
The same way a target locked or target assisted skill in an AC game doesn't make the skill action,
a AC skill in a TT game doesn't becomes a tab target ability.
Nobody here was trying to argue that at all though
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here or why
Comments
I'm not against the action system, as ive played games with that type of system but I never stick around because usually the game around it is also about fast pace and getting to a structured end game that befits the highest end players. Which isnt the case in this game. For me, as long as its fluid with a bit of a trade off of choice in strategy vs reaction, i'm all for it something that is fun.
Action combat is very fatigueing, especially as you get older.
If you want face pace adrenaline games, there are plenty of other genres, like Apex, Overwatch etc.
Im usually a top PvP player in tab target mmorpgs, but in heavy action combat ones, its just about clicking your skills as fast as possible rather than playing tacticly.
Tab target is vastly superior if you want to appeal to a wider audiance and not a niche small group.
0dbea148-8cb8-4711-ba90-eb0864e93b5f
Have none of you seen movies with large scale battles? Game of thrones, hobbit, or movies with real life wars to name a few.
Have you not played or seen action mobas? Overwatch, paladins, gigantic to name a few.
Well it's gonna look like a combination of the two. You have to focus on the enemies right next to you and keep going till you kill them all, to put it in simple terms. I mean I'm pretty sure they made a trailer that showed that as well.
Be honest and say you simply don't like the idea of it and not that you ''don't know how that would work'', cause I don't believe that for a second.
Nobody has said it absolutely can't work, just that it will require a well thought out system to work well. This is in comparison with tab-target or true hybrid which can do it very easily and very well.
I'd stay away from putting words into people's mouths too btw.
Ok number one i have been following your argument with cypher and personally I'm on their side.
Number two and most importantly, on your response to them in the last paragraphs that you yourself wrote said you can't envision a 40 man raid with bdo combat.
You were one of quite a few people who made similar comments like that and those are what i am referring too.
I never put words into peoples mouths, but apparently you need to start to learn how to read peoples responses starting from your own
Please and thank you 🌈🙂
I figured you were talking about me.
Do you mean this right here where I actually do not do what you say I do? Do you need to, as you just said, "learn how to read people's responses starting from your own"? Notice how I specifically say that I don't think it's impossible. Your passive aggressive "positivity" at the end is also kind of cringe and obviously hostile.
Maybe you thought I was implying something with that question but really I wanted to get his actual thoughts on the matter.
Maybe you can see why it seems like you're putting words into people's mouths. I'm not trying to have a hostile discussion, and this is getting off topic. I much prefer a discussion that doesn't rely on ad hominem or outright biases.
Edit: I will say I do thank you for having answered my question in your original comment. I initially disagreed with it but I'm trying to imagine how a 250v250 would play out with semi-overwatch style combat in an mmo and if there's any major flaws other than it devolving into what is essentially a pvp mosh pit before coming to a conclusion on that.
Its 2021 it has to be more action oriantated then not.
Also it's large scale events tt is not gonna make it any less of a mosh pit, whatever that is, obviously.
Its a game as long as they have the time every thing is impossible in a game no one doubts that.
As for the rainbows, smiles and positivity thats who i am from real life stuff that are none of your business. I'm too old to passively attack people on a theoretical discussion about a game, chill.
I'm just sharing my perspective and trying very hard to keep it a civil constructive argument to help the devs in whatever data they want from this
My response included MUCH more than just a link, however your disingenuous, argumentative self won’t acknowledge anything else. You’re the type that will pick one thing from an entire argument and try to pick that one thing apart. Nothing you’ve said in response to me has had any substance or anything to back it up. It’s just been about me or the structure of the argument or in this case the exhibit I used. You even used this same tactic against RainFae by assuming they weren’t being genuine. That’s your bread and butter, assumptions and personal jabs. Without those all you have left is “nuh uh you’re wrong, tell me why you’re not wrong”.
Now, as far as this video goes, it’s completely relevant because your class will play like this video shows, no matter the level. Adding some environmental hazards or boss mechanics will not change that this is how your class will play, period. It’s boring, it’s repetitive, it’s shallow. It’s not skillful in the least. Again, adding boss mechanics that require skill or knowledge won’t change the fact that your class itself is shallow and repetitive and requires no skill to use the abilities. If you think they do, that says something about you and not the game.
