Potato Basket wrote: » Tab targeting requires less aiming skills so there's no risk involved since you virtually can't miss, therefore the reward should be proportional.
Dygz wrote: » Neither is more effective than the other. Tab Target skills have a miss chance, so no, they don't 100% always hit. Tab Target skills do not deal less damage, rather Action Combat skills rely less on RNG.
Mag7spy wrote: » Tab target abilities 100% always hit, then states decide the amount of damage you take from them. (relies on your gear) Action skills you need to hit them with your own skill, then stats decide the amount of damage you deal. (relies on your gear) See the pattern here. both the same yet one is more effective then the other. So tab skills should deal less damage correct. Though it doesn't mean tab skills deal no dmg or every tab skill does less damage. You might have a ranger skill that lets you snipe a target from rng and do heavy dmg but has a long cool down. Action skill you do the same dmg but a little more rng and give a CC.@Azherae I don't know what gear score you got on bdo, but I have never played a game with a worst (more difficult) gear chase in any other mmorpg. There is large emphasis on gear chase in all mmorpgs, its not about action or tab its about the mmorpg and how its designed. Gotta counter that tab target bias.
Mag7spy wrote: » The point is simply gear chase is not only a tab target thing like, there is huge emphasis on gear chase in the mmorpg genre involving all combat types.
Mag7spy wrote: » Making a point, as you played bdo and would have a understand of the difficulty of getting full pen or have a concept of it and pen accessories as well as the time investment/ And the add ones you can put on your gear as well to buff them. I had full pen and pen acc so i know the endless grind but its better to have multiple people to make a point. BDO gear chase is more insane then any other mmorpg and important to progression to get more gear and pvp.
Mag7spy wrote: » Overall I see a narrative from more pro tab target saying all these elements aren't in action when that isn't the case. To me its pretty much spreading false information to skew things more towards tab. Because if the narrative you can't do this without tab, they can be like if your tab isn't stronger than action the game won't have good pve and will flap. These are false points when you are talking about gear, stats (miss chance I see being brought up), etc. All concepts exist in action and tab target or can be made to exist.
Mag7spy wrote: » If they design for variety then it will be in the game, that depends on the designers and what they want to do though and the type of game. Personally I don't think there will be as much variety as other pve focused games even more so on release. As the game is PvX and pve isn't the only focus, compared to other games that have a focus on pve and just throw a bit of pvp being available. Its different when its being made from the ground up as a PvX experience. Though they will have the tools and the framework to add plenty of content after if they wanted and create more experiences then other games because unreal engine 5 ( as well as 4) is a very strong tool to use.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » If they design for variety then it will be in the game, that depends on the designers and what they want to do though and the type of game. Personally I don't think there will be as much variety as other pve focused games even more so on release. As the game is PvX and pve isn't the only focus, compared to other games that have a focus on pve and just throw a bit of pvp being available. Its different when its being made from the ground up as a PvX experience. Though they will have the tools and the framework to add plenty of content after if they wanted and create more experiences then other games because unreal engine 5 ( as well as 4) is a very strong tool to use. Right, this is the part I disagree with entirely and am completely aligned with Noaani's perspective on. Except for one aspect which kinda flips the whole thing, and I end up wondering if you're in the same situation without necessarily noticing it. As an Action-heavy/capable player, I don't care about the 'mechanical variety' as MUCH. The Action part is engaging, which I believe is the basis of the point. I don't care as much if it is that 60% of the strain is the encounter and 40% is the physical execution. I don't consider Action games to have 'simplistic' Physical execution variety even at raid levels of play, but maybe I've just been lucky to play some that don't, or maybe I've 'never raided' by the standards being used. My point is... 'who cares?' It would mean that the raiding scene looked different, made up of people like me instead of people like Noaani, and if that's what Intrepid is ok with, then certainly I can't be out here complaining. tl;dr if the 'part of the encounter that involves me aiming, dodging, and thinking about my position relative to Action Abilities' is also interesting and variable, I don't care that other complex mechanics have to be cut so that I get the encounter. I'll consider it 'variety' either way. The only way I would not, is if 'all the Action Combat parts were similar'. Which would just be Intrepid failing to meet a design bar just as it would be in a heavy Tab Target case. Tab-Target-only players are not expected to exist, so they would just have different roles in such combat.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » If they design for variety then it will be in the game, that depends on the designers and what they want to do though and the type of game. Personally I don't think there will be as much variety as other pve focused games even more so on release. As the game is PvX and pve isn't the only focus, compared to other games that have a focus on pve and just throw a bit of pvp being available. Its different when its being made from the ground up as a PvX experience. Though they will have the tools and the framework to add plenty of content after if they wanted and create more experiences then other games because unreal engine 5 ( as well as 4) is a very strong tool to use. Right, this is the part I disagree with entirely and am completely aligned with Noaani's perspective on. Except for one aspect which kinda flips the whole thing, and I end up wondering if you're in the same situation without necessarily noticing it. As an Action-heavy/capable player, I don't care about the 'mechanical variety' as MUCH. The Action part is engaging, which I believe is the basis of the point. I don't care as much if it is that 60% of the strain is the encounter and 40% is the physical execution. I don't consider Action games to have 'simplistic' Physical execution variety even at raid levels of play, but maybe I've just been lucky to play some that don't, or maybe I've 'never raided' by the standards being used. My point is... 'who cares?' It would mean that the raiding scene looked different, made up of people like me instead of people like Noaani, and if that's what Intrepid is ok with, then certainly I can't be out here complaining. tl;dr if the 'part of the encounter that involves me aiming, dodging, and thinking about my position relative to Action Abilities' is also interesting and variable, I don't care that other complex mechanics have to be cut so that I get the encounter. I'll consider it 'variety' either way. The only way I would not, is if 'all the Action Combat parts were similar'. Which would just be Intrepid failing to meet a design bar just as it would be in a heavy Tab Target case. Tab-Target-only players are not expected to exist, so they would just have different roles in such combat. I'm not like that at all, me and my guild prefer things on the action side some of them only play action now. But Having complex mechanics is 100% something we want not just a bullet sponge or things we need to dodge, those are bonuses layered on to us that make it more fun and having some epic moments. Though personal view points shouldn't be a deciding factor on what can be done. Lets say 80% don't care about mechs, it doesn't mean from a design perspective it is impossible to do on a large raid. It doesn't mean a action focused player can't pay attention to more then just attacking the boss.
Mag7spy wrote: » Numbers don't matter, I'm just saying that numbers have nothing to do with how someone can design something. 100% could be against something but it can still be made and be made well.
Mag7spy wrote: » Unsure where you are getting the sure ya ill fix it. I'm talking about creating designs for dungeons?
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Unsure where you are getting the sure ya ill fix it. I'm talking about creating designs for dungeons? Ah, sorry, I think I misunderstood you. The 70-30 thing wasn't about players or 'support'. It was about the complex point Noaani has made in some thread recently. "If you are spending time on the dodging and repositioning, and you make the encounter the same difficulty as a Tab Target one mechanically, it is now impossible." So you always have to choose 'what percentage of the design of this encounter is Tab-optimal and what percentage is Action-optimal', that's all.