Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
The thing you are missing is that I am saying "action combat on top end raids requires compromises that tab does not require".
Every time you say "action can do it, you just need to make these compromises", you are actually making my point for me - not expanding your own point.
You ask me to bring up examples, but why? You are already talking about examples of the limits of action combat - you just don't seem to realize it.
Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills
Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve.
In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way.
As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss.
I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues.
Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe.
Stop beating around the bush lets do this with examples of actual content in EQ2 and compare the elements you think are issues on top of the mechanics please. Again I've asked this so many times and you refuse to give anything. I don't want to debate head cannon I want to go with actual facts right beside mechanics.
The argument is that the game failed to make meaningful raid content.
If NWO, BDO, Tera and Wildstar successfully made meaningful raid content... (which you know by now is defined by Noaani as 'able to support a raiding scene one might actually aim to join or hear about')
Where is it?
Wildstar 40 man raids (probably best proof):
Tera 30 man raid:
Those other games didn't focus on PvE raid content but i could post a video of people zerging down content.
I believe you may have misunderstood what I was asking for.
I am not claiming to know much about WildStar, and I played TERA too late for it to be good.
I am aware of (from cursory checks) only 6 '40 man raid bosses' in WildStar, I'm sure there are more. You can tell me how many.
TERA, I only know 8. There are certainly more. You can tell me how many.
I apologize, i missed the raiding scene context in noanni's post.
So your argument is that those games did not support a raiding scene therefore, there will never be an action game that is capable of supporting a 40 man raiding scene? If this is not, then please let me know what you are trying to argue here?
I know this isn't the common state on the internet, but for me specifically, you can assume that if I butt in on a discussion between two other people, it's because one of them has a valid argument that they can be making but are failing to make that argument. The reason differs.
I just want the discourse to be better here. I am not on either side, I just happen to agree with Noaani's claim that Action Combat (as defined in a way that neither you nor Mag7 even agree with) does not easily support a full raiding scene.
Your discussion is still with Noaani. I'm just 'giving into my managerial instincts'.
---
Literally every thing you are saying needs to happen to make action combat work in a raid setting is a compromise that reduces the variation of encounters that are possible, and also strip out aspects of gameplay that players leading up to raids have been working with and enjoying.
You don't spend 50 levels teaching players how to play a class with dodging, movement and all of those things, and then add in the aspirational content for the game and remove those things.
Raid content should require every aspect of combat that players have at their disposal. If you are stripping entire aspects of combat away - such as dodging - then you are doing your subscribers a disservice.
It also can't really be called the top end combat content of the game if it is not using every aspect of combat.
Soooopo tired of head cannon just give some EQ examples on why action combat can't do encounters with the exact mechanic examples so we have something meaningful we can talk about besides conversation over "I think so its true".
Just to give some clarity of what I am talking about:
BDO has 3 encounters that I would consider to be "raid encounters". There are other encounters that require many people, but are simplistic and are not what I would consider raid encounters (edit; this is not something unique to BDO, EQ2 has a number of such encounters as well, as does Archeage, and almost every other game I have played).
BDO has been live for about 7 years.
In a 7 year period, I expect a game that is attempting to support a raiding scene to have no less than 300 raid encounters.
Further to that, if all three of the raid encounters in BDO were put in to a game that is attempting to support a raiding scene, players would complain that they are the same encounter. The variation of those 300+ encounters that I expect from a game that is attempting to support a raiding scene each need to be significantly more varied from each of the other 299+ encounters than any of the three BDO encounters are from the others.
As much as anything, my argument is based on a number of games attempting to do exactly this (Wildstar being the most obvious, Tera being the next, imo) and failing at it. I'm not saying the games failed because of it, just that the developers failed at supporting a raiding scene. In most of these games, the developers completely gave up on even attempting to develop raid content.
To me, the argument that it is possible is an argument saying that you know better than all of the developers that have attempted this, failed and given up.
I am unsure why you are referring to logic and reason as "head cannon".
Also, it is head canon, not cannon - unless you are suggesting that I am firing projectiles from my head.
You don't need to use every element of combat in every fight. In "tab" games, ever encounter doesn't require you to CC or use AoE abilities even though those are tools given to you. I agree action elements should be a part of fights but you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter. I'd imagine you would agree that you could add those elements to some encounters would increase variety.
I've even said in this thread that the best thing Ashes has going for it (from my perspective) is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids.