I was not hypocritical. You said there is not a difference between using the most optimized order of hot key skills and using the most optimized order of action combos. I said okay then if that’s how you feel then why wouldn’t we use the more fun of the systems? I genuinely do not think there is any skill involved in GW2 abilities, based on my own experience in the game with multiple classes. I genuinely do think an action combat game has much more skill involved and additionally does not involve striking the correct key but rather combining and chaining your abilities. Still failing to see how any of that is hypocritical, but keep using your buzzwords big guy.
Very easily can envision a large raid with action combat. Again RainFae already covered this but I’ll add my two cents. The melee classes go to the front, the ranged classes go to the back.. WOW that was hard thank you for making me use my critical thinking skills today.
If you’re instead asking how you think it would go performance-wise? I don’t see there being a difference in today’s technological world. And beyond the computations, the skills in AoC for example are already overly flashy but will have settings to turn them down.
It’s clearly not worth my time trying to continue on and on with you, so I’m going to end it here. Regardless of what contrived nonsense you try to reply with, it won’t matter. I’m sure you’ll be compelled to “own me” in some way, good luck with that and I hope it brings you some comfort. I’m summary, GW2 combat is boring and shallow and you’ve provided no substance to the contrary. Thank you for the ride.
So true!
Anyway, this is probably going to be unpopular but oh well. I don't like combo systems in action combat. In my opinion, the "combo" should come from a person's mind, using the skills in the game. So in a TT or AC game, if I hit you with my fire weakness debuff skill, then I hit you with fireball, in effect I just combo'd you. Very simplistic example, but I used on my own will 2 skills back to back that synergize with each other. I didn't need some arbitrary combo system to tell me to do it. I don't need some arbitrary game added damage bonus from it other than the bonus that I used my own intellect to figure out - that lowering a target's fire resistance will make the ensuing fireball do more damage.
And that is what I think is the problem with some combo systems, is that they pigeon hole you into these set combo's that you have to do in order to be playing optimally. The fact of the matter is that even in the most basic of TT combat systems, players are constantly executing what are in effect "combos." Unless they're bad. Then they're just facerolling their keyboard.
Now there's a lot of nuance to all of the ways a combo system can be implemented in a game. And some of them can be really good. An extremely robust combo system where there's multiple different pathways of skills to reach combo bonuses could be good. But what I don't want is a combo system that pigeon holes me into doing the same sequence of skills just for arbitrary game added bonuses.
I really hope there will be plenty talent/build options because testing new ways to play the same class is a lot of fun.
I also feel like the way skills are built and blocks/counters/cc mechanics work is more important than choosing between tab/action.
You're bleeding for salvation, but you can't see that you are the damnation itself." -Norther
I agree, combo's should be actively pursued by the player with the only benefits coming from the skills' inherently complementing mechanics.
Now it comes down to the complexity of, and number of, skills themselves. If a good number of the skills have a complex web of buffs/debuffs based on the augments available, or there are just a plethera of skills available to players, there are going to be a good number of people (those with less time on their hands who want to spend minimal time researching their skills and abilities) who will pigeon hole themselves into following an online build in order to be effective. Thus creating a meta combo system that takes a bit away from player agency.
I'm not saying a meta isn't going to exist naturally. There is always a meta. But, I believe limiting the number of additional effects imbued by skills and abilities, and the number of available skills and abilities themselves, will allow more people to take an active interest in the development of, and specific usage of their kit.
p.s. I have no idea what their plans are regarding skill effects and number of available skills, so all of this could easily be moot.
In a perfectly balanced world, I would prefer more action abilities, but I'm not going to reduce my characters setting and situation specific effectiveness in a significant way to choose one over the other.
Tab targeting can be useful in a target rich or crowded areas when trying to focus a specific target.
If you think of tab targeting as left handed tools and action targeting right handed tools, it seems like the best option would be to have the choice of picking the correct tools for the job at hand.
At least I expect that all stunning or knockdown skills will be action based, because those brings in combat significant impact and should not be perfectly realised just by pressing a button.
On another hand it is hard to imagine some skills like controlling pets action based. Or to imagine long PVE grinding phases with some archetypes only in action mode.
I.e. if you have melee damage - you don't need to aim all the time due to some hit range in front of you. But if you need to aim all the time as scout on long range it will be not such relaxed as warrior I believe.
So I guess the best would be to make as much as possible action based, but give also the possibility to relax the hand during some skills, which are maybe not so powerful and make them tab based.
