mcstackerson wrote: » My issue is when we talk about tab vs action, we are talking about ability delivery system, nothing else.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Thing is you can have all of those features and be able to dodge abilities together. In fact BDO actually has that to an extent with some abilities. Stat changing abilities are not limited to tab target. PvP view point can be different but when you are fighting a mob that you know what it does its easy to predict when you need to do things. At which point then would you have too many things to physically do in the game? From what I remember of BDO, it's a combo system where you gotta press keys in a proper order or in a proper combination at the same time. And iirc a lot of abilities take directionality into account, so you're using up your movement presses to use a skill (correct me if I'm wrong here). So how exactly would you have a deeper variety of skills, on top of dodgy fast movement, w/o overwhelming the player with a piano-like gameplay. Hell, I played a piano build in L2 and even that was right at the edge of what I'd consider a breaking point of "too much shit to do". I can't even imagine having 20 abilities on top of constant fast-paced movement and proper targeting.
Mag7spy wrote: » Thing is you can have all of those features and be able to dodge abilities together. In fact BDO actually has that to an extent with some abilities. Stat changing abilities are not limited to tab target. PvP view point can be different but when you are fighting a mob that you know what it does its easy to predict when you need to do things.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming. The need to aim is not what makes a game action or tab. If that were the case, every tab game would be at least action in part, because every action game I have played has had abilities that need to be aimed. While we may use tab target as a term to refer to tab target combat, it is because that is an easy descriptor for it - not because that is the defining feature of it. The aiming paradigm is NOT the defining factor between action and tab target games.
mcstackerson wrote: » If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
mcstackerson wrote: » This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
Noaani wrote: » As I said earlier, tab target is a term used to denote an entire combat system. Just because we are calling it a tab target combat system, that does not mean we are only talking about the delivery system - we are talking about the whole combat system, the combat system just happens to be named after its delivery method.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers!
Mag7spy wrote: » If you need to aim in tab target (ie aoe effect drop on a area) that is action oriented and I'd agree takes a degree of skill.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers! Please, show me what you have
Vissox wrote: » I haven't played it yet, so I'm not drawing any sort of line yet. But steven asked for feedback about if we are going in a positive direction, and I'm just gonna say that every action combat korean type mmo I've ever played I have absolutely hated. I am tab target 100%, I think action combat only works from an overhead 3rd person perspective like diablo or league of legends or lost ark.
Vissox wrote: » I don't want to aim my ability's honestly, If I use a sword and get animation locked, and at the same time I'm required to dodge some kind of skill shot. I'm not gonna be happy. If I miss a spell as a spell caster because my mouse was 4 pixels off, same thing. Tab targeting let's me focus on what I think matters.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers! Please, show me what you have Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine. 1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target? 2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making. 3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct. When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2? EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers! Please, show me what you have Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine. 1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target? 2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making. 3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct. When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2? EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever. I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at. Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers! Please, show me what you have Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine. 1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target? 2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making. 3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct. When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2? EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever. I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at. Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages? Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure. I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required. If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data. I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game. Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second. Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this. The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems. So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue. Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game. Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter. However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more. Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above. If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game. There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try. This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think. This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own? We can compare papers! Please, show me what you have Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine. 1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target? 2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making. 3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct. When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2? EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever. I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at. Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages? Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing. You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure. I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required. If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data. I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient. My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim. I think this premise is silly and would be proven false because the part of your brain that parses the abilities "depth" and the part that aims is different.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
mcstackerson wrote: » My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times. But I feel like that's Noaani's point. Tab games can have much deeper skill design w/o sacrificing on the speed/difficulty of the encounter, while in order for an action game to be playable with a big amount of skills you gotta slow it down in multiple ways, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of "action games are more skill-based because they require you to react to shit faster". It's just 2 different skillsets. You either use your knowledge of the game's systems and mechanics to properly adapt to the situation or you use your physical ability to react super fast and press correct buttons even faster. The former can appeal to all ages and has a really low skill floor, while the latter appeals mainly to the younger audience (due to their physical abilities being at their peak) and has a much higher floor. And you can always speed up tab if you want to, but I'm not sure how many action combat likers would be ok with a slow ass combat in their game.
Mag7spy wrote: » It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times.
Azherae wrote: » What is it like for the 'Piano Build' of L2?
Mag7spy wrote: » I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players. I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players. I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible. Now you are understanding my point. As I have been saying for actually longer than you have been on these forums, action is probably better all around for solo, for small group and for PvP. Especially in PvP, it actually creates more variety than tab target creates in PvP. However, when it comes to top end, when we are talking about having an actual raiding scene that requires many encounters over a period of time, encounters that need to be materially different from each other mechanics wise, action combat simply can not hold a candle to tab.
