I don't like action combat, and it could very potentially stop me from playing

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. 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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

falcorpix

this topic is really tiresome, there is nothing tab-target can do that action combat cant, it doesnt have any limitations.
All the limitations I see imposed here come from little experience with action combat or not understanding if theres a problem there is a solution.
In fact, action combat is literally tab-target without the tab-target limitations.

Enigmatic Sage

falcorpix wrote: »

this topic is really tiresome, there is nothing tab-target can do that action combat cant, it doesnt have any limitations.
All the limitations I see imposed here come from little experience with action combat or not understanding if theres a problem there is a solution.
In fact, action combat is literally tab-target without the tab-target limitations.

the funny thing is....

it's been going for at least a good solid year lol. new threads, same discussions

so many discussions just keep resurfacing on the same topics over and over. It's why I feel they should organise the forums a bit better, especially when it comes to topics like this. It can be seen as an issue with the toilet paper roll style forums where it just keeps going and going regardless of whom uses the search feature or not

Noaani

falcorpix wrote: »

this topic is really tiresome, there is nothing tab-target can do that action combat cant, it doesnt have any limitations.
All the limitations I see imposed here come from little experience with action combat or not understanding if theres a problem there is a solution.
In fact, action combat is literally tab-target without the tab-target limitations.

See, I don't disagree with you here. In fact, this is kind of my point.

The thing is, you need to take the content in to account as well - a discussion about JUST the combat system is stupid.

In terms of content, when combined with a combat system, developers can (and usually do, in most games) create situations where players are at 100% engagement.

In an action combat game, most of this is applied via the combat system. In a tab target game, most of it is applied via the encounters.

What this means is that it is blatantly inherent that tab target games will inherently have greater variety of encounters.

That is my entire argument, and literally no one has ever come up with a point that even remotely argues against this.

Fact is, if we assume that developers are aiming for 100% engagement (and won't go over that), then the simpler the combat system is, the more of that engagement can be put on the encounters. The more of the engagement put on the encounters, the more variation those encounters can have from each other.

So yes, generally speaking, action combat requires a little more from players (not a lot more, and tab target doesn't require no skill as many people have suggested 0 nd this is a generalization and not a rule). However, it is this extra that action combat requires from players that is it's downfall on top end PvE content.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

falcorpix wrote: »

this topic is really tiresome, there is nothing tab-target can do that action combat cant, it doesnt have any limitations.
All the limitations I see imposed here come from little experience with action combat or not understanding if theres a problem there is a solution.
In fact, action combat is literally tab-target without the tab-target limitations.

See, I don't disagree with you here. In fact, this is kind of my point.

The thing is, you need to take the content in to account as well - a discussion about JUST the combat system is stupid.

In terms of content, when combined with a combat system, developers can (and usually do, in most games) create situations where players are at 100% engagement.

In an action combat game, most of this is applied via the combat system. In a tab target game, most of it is applied via the encounters.

What this means is that it is blatantly inherent that tab target games will inherently have greater variety of encounters.

That is my entire argument, and literally no one has ever come up with a point that even remotely argues against this.

Fact is, if we assume that developers are aiming for 100% engagement (and won't go over that), then the simpler the combat system is, the more of that engagement can be put on the encounters. The more of the engagement put on the encounters, the more variation those encounters can have from each other.

So yes, generally speaking, action combat requires a little more from players (not a lot more, and tab target doesn't require no skill as many people have suggested 0 nd this is a generalization and not a rule). However, it is this extra that action combat requires from players that is it's downfall on top end PvE content.

huh? In context to the MMORPG that ashes is aiming for, the combat system is directly involved with the encounters mechanics. Depending on the system and its abilities, you can have the same level of engagement regardless of which system, especially with their reticle tab target system the way it currently is aimed to be.

I understand what you're trying to imply but it doesn't take a dive (downfall) on top-end PvE. I can see how collision may play a role but player positioning and combat systems still work relatively the same with the phases of a boss fight.

Based on what we have seen with the bare bones for the encounters in early development, I honestly dont understand how one could come to that conclusion but please feel free to elaborate on this

Noaani

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

huh? In context to the MMORPG that ashes is aiming for, the combat system is directly involved with the encounters mechanics.

