Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

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

1232426282938

Comments

  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    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?
    Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong.

    I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise.

    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.

    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.

    Who said those are the only encounters?

    Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety.

    Well, I don't want that. I want my Action Abilities to be important in more encounters. I don't want to have to respec to Tab abilities to be effective on hard encounters and I don't want to just be standing there using none of the strengths of my Action Abilities because they're borderline useless in easier Tab encounters.

    If your response is 'well don't do that' then I as the "Action Combat Raider" now don't have a raiding scene. I would very much like one.

    I'm not arguing for how the encounters should be. All i'm doing is arguing against the idea that action encounters can't be as varied as tab ones, which noanni has claimed.

    Surely you have played ONE of the more recent difficult group Action games enough to understand why one would claim that, though? I'm not even saying you have to agree, just give some example other than 'this can just be made easier' or something. Doesn't even have to be an MMO, since, after all, they usually aren't.

    If we are talking 'mechanical variance that can't just be cheesed by a monolith of a single class avoiding a main mechanic', you absolutely will lose variance in terms of a raiding scene because raids are tuned to be hard and doing a raid suboptimally (more than 10% below tuning) is increasing your failure chance by a LOT.

    "Can I hit the Dragon in the head with my Magic Hammer when the Dragon also requires me to dodge to reduce damage?" is the 'challenge' when using an Action Skill (let's assume the last stream showed an Action skill).

    There are two ways in general to design this, either you NEED to hit the dragon in the head as part of the encounter or risk wiping, or if the skill was Tab, hitting the dragon in the head is either not possible, or not a thing that involves physically orienting your character correctly in the case where the dragon spins, moves, turns, for any reason.

    If the Tank is keeping the dragon completely still, Action and Tab are almost the same now, right? Which means either Action gets a bonus to SOMETHING (Accuracy, effect, damage, whatever) becoming optimal, or it gets little or no bonus (Tab is now better for those few moments where the thing does spin).

    Yes, you CAN make a bunch of varied encounters in Hybrid, but 'well in this one you need to hit the Dragon in the head and in this other one you don't NEED to hit it' does not cover 'variety' to me.

    As a designer, you have to understand why claiming something is impossible because of what another game did is illogical.

    If you don't want a class cheesing a mechanic then don't let them cheese the mechanic... Maybe you could give an example of what you are thinking about because that comment confused me.

    In the rest of your post, I don't understand the point you are trying to argue besides the balance of tab and action abilities in ashes, which i don't think is relevant. Not only am i just talking about action combat in general but in ashes, i don't think fights will be designed differently based on preferred combat style.

    What are you trying to get at?

    As a designer, I am telling you that claiming something is impossible because you know enough about the limitations of the thing you study and design is the literal definition of logical.

    This stance is almost unbelievable. Logic is specifically 'conclusions following priors using a system to understand them'. Logical deductions are not guaranteed to be facts and do not have to be facts, they are the way you work out what is most likely to be true and how you can work around it.

    Since my claims have priors and yours don't (at the moment, I will be glad if you bring them), the burden of 'logicality' here is not on me.

    But a more serious question. Are you one of those people who will actually go 'I think it is possible' when the consensus of those who do something for a living is that it isn't? I am very aware that such people exist, I've met CEOs like that. They're no fun. Also they ruin themselves.

    My point being that I don't expect any 'level of person' to be immune to this. I've worked directly for 'that guy', a person who doesn't even write code and insists to programmers 'This should be possible it seems so easy'. If you're in that camp, so be it. I personally have been in this industry (not game dev directly) long enough to never assume that even the top of a multimillion dollar company has any capacity for using reason in this way. I hope you can forgive me for similarly not assuming it about you.

    You can't imagine taking any of the the tab games mentioned, converting them to action, and adapting their content?

    I don't think this is necessary but what makes content varied is kind of subjective so this seems like the easiest way to argue it. At first, you could just translate the player combat to use hitscan/raycasting instead of tab. This is more to help you imagine the transition process but I think it works as baseline action since you are now aiming. If, as a tab game, it was considered varied, it should still keep that variety but no longer be tab. From there, you can make further modifications to make it more "action" and make sure you compensate where necessary so you still have the variety of the base game had.

    If there are any mechanics you don't think can be translated then please bring them up and tell me why

    Your first line here is incredibly hyperbole to me at this moment (mood). I do not wish to engage here, but I absolutely am not against trying to have a productive discussion on it. I posted a different thread, in which I hope I can come to a greater understanding of exactly what you are saying/believe and why, if you're willing to engage there.

    I feel like our perspectives are currently too far apart for this to be a productive use of time. I'll gladly come back to this later.

    https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/52939/lets-theoryraid-1-jormungand-vs-xenojiiva#latest

    I meant no insult. Was just trying to set the stage for a mental exercise.

    I'll look into the fight and return with ideas.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    If there are any mechanics you don't think can be translated then please bring them up and tell me why.
    Any random environment hazards that come from your perspective's back, while you're attacking a specific part of the boss. In tab your camera is usually waay further away from your character, so you see more of the environment, so if there's a horizontal attack coming towards you from behind - you'll probably see it. In action your camera would be way closer because you need to properly target different parts on the boss (proepr utilization of action combat features), and if something comes from behind your back w/o your knowledge and, potentially, oneshots you - I'd assume most players would consider that unfair, while for tab players that's just a mechanic that makes the encounter more fun.

    The flipside would be, a small fast mob jumping around you making you target it properly and dodge its attack actively. In tab that shit would be the dullest thing ever because you just target it, press "def/evasion buff" and unload, while in action (I would assume) this is a fun active gameplay.

    At least that's how I see it as mainly an outsider of hardcore pve. Also, the first example works in the context of dps maximization, where you have to look at the target to constantly do top lvl dmg so you can't just be looking around with your camera.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2022
    NiKr wrote: »
    If there are any mechanics you don't think can be translated then please bring them up and tell me why.
    Any random environment hazards that come from your perspective's back, while you're attacking a specific part of the boss. In tab your camera is usually waay further away from your character, so you see more of the environment, so if there's a horizontal attack coming towards you from behind - you'll probably see it. In action your camera would be way closer because you need to properly target different parts on the boss (proepr utilization of action combat features), and if something comes from behind your back w/o your knowledge and, potentially, oneshots you - I'd assume most players would consider that unfair, while for tab players that's just a mechanic that makes the encounter more fun.

    The flipside would be, a small fast mob jumping around you making you target it properly and dodge its attack actively. In tab that shit would be the dullest thing ever because you just target it, press "def/evasion buff" and unload, while in action (I would assume) this is a fun active gameplay.

    At least that's how I see it as mainly an outsider of hardcore pve. Also, the first example works in the context of dps maximization, where you have to look at the target to constantly do top lvl dmg so you can't just be looking around with your camera.

    If a player is supposed to know the attack is coming then moving the indicator or changing how it's telegraphed isn't changing the mechanic in my opinion. It's the same mechanic, you are just making a slight change to how the user is being warned. Making players be aware of their surrounds or covering different angels for each other can also be an intentional way for the mechanic to function.

    Yes, if you want to make a mob feel like it would in a tab scenario, then you could have it function that way, even if it's visually jumping around, it's hit box could be in the area it's jumping.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    If a player is supposed to know the attack is coming then moving the indicator or changing how it's telegraphed isn't changing the mechanic in my opinion. It's the same mechanic, you are just making a slight change to how the user is being warned. Making players be aware of their surrounds or covering different angels for each other can also be an intentional way for the mechanic to function.
    But that's the point though. In a tab mmo, the random attack from somewhere makes you react to it, and that attack can come from pretty much 360 degrees around your character. If you wanted to warn action players, that attack would only come from their cone of vision, or the ground indicator would be ginormous so that they can't miss it.

    At 5:30 in this video the dragons make a dash. There's no indicator where the hit will happen and by the looks of it the aoe is pretty big. I dunno if their order is randomized and obviously this is a non-combat mechanic of the fight, but there's a few such dashes earlier in the video where they dash during the fight. As you can see from the camera pov, the visibility is huge so you can see where the dragons stand and can figure out where you gotta stand. In action, I'd assume you'll have a much narrower fov so it'd be more difficult.

    https://youtu.be/kGReBbXnynQ?t=330

    And if I was trying to do a difficult encounter, I'd randomize position and order of these dragons, so player have to react on the spot. Yes, you can have this kind of stuff just in the player's vision, but then it limits the design possibilities a lot. It also brings down the difficulty of the encounter because you're still just staring in one point, while 360 dangers would require you to pay attention to the entire screen.

    You could also say "just let shotcallers call those dangers out", but I'd imagine a 40-man raid will have a tooon of things to call out, so a randomized mechanic on top of all the other difficult mechanics would make it really difficult to call everything out correctly w/o making VC a mess. Ideally you'd have personal responsibilities on top of raid-wide ones, and I'd say that being completely aware of your surroundings should definitely be one of those responsibilities.
    Yes, if you want to make a mob feel like it would in a tab scenario, then you could have it function that way, even if it's visually jumping around, it's hit box could be in the area it's jumping.
    Mm, I'm not sure if I understand what exactly you're saying here.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    This can be done in action combat. If you are trying to make a encounter so random and dangerous people can die from all a 360 area, tab target camera is not going to save you. It will just be chaotic and annoying since it won't make any sense. There is always mechs that make sense in raid content, doesn't mean attack all happen in the same cycle but it will make sense and be fair along side the mechanics.

    You can zoom out with a action camera as well btw....
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    This can be done in action combat. If you are trying to make a encounter so random and dangerous people can die from all a 360 area, tab target camera is not going to save you. It will just be chaotic and annoying since it won't make any sense. There is always mechs that make sense in raid content, doesn't mean attack all happen in the same cycle but it will make sense and be fair along side the mechanics.
    Well, to figure out if chaos is not the way to go we'd have to get Noaani to tell us about some super hard raids from EQ2 and whether those had chaos or just rng that players played against. But we know that Noaani won't tell us shit :D
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You can zoom out with a action camera as well btw....
    How far though? Especially in the context of "you need to target particular parts of the boss in front of you by aiming at them exactly.

    Btw, @Noaani I was thinking about this and got curious. Back in L2 no one cared about raid videos because the fight was super easy and you just needed people and gear to win. In FF14, from what I've heard, no one cares about showing their clears because the game is so difficult mechanically that it doesn't matter if you know the mechanics, cause you still need to execute perfectly in order to beat the encounter (I believe WoW's raiding races are similar). So I got curious where EQ2 was on that spectrum, considering that you've said multiple times that people didn't release videos to prevent others from clearing some raids.

    Was the reason for that some super secret mechanic during the raid that you had to figure out? Was it a particular party setup? Was it particular actions that players had to make? All or none of the above?
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    If a player is supposed to know the attack is coming then moving the indicator or changing how it's telegraphed isn't changing the mechanic in my opinion. It's the same mechanic, you are just making a slight change to how the user is being warned. Making players be aware of their surrounds or covering different angels for each other can also be an intentional way for the mechanic to function.
    But that's the point though. In a tab mmo, the random attack from somewhere makes you react to it, and that attack can come from pretty much 360 degrees around your character. If you wanted to warn action players, that attack would only come from their cone of vision, or the ground indicator would be ginormous so that they can't miss it.

    At 5:30 in this video the dragons make a dash. There's no indicator where the hit will happen and by the looks of it the aoe is pretty big. I dunno if their order is randomized and obviously this is a non-combat mechanic of the fight, but there's a few such dashes earlier in the video where they dash during the fight. As you can see from the camera pov, the visibility is huge so you can see where the dragons stand and can figure out where you gotta stand. In action, I'd assume you'll have a much narrower fov so it'd be more difficult.

    https://youtu.be/kGReBbXnynQ?t=330

    And if I was trying to do a difficult encounter, I'd randomize position and order of these dragons, so player have to react on the spot. Yes, you can have this kind of stuff just in the player's vision, but then it limits the design possibilities a lot. It also brings down the difficulty of the encounter because you're still just staring in one point, while 360 dangers would require you to pay attention to the entire screen.

    You could also say "just let shotcallers call those dangers out", but I'd imagine a 40-man raid will have a tooon of things to call out, so a randomized mechanic on top of all the other difficult mechanics would make it really difficult to call everything out correctly w/o making VC a mess. Ideally you'd have personal responsibilities on top of raid-wide ones, and I'd say that being completely aware of your surroundings should definitely be one of those responsibilities.
    Yes, if you want to make a mob feel like it would in a tab scenario, then you could have it function that way, even if it's visually jumping around, it's hit box could be in the area it's jumping.
    Mm, I'm not sure if I understand what exactly you're saying here.

    As i said, i don't think having a large POV is part of the encounter or adds to it.

    The dragons are very easy to see. The dragons start an animation before doing the dash and it looks like you want to move into the area where dragons have dashed to avoid the future dashes. Doesn't seem like a hard mechanic to do with a smaller pov. They have even backed out of the fight

    If it's really a reaction mechanic, in an action system you also have the option of making people dodge to do it.