This is kinda getting off topic, but I generally agree. There has been somewhat of a trend lately of games over complicating their mechanics in order to differentiate themselves from other games and create skill gap(bro). Sometimes it works out well, most of the time it just adds busy work or gimmickyness to playing the game that is stupid imo.
I don't want a dumbed down game either though. Especially in an mmo there should be a certain amount of research and thought that goes into developing your character. But nothing insane, just the right balance.
This works well in albion online, in albion i m frost mage, and my Q spam attack have a pool of skills i can choose , for example i can choose between tab target frost ball with less range, less damage, or action skill, ice meteor deal higher damage, and damage in area, but is easy to dodge...
I can build my frost mage if i want only with tab target or action oriented skills, except auto attack that is tab
I think their intention currently is that anyone can make any class mostly TT or mostly AC, up to 75% of either.
Ground Targetted (GT) AoE's aren't REALLY action abilities though. Even the strictest TT games have some GT abilities.
This is obviously entering a semantics argument of "what is action combat", but that is a good argument to have because a lot of the discourse in the TT/AC threads has to do with what people consider Action Combat.
Because GT abilities exist in both TT and AC, I'd say the type of abilities that define Action Combat is linear projectile or raycast-detection abilities. Examples of these are firing arrows in any direction for linear projectiles, and melee/instant effect abilities for raycast. They require an active camera and precise aim, whereas all TT abilities don't even require the opponent to be visible on screen or require any aim at all (other than GT abilities).
Obviously one is more engaging while the other is more tactical from the get go. Action Combat just gives you more control over your character and it's actions in general, while TT lets you assess your surroundings without having to focus so much on precision.
This is why I feel AC in a large scale battle is going to be difficult to ascertain how well it'll be in practice. In AC you can only see what's directly around you and can only react to such. Hence you will charge and attack the people directly next to you. When you have 50 melee people doing that they're going to end up in a huge clump of swinging blades. This is what I meant by a mosh pit @Cypher and @RainFae . While it can be immersive in a GoT Battle of the Bastards kind of way, the level of "fun" and how much it detracts from strategy remains to be seen.
Meanwhile in TT large scale you can see clearly everyone around you. This is of course less immersive and you have less direct control over your character. If a caster is casting Rain of Fire on the mosh pit, people can see and peel easily to deal with it, whereas in AC you're just clashing blades with people as fire rains on you from some unknown area (which could be cool I do agree, but fun and fair is what I'm worried about).
If you've played Phantasy Star Online 2 and done the Emergency boss battles, you'll understand how hard it is to tell what's going on outside of what's directly around you in an Action Combat setting. Other than you and the boss, the other players are just chaos in the background, and that's only with like 30 players.
The Hybrid combat of games like GW2/ESO/Wildstar/etc. is not as immersive as AC but is definitely a very good compromise between the strategy of TT and the control of AC. (Though ESO might be the odd one out as it can be pretty immersive still)
But it's true that there's something to be said for going all in on TT or AC. Sometimes not committing to a side ends up in lackluster ideas.
I could be picking at straws yes, but games have failed for seemingly minor things like this before. Will people enjoy playing AC melee classes in large battles if it means they get stuck in the mosh pit every time? Though who knows, maybe a meta will arise from that where the two sides just have shield walls and the ranged classes just fire at each other over their line of melee defenses. This would be a neat outcome too, but is it fun or ideal? When you're talking about making good combat you have to look at every aspect of it.
Who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong and missing some vital piece of info that makes AC or TT flawless for AoC. Whatever IS chooses, I just want them to do it well and with passion. And to not be discouraged by any negativity of the community, because there will be negativity no matter what they choose.
Edit: Formatting because nobody likes reading long walls of grey text
In regards to losing battlefield awareness, I’m afraid we have to disagree again. In many games, including action combat games, you can change your camera zoom level on the fly. Some players stay zoomed in, some stay zoomed out, others go between the two. Even while zoomed in, it’s a 3rd person game and you can see what’s happening beyond your immediate reach. But that’s almost irrelevant anyhow because zoom levels almost always exist.
With Phantasy Star Online 2, I played both melee and ranged classes and in emergency quests I never had an issue noticing other players when I needed to. Sometimes, a lot of times, they disappeared into the background but only because it was irrelevant to me to know what they were doing. When I would play Force, and wanted to heal others around me I would adjust my situational awareness to find weak players and heal them up.