I'm talking more generalizations than anything Ashes specific.

My thoughts on how it will relate specifically to Ashes are that if the game has encounters that are anything even remotely compared to top end encounters in the few games that I consider to have them, then players will need to spec more tab target than action.

I also expect players that are soloing or expecting PvP to spec mostly action.

What I don't expect is for people to put a whole lot of thought in to this - the above will just be what people consider the best specs for each content type to be.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

huh? In context to the MMORPG that ashes is aiming for, the combat system is directly involved with the encounters mechanics.

I'm talking more generalizations than anything Ashes specific.

My thoughts on how it will relate specifically to Ashes are that if the game has encounters that are anything even remotely compared to top end encounters in the few games that I consider to have them, then players will need to spec more tab target than action.

I also expect players that are soloing or expecting PvP to spec mostly action.

What I don't expect is for people to put a whole lot of thought in to this - the above will just be what people consider the best specs for each content type to be.

oh ok!

I will still have to disagree on the TT vs AC but in context to AoC, depending on abilities, I may end up using the reticle locking system during encounters, utilise the tools available to you. Players are still going to have to overcome the mechanics in order to achieve victory in the encounters. Going off the dragon examples, there is things to dodge/avoid, soak, damage mitigate etc (the list of encounter mechanics can go on and on).

Good thing they're going with the reticle, it can tie the encounters to be engaging and challenging without necessarily being a same street different name kind of thing. Hopefully they add enough non predictable chaos into the mix to make it fun instead of a rinse and repeat type encounter. Considering how a majority of the encounters for PvE content such as raids are aimed to be open-world vs instanced, it's going to be quite interesting.

So, if those dragon fights are anything to go by, they have lots of potential for engaging encounters regardless of the TT vs AC features we currently are aware of. With the potential for increased difficulties, those abilities would also evolve and/or additional abilities and mechanics.

Noaani

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So, if those dragon fights are anything to go by, they have lots of potential for engaging encounters regardless of the TT vs AC features we currently are aware of.

My take on those encounters (or, perhaps my hope on them) is that they are placeholder encounters so that Intrepid can show off the models.

To me, the encounters displayed in those encounters are the base level building blocks of an encounter. The are the equivalent of what you get in your class kit in the first 10 levels of a game - you still have the abilities from the remaining 40 levels that is where all the interest and uniqueness of your class is to be found.

If what we have seen so far is representative of what will be in game, then not only will action vs tab not matter, but the content itself won't even matter. The encounters as shown so far are boring, lacking flavor and lacking uniqueness.

However, at this point in development, I don't expect any raid encounters to be finished - which is why I am assuming they are placeholders right now.

If the game does indeed have the raid encounters that I am hoping, it may well be impossible to use action combat with them. I mean, one of the things that is key in a good number of raid encounters that stand out to me is the ability to be attacking in one direction, but looking in another direction (keeping an eye out for any number of things). This is straight up not possible with action combat.

Even without that, if the encounters have as much going on as I would expect, you likely won't have the time in combat to deal with what you need to deal with, as well as dealing with having to aim your abilities and use the appropriate abilities at the appropriate time (which is not necessarily something that only affects your performance - it can affect the entire raid).

On the other hand, the game could have stripped down, dumbed down raid encounters like BDO or Archeage.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So, if those dragon fights are anything to go by, they have lots of potential for engaging encounters regardless of the TT vs AC features we currently are aware of.

My take on those encounters (or, perhaps my hope on them) is that they are placeholder encounters so that Intrepid can show off the models.

To me, the encounters displayed in those encounters are the base level building blocks of an encounter. The are the equivalent of what you get in your class kit in the first 10 levels of a game - you still have the abilities from the remaining 40 levels that is where all the interest and uniqueness of your class is to be found.

If what we have seen so far is representative of what will be in game, then not only will action vs tab not matter, but the content itself won't even matter. The encounters as shown so far are boring, lacking flavor and lacking uniqueness.

However, at this point in development, I don't expect any raid encounters to be finished - which is why I am assuming they are placeholders right now.

If the game does indeed have the raid encounters that I am hoping, it may well be impossible to use action combat with them. I mean, one of the things that is key in a good number of raid encounters that stand out to me is the ability to be attacking in one direction, but looking in another direction (keeping an eye out for any number of things). This is straight up not possible with action combat.