    The shotcaller thing was an idea on another way you could design the mechanic, not necessary how you would do it.

    The last comment was just saying there are ways you could make that add so that it was jumping around like you mentioned but still easy to hit in a free aim system.

    As a side note, i've entertained this small Pov argument but many of the action games mentioned here can have similar POVs. I prefer being closer to my character but if you think encounters need this, then it is an option. You could also see in the ashes combat video where he zoomed out.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzKAFrQFCcI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ASBAC70oZo&list=RDQM2FpoOn9InBw&index=3.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    This can be done in action combat. If you are trying to make a encounter so random and dangerous people can die from all a 360 area, tab target camera is not going to save you. It will just be chaotic and annoying since it won't make any sense. There is always mechs that make sense in raid content, doesn't mean attack all happen in the same cycle but it will make sense and be fair along side the mechanics.
    Well, to figure out if chaos is not the way to go we'd have to get Noaani to tell us about some super hard raids from EQ2 and whether those had chaos or just rng that players played against. But we know that Noaani won't tell us shit :D
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    You can zoom out with a action camera as well btw....
    How far though? Especially in the context of "you need to target particular parts of the boss in front of you by aiming at them exactly.

    Btw, @Noaani I was thinking about this and got curious. Back in L2 no one cared about raid videos because the fight was super easy and you just needed people and gear to win. In FF14, from what I've heard, no one cares about showing their clears because the game is so difficult mechanically that it doesn't matter if you know the mechanics, cause you still need to execute perfectly in order to beat the encounter (I believe WoW's raiding races are similar). So I got curious where EQ2 was on that spectrum, considering that you've said multiple times that people didn't release videos to prevent others from clearing some raids.

    Was the reason for that some super secret mechanic during the raid that you had to figure out? Was it a particular party setup? Was it particular actions that players had to make? All or none of the above?

    This happens partially because in older games, 'special' or 'secret' team/group compositions can be a thing, moreso than FFXIV which is intended to be much easier.

    Note, I am unsure whether or not it is easier, only that it was explicitly intended to be easier than FFXI. It's probably harder by now... or the two are even.

    When mechanics are random, your group may be able to find a way to mitigate something an entirely different way than another, so it's multiple groups trying out things and not sharing 'the optimal group with which to mitigate X problem'.

    The Meta-shakeups you often talked about for L2, within Raiding, can happen in that way specifically.

    E.g. since I've provided the point now... One might expect that the sensible way to defeat Jormungand was to get a lot of Ice defense to reduce damage, but while the fight is POSSIBLE that way, it is definitely not the easier way to do it, and the easier way to do it is not particularly intuitive.

    So you might want to keep your group's 'special technique' secret.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Who said those are the only encounters?

    Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety.
    So, my take on what you are saying here is that a game with action combat could basically disable that action combat for top end raids, leaving players using only remnants of an action combat system. If this is the wrong take away from what you are getting at, let me know.

    Raid content in a game that is trying to support a raiding scene is the aspirational content for the game - at least for PvE.

    Content that is cutting out aspects of the combat system will not be considered aspirational content.

    An honest question for you - do you see any game developer creating a combat system, and then having to disable aspects of it for their marquee content?

    I mean, you may be right from a literal perspective (note; *may* be right). However, from a practical perspective, I don't think you believe what you are saying here yourself.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Because you can have more happening means you can have more levels of difficulty based on however they design it. How can you not see that?
    Yeah, but... this is MY argument.

    Content in both action and tab can be developed past the point where it is possible to kill. Developers even do this on purpose on occasion (and then slowly tone back mechanics to leave the encounter on the cusp of what is possible).

    So, logically, this means that the greater the gap is between what the combat system requires and the cap of what is possible, the more levels of difficulty the developers can place in to the design of the encounters.

    Since you agree with me that tab is easier than action (in general), this leaves developers with more room on tab target content to create those varying levels of difficulty.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Who said those are the only encounters?

    Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety.
    So, my take on what you are saying here is that a game with action combat could basically disable that action combat for top end raids, leaving players using only remnants of an action combat system. If this is the wrong take away from what you are getting at, let me know.

    Raid content in a game that is trying to support a raiding scene is the aspirational content for the game - at least for PvE.

    Content that is cutting out aspects of the combat system will not be considered aspirational content.

    An honest question for you - do you see any game developer creating a combat system, and then having to disable aspects of it for their marquee content?

