Noaani wrote: » So, the comments about action combat not being suited to PvE are in regards to large scale PvE - 40 person raids and such. It is not in regards to soloing. Virtually everyone agrees that action combat is better for soloing, so there is no need to give examples of people soloing in an action combat game.
234Graph wrote: » There's literally group combat in the clips I sent, did you even give it a fair watch?
Noaani wrote: » 40 person raids and such.
Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » There's literally group combat in the clips I sent, did you even give it a fair watch? Noaani wrote: » 40 person raids and such. Questions?
234Graph wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » There's literally group combat in the clips I sent, did you even give it a fair watch? Noaani wrote: » 40 person raids and such. Questions? I got no questions and a 40 person raid can work with AC.
Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » There's literally group combat in the clips I sent, did you even give it a fair watch? Noaani wrote: » 40 person raids and such. Questions? I got no questions and a 40 person raid can work with AC. Can *a* 40 person raid work? Potentially, but there is no objective evidence to back this up. Can a game create enough 40 person raid content to have what any top end player would consider a top end raid game (we are talking 30 or so individual encounters, all of which are different)? No, no it can't. Fact is, literally no game has ever made action combat work in a positive manner with more than five players present at a time, and even then things like mobility get severely limited. If you want to learn more, go to one of those discussions you referenced in the OP. All the reasoning as to why is in there. Or, if you want to post a video to disprove the existing claims, find one where action combat is used in a 40 player setting, and isn't overly restrictive. Posting a video of three people fighting together is not advancing your opinion here at all, because we all know it works well for up to three, can sometimes work ok for up to 5, but has literally never worked well for more than that. It is kind of just proving that it works fine in small scale, but not so much with large scale combat.
234Graph wrote: » Just like you said not long ago, large scale raids haven't been tried out with AC before(to my knowledge at least) so for there to be a sentiment that it "has never worked well" is weird, quite unfair and biased against AC as it hasn't been given the opportunity(or enough of it) to shine in this department.
I'm not here to say that AC is as efficient as Tab targeting in large raids(it's not) but that it can work.
Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » Just like you said not long ago, large scale raids haven't been tried out with AC before(to my knowledge at least) so for there to be a sentiment that it "has never worked well" is weird, quite unfair and biased against AC as it hasn't been given the opportunity(or enough of it) to shine in this department. It has been attempted, just not in any capacity that was released. I'm not here to say that AC is as efficient as Tab targeting in large raids(it's not) but that it can work. In other words, tab target is better for raids - which is what all those other threads that you mentioned in the OP said.
Dygz wrote: » For me, it depends on whether you mean action combat or hack & slash combat. Many people don't make that distinction. Hack & Slash combat negates RP. That Dragon's Dogma clip seems like it's a bit too frenetic for 8 person groups. I think the action combat in NWO is great. Witcher 3 looks pretty good. There's a sweet spot somewhere.
234Graph wrote: » There's a difference between saying something along the lines of "large scale raids work better with Tab targeting than AC/Action combat" and "Large scale raids don't fit with Action combat". My point is that it can be done with action combat.
Otr wrote: » I see that both action combat and tab targeting are planned, which is good in my oppinion:
Noaani wrote: » Can a game create enough 40 person raid content to have what any top end player would consider a top end raid game (we are talking 30 or so individual encounters, all of which are different)? No, no it can't.
Noaani wrote: » Fact is, literally no game has ever made action combat work in a positive manner with more than five players present at a time, and even then things like mobility get severely limited.
Azherae wrote: » I don't think this will work. It's a problem because the style of combat required for multiplayer action combat beyond 6 people is a style most people dislike. I don't think Intrepid would choose to make a game that has the types of PvE encounters we've already seen, and then reduce the appeal of the game by making Action Combat a reasonable way to take on those encounters. Not because this is not possible. But because people would not like it and the game would die. If it would be any help to the community or Intrepid itself, I will argue that point for literally hours, at the micro-level if necessary. A competent designer can learn the entirety of how these things work and don't work, in about 3 years. Intrepid has had six. Even if we cut that down to 'no, really they've only had one', I doubt it would be a problem. Also, Neverwinter 'raids' seem to 'work' because the mobility is normally equal to or less than most Tab Target games, which is 'Action Combat In Name Only' for some people, but 'perfect' for others. Those others are going to be quite happy, I'm sure.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I don't think this will work. It's a problem because the style of combat required for multiplayer action combat beyond 6 people is a style most people dislike. I don't think Intrepid would choose to make a game that has the types of PvE encounters we've already seen, and then reduce the appeal of the game by making Action Combat a reasonable way to take on those encounters. Not because this is not possible. But because people would not like it and the game would die. If it would be any help to the community or Intrepid itself, I will argue that point for literally hours, at the micro-level if necessary. A competent designer can learn the entirety of how these things work and don't work, in about 3 years. Intrepid has had six. Even if we cut that down to 'no, really they've only had one', I doubt it would be a problem. Also, Neverwinter 'raids' seem to 'work' because the mobility is normally equal to or less than most Tab Target games, which is 'Action Combat In Name Only' for some people, but 'perfect' for others. Those others are going to be quite happy, I'm sure. Ok, let's hear these micro level arguments. How would action combat reduce appeal?