Even without that, if the encounters have as much going on as I would expect, you likely won't have the time in combat to deal with what you need to deal with, as well as dealing with having to aim your abilities and use the appropriate abilities at the appropriate time (which is not necessarily something that only affects your performance - it can affect the entire raid).

On the other hand, the game could have stripped down, dumbed down raid encounters like BDO or Archeage.

of course, It's just the bare bones for both players and boss encounters per se.

True, in most cases the camera manipulation to get a 360 scope of your surroundings is a bit more difficult for the AC side of things for those who are not used to that sort of things but a counter to that could be that it also add an element of surprise if you are not paying attention with your spatial awareness. But with the ability to zoom out, you can probably get a good view regardless of positioning of the camera such as crane operator views, so this leads me to believe that it's not necessarily going to be case as that's more of a direct issue with camera positioning. In a more first person sense, I can definitely see the issue the direct comparison but other factors also play a roll in that such as the stage for the encounter, how open the area is etc.

But as mentioned, good thing they have toggle for the reticle aiming so players can switch during the encounter if need be as perhaps certain mechanics may require both style of players to utilise one and the other at some point. I can definitely see the higher end difficulty maybe being more demanding of this in certain scenarios compared to more lower difficulty and forgiving mechanics.

I can see it being a bit more of a situational thing for range, but melee could be quite more forgivable with the camera situation and aiming in comparison as the examples of combat have shown so far in recent videos relatively but not too in-depth for. Definitely something to consider, and if the camera adjusting feature is something simple like holding a button down and using your mouse without changing your characters reticle placement, could be minimal issues especially with mobility and dodge.

Noaani

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

But as mentioned, good thing they have toggle for the reticle aiming so players can switch during the encounter if need be as perhaps certain mechanics may require both style of players to utilise one and the other at some point. I can definitely see the higher end difficulty maybe being more demanding of this in certain scenarios compared to more lower difficulty and forgiving mechanics.

While I've never commented on it on these forums, this one possibility is the main thing I think Ashes has that *could* allow Intrepid to have the best raiding content of any MMORPG to date - and I am saying that without any hyperbole, sarcasm or irony at all.

All that is needed is for Steven to want to have that in the game. They have the developers on hand to create it, and potentially the combat system (again, my assertion that action combat is not suited to top end content due to it's lack of variety isn't a comment on Ashes - because Ashes will have tab combat as well).

While I can easily come up with situations in which tab is required over action (needing to keep an eye on something happening at the back of a room, for example), I can't currently think of any encounter mechanics that would require action over tab - however, I have literally no doubts at all that they would exist (perhaps a mob that de-targets tab target abilities every few seconds - though this seems a little corny to me).

Regardless, the need to switch between action and tab mid encounter - assuming the encounter has everything else going on that top end encounters have going on - could make for some awesome and unique encounters.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

But as mentioned, good thing they have toggle for the reticle aiming so players can switch during the encounter if need be as perhaps certain mechanics may require both style of players to utilise one and the other at some point. I can definitely see the higher end difficulty maybe being more demanding of this in certain scenarios compared to more lower difficulty and forgiving mechanics.

Regardless, the need to switch between action and tab mid encounter - assuming the encounter has everything else going on that top end encounters have going on - could make for some awesome and unique encounters.

Exactly, as an example (not a suggestion):

maybe range has to target certain parts of the boss, environment/stage while melee handles another mechanic and vice versa. Have the boss mechanics not only evolve, but the stage/environment interactions as well. It could require target and/or free aim depending on design of the encounter which could require dodging certain things at the same time. Damage a wall to cave in part of the stage or allow lava to flow through. Intrepid has plenty of room for potential in things like this with their combat system and potential boss mechanics.

Just an idea for an example, dont over think it or judge it lol

falcorpix

Noaani wrote: »

See, I don't disagree with you here. In fact, this is kind of my point.

The thing is, you need to take the content in to account as well - a discussion about JUST the combat system is stupid.

In terms of content, when combined with a combat system, developers can (and usually do, in most games) create situations where players are at 100% engagement.

In an action combat game, most of this is applied via the combat system. In a tab target game, most of it is applied via the encounters.