    I mean, you may be right from a literal perspective (note; *may* be right). However, from a practical perspective, I don't think you believe what you are saying here yourself.

    Yes, i'm approaching this from a literal perspective but also believe that if they were to practically implement the variety of content you are asking for, they could incorporate action elements without compromising that variety.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Back in L2 no one cared about raid videos because the fight was super easy and you just needed people and gear to win. In FF14, from what I've heard, no one cares about showing their clears because the game is so difficult mechanically that it doesn't matter if you know the mechanics, cause you still need to execute perfectly in order to beat the encounter (I believe WoW's raiding races are similar). So I got curious where EQ2 was on that spectrum, considering that you've said multiple times that people didn't release videos to prevent others from clearing some raids.
    In EQ2, it was a case of there being multiple different ways to approach an encounter. Sometimes, you would think of a thing that other guilds wouldn't.

    The reason you didn't want your guilds strategies to be made public is because of the open world boss content. They dropped the best gear, and so they are the encounters you want to kill. As such, you don't want to give any rival guilds any ideas on strategies that they could potentially use on one of these bosses, and more to the point, you don't want to assist those rival guilds in getting geared up faster, as that would give them a better chance at killing one of these open world encounters should they be able to get a raid together for them faster than you.

    Where L2 could be described as the information not being worth sharing, FFXIV could be described as the information can't be conveyed in a video, for EQ2 it was more - the information is propriety IP belonging to the guild.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Because you can have more happening means you can have more levels of difficulty based on however they design it. How can you not see that?
    Yeah, but... this is MY argument.

    Content in both action and tab can be developed past the point where it is possible to kill. Developers even do this on purpose on occasion (and then slowly tone back mechanics to leave the encounter on the cusp of what is possible).

    So, logically, this means that the greater the gap is between what the combat system requires and the cap of what is possible, the more levels of difficulty the developers can place in to the design of the encounters.

    Since you agree with me that tab is easier than action (in general), this leaves developers with more room on tab target content to create those varying levels of difficulty.

    You aren't getting it, it means more variety of content for them to use and add to mechanics. They can layer on dodge and utilize that aspect if they want to, they can utilize damage to certain spots on a mob with certain skills. They can use any elements on action combat to spice up more types of encounters where it normally would be as fluid to do if you faked it with tab.

    Again if they don't use everything that is fine nothing is being taken away, players control and use their characters how they want and do the content. If content has certain mechs involved players will simply do what they need to, if that means not moving and standing still then they will do that. If the raid has you moving at a certain part as part of the mech for a group of people they will use more of their dodge mobility.

    If the devs want to make a stupid insanely hard encounter where only the best people can accomplish it with good knowledge on all systems they can do that.

    Tab is easier because there isn't as much involvement from a combat stand point, that doesn't mean by throwing more mechanics you make a better experience. Nor does it mean by throwing more mechanics does it make it any harder for action players to do all those mechanics any more than a tab player.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    There is nothing uniquely positive to tab that action cannot replicate or make more engaging. Tab asks little of the players beyond memorization and repetition. Many players want to have reason to be engaged with where the enemies are, with their surroundings, to actually have to pay attention and react to things besides the rise and fall of HP bars and threat meters. I want to be fighting within the world, not by watching UI elements.

    Ashes is a hybrid game. That means you will not be playing whack-a-mole click-and-afk style fights. You’ll actually have to pay attention, and that is a good thing
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    If it's really a reaction mechanic, in an action system you also have the option of making people dodge to do it.
    Yeah, but you'd need awareness to do that dodge. And fov gives you that awareness. As I said before, imo having a huge mob that you don't have to aim at properly is not my definition of hardcore action combat content. Both of the videos you showed were closer to smth like LA in their design: you have ground hazards to dodge and you have aoeish and cone-based attacks that you use against a huge mob that moves slowly.

    If I was trying to design a "true action top lvl boss" I'd be using all of the action features to their max. You gotta aim properly, even as a melee character. The bosses would be way smaller and way more agile. You have more verticality gameplay than any given tab game (or even wildstar/tera). You gotta almost constantly be aware of things to dodge, those things being horizontal dangers and ground hazards (with some of the hazards accounting for verticality, so you might need to duck under or jump over them). You'll have to actively parry/block some attacks too.

    That is what I think of when I hear "top lvl action combat pve content". All of the prominent features used in one encounter. And then you'd have to somehow design dozens of such encounters over the years, with tangible variability between all of them.