Then what are you arguing?
Yup I should be saying headcanon. Logic and reasoning would be coming from the actual mechanics and then deciding if compromise is needed. As well cross referencing your understanding of compromise and my own for mechanics. But if you are that stubborn I guess we won't come to a understanding, if your point was that strong there wouldn't be any reason not to express it with content examples
BDO wasn't designed for PVE encounters, I don't know why this is being brought up as a point against action combat. BDO doesn't add content to their game, and bdo has plenty of other issues. The only thing it does have is the combat and the fluidity and feeling of it. I'm not talking about balance issues, with aoe and such. You are also assuming its the same encounter based on a game that designed weak pve which has nothing to do with the feeling of the combat.
That action combat doesn't allow for the variety of top end raid encounters that tab target allows for.
This isn't an argument that is specific to Ashes - it never has been. It is a comment/observation on action combat in general.
As well as saying that the best thing Ashes has going for it is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids, I have also said that if Ashes has raids that are good enough to attract people that are currently raiding in other games, people taking on those encounters will be using tab target as much as they possibly can, because it frees players up more to do anything the raid may ask them to do.
Since players in Ashes have that choice though, the discussion simply can't apply to Ashes.
To me, it means what the dictionary says it means.
Then lets talk about that and have an example of some top end PvE raid content and compare it to action combat elements. Lets not assume things.
I've had that discussion with others in this thread.
You were too busy trying to argue pointless sidetracks to bother noticing.
I'd offer to go over the points again for you, but honestly, you are just too annoying.
You realize that just because you see a raid in an action game that doesn't have the same variety as one you have seen in a tab game, that doesn't mean it's not possible. Not every tab game has the same variety in their raids and in the action games you are looking at, you don't know the designers goals. Everyone is different and where a designer for a game you liked may have added a new mechanic a designer from another game may have said they are good with what they have.
You can achieve the same amount of variety in an "action" game. As we have pointed out, at the bare minimum, you can have it play like a tab raid and if it makes sense, add action elements on top.
At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of?
I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise.
This doesnt mean action combat can't have good raid encounters, it doesnt even mean that BDO can't have good raid encounters, it just means raids would have to be designed in a completely different way than your traditional raids
Sadly there isnt an action mmo with really good combat and really good raids yet and again this doesnt mean that it is impossible...
Unfortunately, the only game I have any hopes of delivering that will be Riot's MMO, which is not releasing anytime soon.
Maybe then we can end this non sense about "action combat cant do this, action combat cant do that"...
But this isn't about what Action Combat can and cannot do, it's about what PLAYERS can and cannot do.
Sure you can take most/all the truly Action related parts out of Raid Encounters to make them 'work better and have more variety'. If that's what everyone wants, this is perfect.
You can also make your encounters keep all those factors and subtract some other factors so that players are physically and mentally capable of doing them, and now your encounters are less interesting. If that's what everyone wants, this is perfect.
We could probably have a discussion about which one of these we prefer Ashes lean toward, or if 50/50 sounds best, or what.
You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game.
They spend all this time and money developing the game, and on release the whole consumer base is just like... nah, its too action-y for me. And the other half is like, nah, its too tab-y.
Then from this we could infer which side of the 'argument' you are on.
If you put a Tab Encounter in an Action Game, and you balance it just the same, Raiders will use Tab for it. This is possibly also something you say 'yeah sure that's fine' to.
That might make a good Hybrid game. If your 'vote' to Intrepid is 'build your encounters around Tab and let Action players just accept that they won't be doing many Action things during raids' then there's literally no argument.
They're not going to remove their reticles and ground targeting because some people prefer to be in Action Mode while hitting some dragon on the foot instead of Tab mode hitting some dragon on the foot.
You have not given any raid examples of content from EQ2 with mechanics in all these 24 pages....Not a single one of this happens int his raid and saying why it be too much because of certain mechanics for action to do.
You have been avoiding the questions since the start of the thread. If you are going to make a bold claim saying action combat can't do large scale raids with 40 people and not even give a single raid from EQ2 that would be difficult for action combat I'd have to fact check you on that.
What is even more annoying is when you say action can't do what tab does, but then won't even back up that statement with raid examples in EQ2 with the mechanics you need to do.
Well now, we have a philosophical argument here.
If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system?
To me, the answer is no.
Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises.