It sucks but Tab > Action
fight
Member
Tab > action
This is an MMO which means you need players to keep playing and unfortunately due to the current economic situation across the world right now your population doesn't have funds to uograde computers in households.
I would rather see Intrepid Studios succeed, stay in business and give the MMO populations hope that there is a company that is not trying take all of our money and time.
Maybe the sequel can be action combat or they can do a Battle Royale later once the company has made it 3 months past release date of the game
This is an MMO which means you need players to keep playing and unfortunately due to the current economic situation across the world right now your population doesn't have funds to uograde computers in households.
I would rather see Intrepid Studios succeed, stay in business and give the MMO populations hope that there is a company that is not trying take all of our money and time.
Maybe the sequel can be action combat or they can do a Battle Royale later once the company has made it 3 months past release date of the game
0
Comments
It goes both ways my man. I understand wanting what is best for the game. I find myself arguing that very point in so many other threads about so many issues.
It is just not a very once sided case when it comes to MMO combat systems. It is not clear to me that by fully embracing TT over AC you would gain a more steady audience. It may very well do the opposite.
A lot of people have seen too much TT in their life and will praise anything that does something different as a breath of fresh air. Blade and Soul, Black Desert Online, Guild Wars 2 are prime examples of this. Games that I feel lack any substance, but get constant praise for doing something different and fresh with their combat systems.
It sounds like you think TT is a safe bet, but I think every possible combat system is a gamble. The only thing I think that changes the odds in that gamble is the games other systems that interact with the combat system. Like it or not in ashes we have more systems based around PvP combat than PvE combat. The PvP crowd tends to like AC more than TT. Thus I think trying a hybrid system the way AoC is proposing is a great gamble. It allows players the freedom to choose their own playstyle.
We give Intrepid the benefit of the doubt that they will balance all other aspects of the game and make them enjoyable. We should not being seeing their proposed hybrid combat system as an exception to this just because some people have had bad experiences with AC in the past.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
One issue I've had is that with TT it begins to feel like I am running a program, not playing a video game. With action combat there's no question.
Just sayin...
The Dark Alliance is building the Tulnar Civilization on our server!
[NA] [18+] - We need EVERYONE!
If you want in, send me a message!
I don't necessarily disagree, but where tab target shines is in what it enables from a content perspective.
If you're playing a game and killing a lot of base population, you will have a lot more fun with action combat. If you're making a game and want to add in the best content you can, tab target will allow you to do that.
I don't get it...why action = killing a lot of base population? and why tab allows adding the best content they can?
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/280284/#Comment_280284
We are both kind of wordy though.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Indeed.
The basics of it are that action combat takes more of a players attention during combat than tab target, so when killing mobs that have no interest or mechanic to them at all (base population), action combat will be more enjoyable for most people.
On the other hand, since tab target combat does require less player attention during combat, developers are able to place mechanics on content that require more of the players attention than they would be able to do in an action combat game.
It is important to note in this that since developers could create content that players are unable to defeat in either action or tab, simply saying that this means action combat is harder doesn't work - as both action and tab can be exactly as hard as the developers want it to be - when content is taken in to consideration (ignoring the fact that developers often miss the exact difficulty target they are aiming for).
There is nuance to the discussion (hence the wordy thread linked above), but this is the absolute basics.
On the other hand, since tab target combat does require less player attention during combat, developers are able to place mechanics on content that require more of the players attention than they would be able to do in an action combat game.
Fair point. What is an example of this kind of content that you say developers are able to place because the combat system is tab targeted and not action targeted?
The Dark Alliance is building the Tulnar Civilization on our server!
[NA] [18+] - We need EVERYONE!
If you want in, send me a message!
I believe it comes down to archetypes and abilities as mentioned in another thread. The real question to differentiate some variables is:
Do you need to have a target for the ability to function?
with a variable like that, it could be a lot easier to determine viable abilities and playstyle for each archetype/class for the players preference.
example:
1. you more than likely will not and should not need to have a target in order to use a traditional melee ability
2. you may need a target for a tracking ability/spell, depending on how it functions (but there is ways around this, depending on degree of tracking)
very curious to see the spectrum of abilities for this games design
I really liked the combat system of GW2 aka TT with iframe dodge. It`s fast, impactful with the extension of the extra defend mechanism. (by comparison to CCs)
Basically, the less attention a combat system requires from players, the more attention the content that combat system is used on can require. This could be more mechanics in an encounter, but it could also just be how those mechanics are tuned, or how readily available to players information is.
It should also perhaps be pointed out that we are talking generalizations here - there is no reason someone couldn't make an action combat game with a combat system that was very simple, and then provide players with very complex content and still have an enjoyable game.
Now, some people would prefer the combat system to be what demands their attention, as opposed to the content. These people are not wrong.
Other people would prefer the content demand their attention, not the combat system. These people are also not wrong.
It is very much a case of preference. I personally prefer the content to require a good amount of my attention, as I find that makes the game more varied - each encounter feels far more unique to participate in than encounters in games where the combat system was all that required attention - but I more than understand this is not the case for everyone.
I hear yah. What is one of your favorite raid boss fights?
The Dark Alliance is building the Tulnar Civilization on our server!
[NA] [18+] - We need EVERYONE!
If you want in, send me a message!