    And in the case of all those mechanics, you'd need camera to be way closer, so that you can properly dps the boss. And when the camera is closer, your fov is narrower and anything that comes from behind you will feel unfair to the battle (at least I'd assume people would call that unfair).

    Now again, I'm not saying that you have to have 360 view in order to have an engaging fight. I'm saying that a 360 view brings quite a few benefits to the design variety of encounters. And due to properly difficult action combat (again, as I see it) limiting your fov, you won't have that variety. I might be wrong in that assumption and I'd love to be proven wrong by some game devs, but, until that happens, I think this is the thing that action can't do (that being the utilization of all 360 degrees of space when designing an encounter w/o it being unfair to the players).
    The last comment was just saying there are ways you could make that add so that it was jumping around like you mentioned but still easy to hit in a free aim system.
    But that goes against the whole point of the encounter being top lvl. The context of the discussion is the attempt to prove that either sides have features that the other side can't do. The ones I could come up with is the 360 design in tab and the verticality precision gameplay in action.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2022
    NiKr wrote: »
    At this point I feel like it's coming down to the level of raiding standards for different people. Noaani and Azherae are trying to say that not utilizing literally all of the combat's mechanics during the top lvl content is asinine and that, in order to have a raiding scene, you need to have several top level raids with enough variety for all of them to be interesting to said scene.
    This is correct - at least from my part.

    Raiding - in a game that is attempting to support a raiding scene - is the games marquee content. Not only that, but it is where developers introduce new mechanics, which then often filter down to group content.

    You can't really have marquee content if that content requires players to not use a portion of their class kit.

    Trying to use raid content to trial a new mob mechanic is also not going to work if raids aren't reasonably able to use all the games combat mechanics - though this really is a minor point.

    Since the compromises people are talking about are not small - they are things like just not having dodge - it isn't really appropriate for the top end content of the game to be generally absent of these mechanics if they are present throughout the rest of the game.

    With players going from solo to group to raid, there should be an addition of layers, not a retraction of them.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    This happens partially because in older games, 'special' or 'secret' team/group compositions can be a thing, moreso than FFXIV which is intended to be much easier.
    Yeah, I guess secrecy was a much bigger thing back in the day, just due to the overall amount of information that you could get back then.
    Azherae wrote: »
    The Meta-shakeups you often talked about for L2, within Raiding, can happen in that way specifically.
    If only NCsoft cared about pve back then :D the pvp matchups would definitely get shaken up with a new update, but pve rarely changed all that much. You still had the usual suspects when you needed top dps for a raid. And I don't think that ever really changed. At most, you might've added a new class to the roster because they got a new cool debuff in the skillset, but that kind of action was beyond obvious to anyone who played the game, so it wasn't like your new raid setup suddenly became such a huge and valuable secret that you'd tell no one about it.
    Azherae wrote: »
    E.g. since I've provided the point now... One might expect that the sensible way to defeat Jormungand was to get a lot of Ice defense to reduce damage, but while the fight is POSSIBLE that way, it is definitely not the easier way to do it, and the easier way to do it is not particularly intuitive.

    So you might want to keep your group's 'special technique' secret.
    On the topic of icey strong bastards. Here's a vid of the first attempt at a new epic boss in L2 by the strongest clan at the time. They got completely obliterated even though they had the best gear at the time :D
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqWKEoZGg0Q

    Ice protection wasn't the answer there either :D
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    I have not played a action mmo and heard people complaining its not akin to something like DMC. They see the mech and do the mec be it moving a lot or moving very little with your tank having aggro. Its simply action combat with expectations for a mmo with good dungeons, content, raid elements and such.

    Sure some people might want more action elements but most people understand how a mmo should be. At this point it is just assuming what people want, which doesn't really relate to doing dungeon content in action combat on a larger scale.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    You can't imagine taking any of the the tab games mentioned, converting them to action, and adapting their content?
    See, I can imagine this happening.

    The thing is, that adaptation of the content is the issue. It will require adjustments in a negative fashion.

    Every single adaptation of an encounter in this scenario will be a downgrade to it.

    When you talk about the scale of a game like EQ2 (currently sitting at very nearly 1k raid encounters), what you are going to end up with is a whole lot of encounters that play the same, because the uniqueness of them was adapted out.

    I should point out that I am not even necessarily talking about any singular specific mechanics. To me, the issue is more in relation to the total number of mechanics players can manage, while still being able to perform actual combat. If an action game were to throw the number of mechanics at players that top end tab target games do, they would have to compromise by not requiring the same level of attention be paid to actual fighting vs dealing with mechanics.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Sure some people might want more action elements but most people understand how a mmo should be. At this point it is just assuming what people want, which doesn't really relate to doing dungeon content in action combat on a larger scale.
    It's not assumptions though. We literally have Noaani, Azherae and me who want top lvl raiding content in Ashes. And in order for that content to be top lvl, it'll need to utilize literally all the mechanics and combat features in the game to their limit. Otherwise it's not top lvl.

    And obviously it doesn't have to be the only content that's in the game. Afaik that was one of the reasons why Wildstar died. But it should be present if Steven really wants to appeal to high lvl raiders, and in the past he has alleged to want that (mainly with his mention of encounters only beatable by <10% of players).
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2022
    NiKr wrote: »
    If it's really a reaction mechanic, in an action system you also have the option of making people dodge to do it.
    Yeah, but you'd need awareness to do that dodge. And fov gives you that awareness. As I said before, imo having a huge mob that you don't have to aim at properly is not my definition of hardcore action combat content. Both of the videos you showed were closer to smth like LA in their design: you have ground hazards to dodge and you have aoeish and cone-based attacks that you use against a huge mob that moves slowly.

    If I was trying to design a "true action top lvl boss" I'd be using all of the action features to their max. You gotta aim properly, even as a melee character. The bosses would be way smaller and way more agile. You have more verticality gameplay than any given tab game (or even wildstar/tera). You gotta almost constantly be aware of things to dodge, those things being horizontal dangers and ground hazards (with some of the hazards accounting for verticality, so you might need to duck under or jump over them). You'll have to actively parry/block some attacks too.

    That is what I think of when I hear "top lvl action combat pve content". All of the prominent features used in one encounter. And then you'd have to somehow design dozens of such encounters over the years, with tangible variability between all of them.

    And in the case of all those mechanics, you'd need camera to be way closer, so that you can properly dps the boss. And when the camera is closer, your fov is narrower and anything that comes from behind you will feel unfair to the battle (at least I'd assume people would call that unfair).

    Now again, I'm not saying that you have to have 360 view in order to have an engaging fight. I'm saying that a 360 view brings quite a few benefits to the design variety of encounters. And due to properly difficult action combat (again, as I see it) limiting your fov, you won't have that variety. I might be wrong in that assumption and I'd love to be proven wrong by some game devs, but, until that happens, I think this is the thing that action can't do (that being the utilization of all 360 degrees of space when designing an encounter w/o it being unfair to the players).
    The last comment was just saying there are ways you could make that add so that it was jumping around like you mentioned but still easy to hit in a free aim system.
    But that goes against the whole point of the encounter being top lvl. The context of the discussion is the attempt to prove that either sides have features that the other side can't do. The ones I could come up with is the 360 design in tab and the verticality precision gameplay in action.

    All i have been arguing here is how you could implement tab mechanics in action games since people are more familiar with them. Yes, there are things you can do with an action system but I don't think every fight needs to leverage all of those features. If people enjoy certain tab fights as is then i don't see why you need to mess with that too much.

    I don't think the FOV brings the variety. All it does is allow you to see the mechanic so if you needed to compensate, all you would need to do is change how the mechanic is seen. Easiest example of it is that mechanic you showed. You could have the same mechanic in a smaller FOV and either telegraph it a little differently or find another way for the players to figure it out how to dodge it. I think it would work fine as is but if necessary, you could have the animation last a little longer so people have time to look for it.

    Once again, i'm just saying that if the tab mechanic is the goal, then you can have it. I agree that you can dial it up if that's what you want.

    I also feel like you avoided my comment that actions have large FOVs. Was there a reason for that?
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 2022
    Noaani wrote: »
    You can't imagine taking any of the the tab games mentioned, converting them to action, and adapting their content?
    See, I can imagine this happening.

    The thing is, that adaptation of the content is the issue. It will require adjustments in a negative fashion.

    Every single adaptation of an encounter in this scenario will be a downgrade to it.

    When you talk about the scale of a game like EQ2 (currently sitting at very nearly 1k raid encounters), what you are going to end up with is a whole lot of encounters that play the same, because the uniqueness of them was adapted out.