What this means is that it is blatantly inherent that tab target games will inherently have greater variety of encounters.

That is my entire argument, and literally no one has ever come up with a point that even remotely argues against this.

Fact is, if we assume that developers are aiming for 100% engagement (and won't go over that), then the simpler the combat system is, the more of that engagement can be put on the encounters. The more of the engagement put on the encounters, the more variation those encounters can have from each other.

So yes, generally speaking, action combat requires a little more from players (not a lot more, and tab target doesn't require no skill as many people have suggested 0 nd this is a generalization and not a rule). However, it is this extra that action combat requires from players that is it's downfall on top end PvE content.

Im genuinely curious what type of encounters you think are possible in tab target games that arent possible in action combat games.

And how those encounters are superior to the possible encounters action combat can offer.

Personally ill admit i have limited raiding experience, WoW and FFXIV being the only games i raided in. I fail to see any encounter they have that cant be done in action combat, and even if there is, how there isnt a way that action combat can actually improve that encounter by having more dynamic combat and less reliance on UI.

Noaani

falcorpix wrote: »

Im genuinely curious what type of encounters you think are possible in tab target games that arent possible in action combat games.

I mean, I explained it in the post you quoted.

Some abstractions for you. Imagine you have 10 units of "engagement", and a game developer wants to use all 10 of them for top end content. Obviously, a combination of encounter + combat system cant equal more than 10 engagement, as no player has more than 10 (and indeed many have less).

Action combat uses 7 of your engagement to just work the combat system. Tab target takes 4. This is basically the argument action players have that action combat takes "more" than tab (an argument I am not disagreeing with as a generalization).

This means that a developer creating an encounter for action only has 3 engagement left to use on that encounter, while that tab developer has 6 engagement to use.

As such, any encounter in which the sum total of mechanics would equal more than 3 but not more than 6 is an encounter which is suitable for tab, but not action.

What is straight up not possible is to argue all of the three following points.

1, developers can make content that requires too much from players due to an overload of mechanics (but they generally try to avoid this).
2, action combat requires more from players than tab target combat.
3, action combat can have the same intricacy and complexity of encounters as tab target.

Any two of these statements can be true at the same time, but all three simply can not be. It is a logical impossibility.

Now, I have seen tab target encounters that were unable to be killed due to mechanics (raids could spend an hour on one pull, not die, but not get the mob below 90%), so the first of these is 100% true.

This either the second or third point needs to be false.

If you want to argue that action combat does not require more from players than tab, have at it. You will likely be alone in that arguement though.

This only leaves the last comment to be false.

If you disagree with this logical reasoning, feel free to point out where you think the logic has fallen down.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Tab just means the delivery system, it has nothing to do with the rest of the combat system.

@mcstackerson

I'm a little disappointed you haven't come back to this yet, as I have a question for you.

Guess I'll just ask you anyway.

If the difference between tab and action is the delivery system, since all melee in both games require you to be within melee range and facing your target, does that mean there is no tab target melee combat?

This is why this definition of yours just doesn't work.

Sorry for letting you down.

There is an extra step you are missing. For a tab melee ability to function, you need to have the target you are trying to melee selected.

This is a reason i'm arguing what i am. A tab ability is one that goes to your target and only your target. In melee, this extra step of selecting your target seems unnecessary to me.

In many games (EQ2 for sure, others as well but I cant name them right now - I generally play casters) you dont. If you activate a melee ability with no target, it will activate and you will automatically acquire the first target it hits.

By your definition, would this make all EQ2 melee combat action?

If the attack is hitting whatever is in front of you, regardless of if it is your target or not, then yes, it's an "action" ability.

If you have a target and it is out of range (including off to the side or behind) you will get an error saying your target is out of range, even if you have a different target right in front of you.

If you clear your target and use the same attack, it will attack the mob in front of you and you will acquire that as a target.

Would that make EQ2 melee combat conditional action?

No, if the skill is going to your target, then it's a tab skill. Just because it's visually similar doesn't mean they are functionally the same.

What are you trying to argue here?

But you specifically said

There is an extra step you are missing. For a tab melee ability to function, you need to have the target you are trying to melee selected.

But there are times in EQ2 where you do not need a target in order to attack.

