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

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter.

No I haven't.

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?

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.

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.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter.

No I haven't.

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?

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.

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?

mcstackerson 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.

falcorpix

BDO's combat wasnt made with raiding in mind, in fact it wasnt made with anything other than grinding mobs and being satisfying in mind.
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"...

falcorpix wrote: »

BDO's combat wasnt made with raiding in mind, in fact it wasnt made with anything other than grinding mobs and being satisfying in mind.
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.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.

PenguinPaladin

Would be crazy if ahes was the first flipped vaporware situation.

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.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.

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.

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter.

No I haven't.

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?

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.

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 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.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Would be crazy if ahes was the first flipped vaporware situation.

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.

That is more valid point with tab vrs action and how it will be balanced. If they stick to waht they are planning you can use 75% tab or action. but what is the effectiveness of those skills and balance between them. Can I use the tab skill in action combat and have soft lock target the enemy for me. This part is going to have to be tested but I'm confident they will pull it off.

CROW3

@Jahlon - has a good poll over on his site, which shows that around 95% of respondents will play either tab or action. It’s a small dataset (given the gamer population), but it’s totally within reason that it could be representative.

This thread is a good illustration, where the extreme of either tab or action is bannermanned by a consistent few folks, and the silent majority is like 🤷‍♂️.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

So, you agree that action combat takes more from players.

You agree that developers can create content that has too much going on for players.

If you do not have the basic grasp of logic to understand that these two facts combined make it necessary that action combat can not allow for as much to be happening in an encounter as tab target can allow for, then there is literally no point in getting in to specific examples.

You need to grasp the basic premise of what I am saying before specific examples are worth discussing.

You don't have the inherent cognitive prowess to grasp the very basics of this discussion - this much is clear.

PenguinPaladin

Guys, in actuality, you can have an action combat system, fight a tab target designed boss. And you can fight an action style boss with a tab target system. Its possible. Now will the two be interchangeable without some design changes? Who knows... but as long as variety isnt sacrificed, you can leave bosses you dont like fighting in your perfered way, to other players in a hybrid system. Those who like to focus on other aspects of the hybrid system.

As long as they make enough content, and it is varied enough that everyone can find their place

CROW3 wrote: »

@Jahlon - has a good poll over on his site, which shows that around 95% of respondents will play either tab or action. It’s a small dataset (given the gamer population), but it’s totally within reason that it could be representative.

This thread is a good illustration, where the extreme of either tab or action is bannermanned by a consistent few folks, and the silent majority is like 🤷‍♂️.

But this isn't really a question of who will play what on that level.

We're talking about Raiders. 95% of players are not raiders.

As an example, I 'know' (not like, super friendly personally or anything) about 50% of the upper echelon of players of Street Fighter V. I could give you their opinions on many many things in that game, what they would like fixed, what they would enjoy, what the majority wanted and liked (and got).

95% of 'people who have ever tried to play SFV for more than a week' not only 'don't want the same things as those people', they don't even know what they are.

At some point you have to give some credit to someone's experience, don't you? If the discussion right now is about 'what will Raids look like in Ashes', then you need to care about two types of people:

1. People who raid all the time because it's fun for them
2. People who would raid all the time if it was more fun for them

Noaani is almost certainly in group 1. I am sometimes 1 sometimes 2.

The 'consistent few' who argue are the ones who have reason to care.

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.

Yes you do, just because don't' dodge as much doesn't mean you don't have action combat....You are still moving, using and aiming your skills, you are still doing action combat and not targeting and having the game play for you.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.

iccer

Mag7spy wrote: »

Wrong? That is pretty subjective even more so when points are mostly head cannon and you didn't play bdo enough to understand combat?

Its funny i could just say the same as other people if you don't like action combat the door is there. Instead I'm trying to bring up actual points with examples. And not saying things like the vast majority of people are 40+ so action combat is bad without any actually evidence to back it up....

Oh, now it is subjective? Thank you for finally coming to that realization. I have played BDO enough to realize which combat I prefer more, it doesn't mean its combat is terrible, but it's not great for what I'm looking for in an MMORPG.

My main point wasn't the objective reasoning why certain system is better than the other. Others have explained it and are still trying to do so, they have brought up many valid points that you've failed to address properly. Instead you just go out to argue, and it often looks like it's in bad faith.
I see that you are trying to use "logic and reason" to argue, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it simply doesn't apply to my argument, as I'm talking about how it feels to play, and I'm talking about my personal preferences. You can use all the logic and reason you want, and even if you are right, it simply wont change my preferences.
My main point is that I simply don't enjoy action-combat MMORPGs, especially in the long term, as much as tab-targeting MMORPGs. I have tried to think of, and list the reasons why that might be the case, and I have tried to present them.
Others have gone way more in depth on why tab-targeting might be superior in certain areas (mass PvP, raids, etc. - things the game will have). Noaani is totally right here, you have glossed over and ignored so many valid points and arguments, and instead chose to argue semantics.

Noaani wrote: »

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.

And I'll repeat myself yet again, I'm a fan of the hybrid approach, even though I might prefer tab-targeting more. It has the potential to keep the game more interesting for longer, rather than being stuck with one or the other.

falcorpix wrote: »

Sadly there isnt an action mmo with really good combat and really good raids yet and again this doesnt mean that it is impossible...

Lost Ark. But it's different as it's top-down, and hardly an MMO

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

mcstackerson 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.