    I should point out that I am not even necessarily talking about any singular specific mechanics. To me, the issue is more in relation to the total number of mechanics players can manage, while still being able to perform actual combat. If an action game were to throw the number of mechanics at players that top end tab target games do, they would have to compromise by not requiring the same level of attention be paid to actual fighting vs dealing with mechanics.

    Why would it be a downgrade, please give an example.

    As i said and you agreed, you literally could have the same mechanic so if the adaptation is a downgrade, then why does it need to happen?

    To me, number of mechanics is another variety thing. If you feel the mechanics are too hard to manage will doing action combat then don't require a lot of action that fight. Just because you have some fights like that doesn't mean you can't have others that aren't. Variety!
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Now it’s a top level PvP vs PvE thread?
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    I also feel like you avoided my comment that actions have large FOVs. Was there a reason for that?
    I addressed it with this.
    NiKr wrote: »
    Both of the videos you showed were closer to smth like LA in their design: you have ground hazards to dodge and you have aoeish and cone-based attacks that you use against a huge mob that moves slowly.
    And continued to explain why I don't see that as difficult and not really a justification for having that kind of zoom in an action game.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Now it’s a top level PvP vs PvE thread?
    Always has been.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 2022
    As i said and you agreed, you literally could have the same mechanic so if the adaptation is a downgrade, then why does it need to happen?
    Same mechanic. As in singular. I am not disputing that any one mechanic could be transitioned over to action from tab (or to tab from action).

    The thing is, raid encounters are made up of many mechanics, a dozen or more on the go at a time.

    It is the combination of mechanics that is the issue. Tab target games already have situations where it is almost impossible to take care of all of the mechanics in the encounter while still actually performing combat to the required level.

    If you alter a tab encounter to an action game, you NEED to either remove some of the mechanics, or lower the required level of combat that needs to take place.

    This isn't a DPS situation or anything, it is the amount of effort needed to put in to dealing with the mechanics vs dealing with actual combat - an increase in DPS is a reduction to the amount of effort you need to put in to the combat system.

    But again, this is my whole point. Because action combat requires more effort be put in to the combat system, it leaves less effort to be put in to the encounter. This means the encounter can't have as much going on, because players need to put more focus on the combat system.

    If the required focus on the combat system is lowered, then players do not need to be even remotely good at the games combat system.

    Now, I am sure you can understand this notion (others in this thread can't), but if you have action combat that can have some mechanics, and tab target that can have a few more, since both have the same pool of mechanics that they can use, this means that tab target has more variety of encounters that it can allow for.
  • SolvrynSolvryn Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Now it’s a top level PvP vs PvE thread?
    Always has been.

    I think the devs are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to peoples assertions.

    As I’ve raided tab and action, it’s all on the devs.

    But I’m not interested in this argument there’s pages of it.

    Devs are on the right path, imo.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Solvryn wrote: »
    But I’m not interested in this argument there’s pages of it.
    Yeah, you can ignore most posts on the forum at least until Alpha2. All we do is just argue pointless things in circles over and over and over and over again. And until we have the game in our hands to properly test and give real feedback on, there's not much we will achieve by discussing the same things with the same people. There might be a good point here and there and I do hope that Intrepid's mods/admins/managers read this stuff to see those good points, but even if they don't, we'll just have to remember those good points when we give feedback for alpha2.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Ya no one is going to change their mind on this, and people will just say if action can do it, then tab can add more mechanics even if they didn't exist in the content before. That is why there isn't much point arguing this unless we compare with exact raids from other tab games but that conversation won't come up so -shrugs-. Infinite what ifs or assuming people cant do things or can.

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Ya no one is going to change their mind on this, and people will just say if action can do it, then tab can add more mechanics even if they didn't exist in the content before. That is why there isn't much point arguing this unless we compare with exact raids from other tab games but that conversation won't come up so -shrugs-. Infinite what ifs or assuming people cant do things or can.
    But there is no point in comparing existing raids.

    I mean, we can't - even if I wanted to.

    There are no actual top end raid encounters at all in action games - at least not top end as would be considered in a game like EQ, EQ2, Rift or WoW (or even AoC the first, LotRO or Vanguard, which I personally consider to be second tier in terms of raid content).

    Even if I gave you examples of raid mechanics that can't work in an action combat setting, you can't give any examples of top end raids in an action combat setting, because there simply aren't any. As such, any comment you may want to make about how it could work are 100% theoretical on your part - or as you would call it, your own head cannon.
Sign In or Register to comment.