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I don't think this will work. It's a problem because the style of combat required for multiplayer action combat beyond 6 people is a style most people dislike. I don't think Intrepid would choose to make a game that has the types of PvE encounters we've already seen, and then reduce the appeal of the game by making Action Combat a reasonable way to take on those encounters. Not because this is not possible. But because people would not like it and the game would die. If it would be any help to the community or Intrepid itself, I will argue that point for literally hours, at the micro-level if necessary. A competent designer can learn the entirety of how these things work and don't work, in about 3 years. Intrepid has had six. Even if we cut that down to 'no, really they've only had one', I doubt it would be a problem. Also, Neverwinter 'raids' seem to 'work' because the mobility is normally equal to or less than most Tab Target games, which is 'Action Combat In Name Only' for some people, but 'perfect' for others. Those others are going to be quite happy, I'm sure. Ok, let's hear these micro level arguments. How would action combat reduce appeal? When an enemy is large (bosses or the enemy from the OP video), this is fine for the overall experience, but that means that if it is not swinging its attack in effectively a 180 degree cone (Elder Dragon of Frost) or raining basically random death around (Elder Dragon of the Wood), all you really need is to put a tank in front of it and everyone else to the sides, assuming its attacks don't constantly cause it to move. No one is likely to be out of range. If it IS swinging in this 180 degree cone, you need either a bunch of classes that have perfect active block, or iframes, for most people to manage, assuming collision. But perfect Active Block is a sort of weird way to implement Action Combat because it's explicitly 'I stand here and hold a block button', with the 'stand here' part being the important aspect, and this usually applies even if your stamina depletes while blocking. If it is attacking with the random death shower, the combat you'll experience isn't meaningfully different from a Tab Target game, and if the boss is large and has a large hurtbox, then even targeted abilities aren't hard to deal with. For that to be true, the boss itself must be mobile. So once you are past 6 people, even with a 60 degree attack cone, you can fairly easily make sure that the boss only hits one person, who is mitigating and taunting, for example, and everyone else just has to CHASE it when it moves. Let's assume for the moment that a large boss does not move a LOT because not only do most not do this, it makes it harder for someone to establish who is actually being targeted. If we go down to 'small enemy groups' then they too, must be very mobile, in order for the 'action' part to work, because otherwise a large enough group will just be able to cause them to stand in the damage zone. For an enemy to react to any attack and block or dodge, either they need perfect block that covers all directions, or they need iframes. I'm not sure if you'd agree that iframes on mobs suck, but it can certainly be unsatisfying. If there's collision, then you now must possibly 'decide who gets to stand close enough to it'. When you can't tell who is going to be attacked, you can't 'read' the situation enough to make proper action decisions, and the more people there are involved in this process, the harder that is (unless the game is super simplistic, which is again, Action Combat In Name Only, but I expect people would be happy). When the boss doesn't move or react to attacks, then there's no decisions to be made. Yet for some reason, many people claim that they hate BDO combat. Now, those people MIGHT mean that they hate 'the fact that BDO open world mobs are easy'. But if we look at the main methods of fighting the few interesting bosses and elites in that game, things which explicitly ARE group content, their Action Combat holds up quite well. I'm not talking about the sort of people who think BDO combat is good, of course. If one does think that (especially if you've fought Katzvariak, Nouver, Red Nose sorta, doubly so if you've fought them with less than 30 people on them) then that's great. If we believe that there's a majority of people out there willing to accept that as a combat system, then I obviously have nothing to say here and will await the possibility of this glorious experience.
Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » Noaani wrote: » 234Graph wrote: » There's literally group combat in the clips I sent, did you even give it a fair watch? Noaani wrote: » 40 person raids and such. Questions? I got no questions and a 40 person raid can work with AC. Can *a* 40 person raid work? Potentially, but there is no objective evidence to back this up. Can a game create enough 40 person raid content to have what any top end player would consider a top end raid game (we are talking 30 or so individual encounters, all of which are different)? No, no it can't. Fact is, literally no game has ever made action combat work in a positive manner with more than five players present at a time, and even then things like mobility get severely limited.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I don't think this will work. It's a problem because the style of combat required for multiplayer action combat beyond 6 people is a style most people dislike. I don't think Intrepid would choose to make a game that has the types of PvE encounters we've already seen, and then reduce the appeal of the game by making Action Combat a reasonable way to take on those encounters. Not because this is not possible. But because people would not like it and the game would die. If it would be any help to the community or Intrepid itself, I will argue that point for literally hours, at the micro-level if necessary. A competent designer can learn the entirety of how these things work and don't work, in about 3 years. Intrepid has had six. Even if we cut that down to 'no, really they've only had one', I doubt it would be a problem. Also, Neverwinter 'raids' seem to 'work' because the mobility is normally equal to or less than most Tab Target games, which is 'Action Combat In Name Only' for some people, but 'perfect' for others. Those others are going to be quite happy, I'm sure. Ok, let's hear these micro level arguments. How would action combat reduce appeal? When an enemy is large (bosses or the enemy from the OP video), this is fine for the overall experience, but that means that if it is not swinging its attack in effectively a 180 degree cone (Elder Dragon of Frost) or raining basically random death around (Elder Dragon of the Wood), all you really need is to put a tank in front of it and everyone else to the sides, assuming its attacks don't constantly cause it to move. No one is likely to be out of range. If it IS swinging in this 180 degree cone, you need either a bunch of classes that have perfect active block, or iframes, for most people to manage, assuming collision. But perfect Active Block is a sort of weird way to implement Action Combat because it's explicitly 'I stand here and hold a block button', with the 'stand here' part being the important aspect, and this usually applies even if your stamina depletes while blocking. If it is attacking with the random death shower, the combat you'll experience isn't meaningfully different from a Tab Target game, and if the boss is large and has a large hurtbox, then even targeted abilities aren't hard to deal with. For that to be true, the boss itself must be mobile. So once you are past 6 people, even with a 60 degree attack cone, you can fairly easily make sure that the boss only hits one person, who is mitigating and taunting, for example, and everyone else just has to CHASE it when it moves. Let's assume for the moment that a large boss does not move a LOT because not only do most not do this, it makes it harder for someone to establish who is actually being targeted. If we go down to 'small enemy groups' then they too, must be very mobile, in order for the 'action' part to work, because otherwise a large enough group will just be able to cause them to stand in the damage zone. For an enemy to react to any attack and block or dodge, either they need perfect block that covers all directions, or they need iframes. I'm not sure if you'd agree that iframes on mobs suck, but it can certainly be unsatisfying. If there's collision, then you now must possibly 'decide who gets to stand close enough to it'. When you can't tell who is going to be attacked, you can't 'read' the situation enough to make proper action decisions, and the more people there are involved in this process, the harder that is (unless the game is super simplistic, which is again, Action Combat In Name Only, but I expect people would be happy). When the boss doesn't move or react to attacks, then there's no decisions to be made. Yet for some reason, many people claim that they hate BDO combat. Now, those people MIGHT mean that they hate 'the fact that BDO open world mobs are easy'. But if we look at the main methods of fighting the few interesting bosses and elites in that game, things which explicitly ARE group content, their Action Combat holds up quite well. I'm not talking about the sort of people who think BDO combat is good, of course. If one does think that (especially if you've fought Katzvariak, Nouver, Red Nose sorta, doubly so if you've fought them with less than 30 people on them) then that's great. If we believe that there's a majority of people out there willing to accept that as a combat system, then I obviously have nothing to say here and will await the possibility of this glorious experience. This seems like you made up a bunch of unnecessary requirements for an action bosses. I disagree with a lot of your assertions and conclusions but don't think they are relevant to this conversation. Since you assert that the game would be popular with a tab boss, then I don't think the boss has to change for this argument which is focused on the player's combat mechanics. Correct me if i'm wrong but i believe the devs have consistently defined action abilities as ones you have to aim (free aim). So, assuming we don't change the bosses mechanics but change players abilities so that they have to aim them instead of clicking on the boss once, how would that reduce appeal?
