Maybe TT for NPCs, AC for PvP?

Just tossing around ideas, as this seems to be the big-ticket item, at the moment. Yours truly enjoys the notion of PvP'ing with a game controller instead of my mouse and keyboard. However, if I'm level 50 and run through a mob of level 10 NPC's, I'm just fine with tab-targeting the one in the middle and dropping an AOE to insta-kill them all - as opposed to having to chop an axe several times to dispatch a group of 10 enemies 1 or 2 at a time.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

VmanGman

This does not sound like solid game design...

Saedu

VmanGman wrote: »

This does not sound like solid game design...

I agree... It's better for the spell to behave the same in both situations and be setup for whatever is best for the spell/class/role.

Tyranthraxus

Saedu wrote: »

VmanGman wrote: »

This does not sound like solid game design...

I agree... It's better for the spell to behave the same in both situations and be setup for whatever is best for the spell/class/role.

Aye, though if Intrepid Studios still wants a "hybrid" system and has to change from the current format, this might be a possibility - and it'll save a lot of the coding they've already got on the books, for combat mechanics.

The game would just have to differentiate from the onset of combat what type of enemy you're facing. Get jumped by a player in the middle of NPC combat? You'll be VERY aware of it, when your controls change from the tab-targeting to the action-system; You'll know immediately that you've been jumped.

Noaani

VmanGman wrote: »

This does not sound like solid game design...

I don't think it would make sense to design the game around it, but I do think that it is how players will generally spec.

I think it's been about a year or so since I've mentioned this particular opinion on these forums - but it definitely has come up before.

Vhaeyne

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Aye, though if Intrepid Studios still wants a "hybrid" system and has to change from the current format, this might be a possibility - and it'll save a lot of the coding they've already got on the books, for combat mechanics.

They clearly want a hybrid system. Otherwise the DEV discussion would have been something like: "How do you feel about AC vc TT?" or "What combat system do you like best?". Were instead asked "How would we spec our characters the proposed hybrid system.". Don't forget they have said multiple times how they want their hybrid system to work. To me it actually looks like the closest thing to the best of both worlds you could make. Allow the players to build their own chars, IG can balance with patches as needed.

To me that is clear as day. The hybrid system is not going anywhere. It should not go anywhere. Discussing the differences between the two systems as theory is one thing, but at the end of the day we need to trust IG to make their own plays.

Tyranthraxus

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Aye, though if Intrepid Studios still wants a "hybrid" system and has to change from the current format, this might be a possibility - and it'll save a lot of the coding they've already got on the books, for combat mechanics.

They clearly want a hybrid system. Otherwise the DEV discussion would have been something like: "How do you feel about AC vc TT?" or "What combat system do you like best?". Were instead asked "How would we spec our characters the proposed hybrid system.". Don't forget they have said multiple times how they want their hybrid system to work. To me it actually looks like the closest thing to the best of both worlds you could make. Allow the players to build their own chars, IG can balance with patches as needed.

To me that is clear as day. The hybrid system is not going anywhere. It should not go anywhere. Discussing the differences between the two systems as theory is one thing, but at the end of the day we need to trust IG to make their own plays.

Aye - yours truly is no expert, on design. The vets on-board give me great confidence in the end-product, however.

I enjoy the notion of a hybrid system, and wasn't part of the recent Alpha test. It sounds as though the feedback was negative enough that they feel the need to alter the original plan, and the sooner the better; It might as well be the case that it's done before the next Alpha test, so that as much pre-testing is done, as possible.

I wasn't sure what the "no-delay" part of the NDA meant, though.... Does that mean people can talk about it, or not? Haven't seen any forums posts speculating about specifics. Or was the most-recent test still under NDA, anyone know? At work atm or I'd look into it further, now.

Vhaeyne

@Tyranthraxus

I had not heard that. I try to keep my ear close to the ground, but details on alpha 1 are a bit elusive. If you read any of the AC vs TT conversations in what I am now going to refer to as "The war of five threads " you don't see too many people having a balanced perspective on the topic. There are a few nuanced perspectives out there, but most people seem to be pretty set in their ways on AC vs TT. I don't take any ones opinion on AT vs TT too seriously (self included). I want the DEVs to make the game they are passionate about. I think extending the NDA is almost always the right move, especially with alphas.

Some extra semi related thoughts:
Personally this month has been flying by for me so it feels like the next DEV stream is right around the corner. Eager to see if they elaborate on the NDA extension. I said in another thread that am pro NDA. I have worked on a few hobbyist game DEV projects in my life and I have seen even close friends give brutal criticism of something I would call more of a proof of concept than an alpha. I can only imagine how difficult the waters are to navigate at IGs scale. I don't think an extended NDA is a big deal, just a sign of rationale thinking. If anything I would hope to see more talk of things that they would have liked to do, but are now a bit out of reach to be a launch feature. Ideally nothing gets cut, but if things like arenas and tavern mini games have to wait a few major patches into release. To me that would be very rational as they do not hurt and of the other major systems. I don't want to deal with another "No Mans Sky". That game did get good, but it took years and we are still missing features that the lead DEV said would be in the game. NMS had no NDA, my and my roommate were there day one trying to find each other. 30 hours in a reddit post appeared where too people proved they were in the same spot and could not see proof of each others existence. We were both left with too much time in the game to steam refund and the disappointment of years of waiting for a game that felt very alpha. Especially if you compare it to the game it is now. Some rational thoughts pre launch would have done wonders for NMS.
Ashes feels rational in comparison, but their are some tones of NMS I get every now and then.

Tyranthraxus

Vhaeyne wrote: »

....If you read any of the AC vs TT conversations in what I am now going to refer to as "The war of five threads" you don't see too many people having a balanced perspective on the topic....

Heheh - and in the case that it comes down to an end-all battle wherein one side is surrounded by the other, everyone surrounding the guys on the inside will want an indescriminate AC system to hit anything their weapon happens to touch, while everyone on the inside will argue for TT, as to avoid being mowed down in a cluster.

Aye, that fine-tuning is something traditional gaming companies seem to think is okay to iron out AFTER launch; Yours truly is very glad to know that Steven Sharif is at the helm, instead of under another person's deadline.

I'll be happy to wait for as long as it takes, to have a quality, finished product at launch - as opposed to sub'ing and hoping things get better, down the line!

Child Item