TLDR; with 3rd person view, and especially with your camera zoom being adjustable, any lost battlefield awareness is the fault of the player not the combat system or the game.
Also Dreoh that text formatting is excellent 🙂
You could be right and I'm just not visualizing it correctly.
I guess one question I'd have is what about aiming skillshots like shooting bows? Even if you're zoomed out you're going to have to have your camera horizontal to your character if not lower to shoot enemies that are level with you or above you, and then you're in the scenario I described. Though I guess you wouldn't be in the mosh pit as a ranged character anyways.
You've touched on another point that I've discussed on this forum once or twice. I think IS's completely arbitrary 25%/75% rule is a band-aid fix to force a hybrid system, all of which indicates a deeper issue, whether it be a minor or a major one. It's a rule that feels like it has no real substance behind it. If I'm being honest, I see it as a rule they made up because they aren't entirely sure how to balance players who only play action and players who only play tab, which in turn means they aren't sure how to balance tab abilities with action abilities.
It's akin to how Overwatch couldn't find a way to balance their heroes in a good way, so they came up with the arbitrary "only up to two of the same heroes" rule they had at one point. That rule didn't work either and they had to change the system entirely to be role-queue. Both of those rules were just band-aid fixes they used because they couldn't solve the inherent problems with their game. Now Overwatch requires much less creativity and improvisation in it's gameplay and is becoming stale.
How this translates to AoC I'm not entirely sure, I just see the same kind of thing happening here. Again, I could be picking at straws and be completely wrong, I admit. Maybe this arbitrary rule isn't so arbitrary and they actually have a plan. If I was to ask the devs one question about it, it would be, "Is there any gameplay reason other than forcing 'hybrid' to limit the skill selection to 75%?" Pretty much most of the discourse on these forums comes from lack of information, but that can't really be helped because it's in Alpha with an NDA.
Edit: Something I will add that's relevant is Wildstar was a hybrid game that had separate TT and AC abilities but didn't restrict the amount of either that you could have on your bar and it's praised for it's combat (sadly the game failed for other reasons RIP).
GW2 and ESO solve this by having all abilities be both TT and AC at the same time. Though ESO plays a lot more like an AC game because of how it's camera works and using TT is entirely optional and only used at the highest levels of play (you can melee enemies behind the closest one if you have the one in the back targeted and similar things).
If AoC's 25/75% system works as a third functional hybrid system then I support it. I just hope it's more thought out than I think it is.
-Sorry for my long posts-
There could be some other reason though. They could be trying to make sure that each player tries the other system (either TT or AC). It's generally in the best interest of developers to design a game in a way that causes players to use as much of the content as possible. Allowing players to only use their preference would result in less use of one or the other by each player.
That's very true and something I hadn't considered, that wouldn't be a terrible reason for the rule. Players are known for optimizing the fun out of a game, though they'd still do so even with the rule but probably to a lesser extent.
That’s an interesting point but as you said, the ranged characters are likely out of harms way (and could still zoom out real quick to get a look around and then back in to snipe).
On another note for the overall thread, I assume the player will be able to customize their reticle, it’s position on screen and how high/low the camera is when zoomed in or out. Certainly something I hope they are planning. For any kind of combat system I think those should be mandatory inclusions for the players!
The concept of TT combat refers to the necessity of having the target of a PC/NPC character to attack or use skills, even tho there is a single type of AoE that is considered a TT skill (AoE in the path or around the chosen target of the skill) All other AoE skills that doesn't require a character target are inherently AC skills.
As ground AoE doesn't require a character target it falls under the AC category of skills.
Aren't we all sinners?
You are correct, but you didn't seem to really read at what I was getting at.
You're talking about Tab Target, but we're talking about Tab Target Combat
I agree that they are action abilities, but they aren't strictly tied to action combat the way linear projectile and raycast abilities are.
And like I said, ground targetted abilities exist in almost every TT game, so wouldn't they then also be considered tab-target combat abilities? And thus, NOT something you can attribute to action combat.
If anything, GT abilities are the purest form of hybrid combat
This is the exact reason I wrote that entire block of text. This is another part of the same semantics argument, which I'm glad to have because it's important to create a clear distinction.
The same way a target locked or target assisted skill in an AC game doesn't make the skill action,
a AC skill in a TT game doesn't becomes a tab target ability.
Aren't we all sinners?
Nobody here was trying to argue that at all though
I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here or why