What is important when talking about a combat system is the overall engagement of that system and how it feels from a "day to day" basis. And for me, action combat is much more engaging and more impact full that any tab targeting system.
Now, boss mechanics will be tailored to the combat system, and the difficulty will be set by the developers (as best as they can), and I'm confident that IS will be able to make very difficulty bosses that only the best of the best can kill even with a ac/hybrid system.
A boss encounter isn't good or bad because of the combat system, it's good or bad depending on the developers skill in making an interesting and fun boss mechanics.
First rule of EQ2 raiding: No one is allowed to talk about it the specifics of EQ2 raiding.
JK @Noaani
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
As an example, I really enjoyed Byzola in EQ2's Shard of Hate, but there is absolutely no information on the main mechanics of the fight anywhere at all. There is some info out there on the fight - but this doesn't amount to much more than the fact that it exists.
If you are not, action combat may well be more your thing.
I think that the combat system is its own thing and boss mechanics is its own thing.
Developers should first make a satisfying combat system and then think about boss mechanics, and not the other way around.
I do agree with you that most action combat raids haven't been close to tab targeting raids (but I have never really played any AC mmos on a high lvl), but I also believe that AC raids can be much much more, and compete with tab targeting raids.
I hope IS will make some epic and difficult raids that we all are going to enjoy, and a combat system that is engaging and fun.
For example, GW2 looks amazing and has some nice AC skills, but I feel there is nothing meaningful to do in that game and I just get bored real fast.
P.S. But Im yet to see AC done right (lots of people praising black desert as having very good AC, but for me it was just flashy and didnt feel that great. You could kill mobs so easily that it got boring).
This is a perfectly valid position to have. It isn't the position I have, but it is valid.
I like content to be as varied as possible. In order for this to happen, a good portion of your focus in combat needs to be on the encounter. If 90% of your in combat attention is going to the combat system itself, that only leaves that 10% for any meaningful variation.
In a game where 50% of your attention is needed for combat, the developers have that other 50% of your attention they can take up via the encounters mechanics, meaning they can be far more varied.
While these two things are separate, they need to be considered in conjunction, and can be viewed at as two sides of the one coin.
Again, neither if these is a right or wrong position to have, they are totally about preference. The only thing is, if you are playing a game that has really good high end bosses, you shouldn't complain about the low end content being boring - and if you play a game where the combat system takes up all your time, you shouldn't complain about a lack of content variation.
They have more players because they were the firsts and tech limitations at the time of development meant tab was the ONLY viable option. At this point choosing full tab when you can have a far more engaging and intuitive combat system is just shooting yourself in the foot.
I also consider the fact that games on the current market use it as a reason to try to move away from it as to lessen the overlap between games.
I don't think this is true. There are many more popular action games than tab games, they just aren't MMOs.
This is a preference but I'm pretty sure there is a large number of players who prefer aiming with a mouse.
I played WoW for a long, long time. And Swtor after that. Then Tera came out and that pretty much killed WoW combat for me. I tried to play WoW again and just could not do it. Having to hold the right mouse button down all the time to give me some semblance of action combat. . . I broke 2 mice that way. And they were expensive ones. I could not go back to that kind of game play again.
For me, at this moment in time, GW2 has the best combination of tab and action there is. If you select action camera and set a quick key, you can easily swap between the old WoW style right mouse button to look around or the new action combat style. It really is the perfect solution for people who prefer one or the other.
I really hope that AoC shamelessly nabs this feature, for it is superior to everything else I have played.
Steven has said if we dont have hybrid we will have full tab. GCD was around due to the tech limitations. There is little difference in terms of tech between TT and AC. AC requires conal damage and soft targeting. Particle effects were limited through technology but the underlying principles between AC and TT are the same.
If there were tech issues then modders wouldn't have managed to make action parameters and implement them before game Devs made the transition. Modders can be better than some Devs but I digress. I dont particularly like TT (WoW) but I also despise the AC found in BDO.
TT wasnt the first targeting system. 2d targeting and directional targeting came first. I'm not sure why we moved from directional attacks to TT but TT remains one of the more popular targeting systems to date for MMOs.
The action vs tab debate goes on and on because there is no right answer. Action definitely has certain benefits over tab. But tab is no slouch. It can be extremely engaging and dynamic when done right in a game.
I'm not really for either over the other. I've played several of both. Hoping for a good hybrid. I really don't want BDO action combat. A lot of people hold that up as the gold standard of AC. But to me that was just like a bunch of crack bunnies magically gangbanging each other, shit bouncing around and flying all over the place. And I don't really want something as static as WoW tab target either. It's important for game companies to innovate and just straight tab target with no iframes/roll dodges etc are pretty outdated.
But you don't want action combat like the Darkfall series either where fps gods just go around shitting on everyone. Not in a partial loot game where death has consequences. And I'd guarantee the devs are trying to appeal to a larger audience than Darkfall ever had.
So Ashes needs its own system. Something good and fresh, somewhat unique, that works for the kind of game they're trying to make.
Edit: by the way, original poster's post is so troll
Calculating aiming on a client vs aiming over a server are completely different monsters, especially when you are trying to design a system that mitigates exploitation.
There very much are differences in tech when calculating the two, especially when projectiles get involved. It isn't as much a matter of how possible it is but how efficient it can be. Efficiency is important here because the large number of players they want to have will push the system to its limits.