If you dont need to perform that step of acquiring a target of your intended target is in range of a melee attack, is it still tab target?

Consider this along with casters having someone abilities that are placed rather than cast on your target, and surely the game must now be considered hybrid combat...

You still have an extra step in your scenario since the player needs to deselect their target to get a new one each time they use a melee skill. If the system automatically does that for you then you get something like a softlock system (ESO/NW) which is considered free aim.

Yes, a placed skill is a free aim skill. It is not tab. Most games we call tab could be considered hybrid as they do use none tab skills.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

But as mentioned, good thing they have toggle for the reticle aiming so players can switch during the encounter if need be as perhaps certain mechanics may require both style of players to utilise one and the other at some point. I can definitely see the higher end difficulty maybe being more demanding of this in certain scenarios compared to more lower difficulty and forgiving mechanics.

While I've never commented on it on these forums, this one possibility is the main thing I think Ashes has that *could* allow Intrepid to have the best raiding content of any MMORPG to date - and I am saying that without any hyperbole, sarcasm or irony at all.

All that is needed is for Steven to want to have that in the game. They have the developers on hand to create it, and potentially the combat system (again, my assertion that action combat is not suited to top end content due to it's lack of variety isn't a comment on Ashes - because Ashes will have tab combat as well).

While I can easily come up with situations in which tab is required over action (needing to keep an eye on something happening at the back of a room, for example), I can't currently think of any encounter mechanics that would require action over tab - however, I have literally no doubts at all that they would exist (perhaps a mob that de-targets tab target abilities every few seconds - though this seems a little corny to me).

Regardless, the need to switch between action and tab mid encounter - assuming the encounter has everything else going on that top end encounters have going on - could make for some awesome and unique encounters.

Back to this again, lmao. This is false, this is why he goes on in the other post talking about engagement because lack of actual examples that are realistic.

If there is a mech that happens behind you out of sight you know the timing of the mech and you do it when it pops up. If you don't know the mechs you keep your eye out as you fight until looking for things to notice. Just because yo can't focus on more then one thing or have difficulty with it is not the same for other people. I can't imagine if I played shooters and couldn't deal with someone behind me and and turn on them and react instantly lol. People are not limited to your idea of math, and design can work around that as well.

Again you can't give proper examples you talk about generalization to avoid giving actual factual examples because you are unable to do it. And then you say things like action will have to use tab, and you 100% would be part of that toxic group to kick people if they are not using what you want because of your own false assumptions.

Would pk 10/10

daveywavey

CROW3 wrote: »

Ok.

Says it all.

Enjoy whatever game you end up playing, OP.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

If there is a mech that happens behind you out of sight you know the timing of the mech and you do it when it pops up.

You will only know the timing of a given mechanic if the developers intend for you to time it.

They are smart, you see, and if they want a mechanic that you cant time, they will simply make it so this mechanic can happen anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes after it happened the last time.

Honestly, almost any mechanic that you can time is fairly easy to overcome.

Ataraxia60

Combat that's fully tab target has just as many if not more issues as action combat in MMOs, people just ignore them because they are used to tab target combat in MMOs.

Look at the spreadsheet culture of World of Warcraft for a huge example. When you remove a lot of the skill components found in action combat, you get people min/maxing hardcore and demanding certain things from players as requirements that have nothing to do with skill. It removes a lot of the enjoyment out of the combat. You see it a lot in the recruitment of players whether it's for guilds or pug groups for raids/mythic+, skill is never a factor, only visible numbers. I absolute hate that.

Going full tab target will be a big mistake. Action can work, and should be utilized.

Dygz

I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree.
Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20.
Because they want to; not because they need to.

Mag7spy

daveywavey wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Ok.

Says it all.

Enjoy whatever game you end up playing, OP.

I hear pantheon is accepting 10,000$ pledges if you don't want hybrid/ deal with fighting action players. -insert meme laugh-

oggie88

Don't think i'll express an opinion either way cause i'll just get trolled/flamed for it. so hopefully everyone enjoys the game. Though one thing is i would like to see like the wand ability for mages(forget exactly what they were in alpha 1), you could just wand down a mob that was 1 or even 2 levels above you and never use an ability. hopefully, that gets tuned down and people are less reliant on it.

Child Item