Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Definitions - Tab / Action / Hybrid - Why they're important.
Vyril
Member
I think people are missing the actual definitions of the terms being used.
Ashes by definition is Hybrid, and to a lesser extent so are most MMOs. Example: WoW has template AOE and Cone attacks (action). WoW also lacks a reticle, and auto(basic) attacks are not controlled or aimed by the player (tab).
In the ranger showcase the abilities Snipe, and Quick Shot were tab, where as the Air Strike ability was action.
Ranged basic attacks have both options, and in terms of melee it is always action as displayed in the melee demo.
edit: formatting.
- A tab-targeted ability is something that must have a target for in order to utilize the skill.
- An action skill is anything that can be utilized through placement of the player, such as a reticle, a ground template or a directional placement.
Ashes by definition is Hybrid, and to a lesser extent so are most MMOs. Example: WoW has template AOE and Cone attacks (action). WoW also lacks a reticle, and auto(basic) attacks are not controlled or aimed by the player (tab).
In the ranger showcase the abilities Snipe, and Quick Shot were tab, where as the Air Strike ability was action.
Ranged basic attacks have both options, and in terms of melee it is always action as displayed in the melee demo.
edit: formatting.
4
Comments
edit: Also I think the "different types of combat" really are more about how the player interfaces with the game instead of the specific abilities. Some abilities require a target, and some don't. The only thing that really matters between the 2 is the type of auto attack and how you move your character around the world.
"Tab Mode" is keyboard-type turning without the retical aim, and "Action Mode" is mouse turning with retical aim. Also I don't know anyone that turns off keyboard turning for strafing in tab games and uses the mouse to look around and direct character (which is basically what action mode is without the retical).
"Hybrid" is a buzzword that doesn't mean anything really. It means having both "Action Mode" and "Tab Mode", and is not a specific mode in itself.
Mode is the bad word here. It's all dependent on how the ability works.
Does the ability require a target yes or no? The ability drives the requirements. The game is a hybrid of both ability types. Which means it doesn't solely fall into a specific "mode". Which leads using the word "mode" being a bad representation of the combat.
You are correct, an ability is not restricted to one or another "mode". The restrictions are in the ability as you say.
I guess by "mode" I mean the way you interact with the game (the interface type). I don't think it is proper to say abilities are "action" or "tab" type. I think it would be more proper to say "targeted" abilities and "non-targetted" abilities.
Just my 2 cents, though.
Yeah it's a little bit of semantics, but my initial intent of the thread was to help clarify the way people are using the words in other threads. If you break down on how tab/action works it's exactly that. Target or No-Target requirements, and AoC utilizes both.
its definetly an improvment in regards over standard tab target but its not true action combat imo atleast since its not based on your aiming ability and players have no way to dodge an attack once its fired. (However it might be possible to intercept or hide behind something like a tree to block the homing projectile thats yet to be seen though.
Correct, it's hybrid.
Did you not watch the linked videos? They don't require a target to use them, they are action abilities.
How would you distinguish what he's referring to if action and tab only refer to whether or not a skill requires a target?
For instance, when you're in the world and you move the mouse, does the character look in that direction? Or does your mouse just move on the screen? I have connotations of action that involve the character's view following the direction of mouse/joystick movements instead of dragging the screen around with right click to determine the point of view. If not an action vs tab thing, what would you call this?
"Over Shoulder" and "Free Cam".
Fair definition. Guess I still feel like the "Over Shoulder" lends itself far better to the feeling of a game being action-oriented than "Free Cam" which makes it feel more strategic or isometric (not literally isometric though, just that it can have a similar detached feeling).
I believe this is because the execution skill type required for ranged verticality aim in Free Cam mode is not possible with the standard form of modern game control. We've 'switched to Over Shoulder' for ranged vertical since the Ocarina of Time.
And many players associate verticality and related aiming with action gaming.
It's not that important to define anything, just make combat fun and intuitive. I don't care if it's turn based, action, tab, whatever... if it's good.
Because people are using them wrong when discussing combat systems. And using improper terminology does not help with creating good dialog.
Also to help educate people on what they mean. Kind of like this reply to you, I have to explain what I thought was apparent which is my bad I did not caveat my original post with the above explanation.
So that we can discuss these topics more clearly; understand what is meant by certain terms instead of being lost in our own connotations and have disagreements about things because we have different definitions instead of genuine disagreements/agreements.
Aye, because there's no aiming and precision involved.
5 tab target games, ArcheAge, WoW, GW2, SWTOR, and FF14 and compare it to the tab side of the toggle system, then take 5 action combat games TERA, Darkfall, Ashes BR, Valheim, and BDO, do a side by side to the action portion of the system.
What matters is how things are coded and Ashes is coded tab.
All those games have actions abilities - are they strictly action? No. Even if 99% is tab, doesn't make any ability that isn't tab, not action.
Now you want to get into "aiming mechanics" that's a different set of rules entirely.
You have hitscan or projectile. Which does not define any difference in action combat.
Let's see you hit Air Strike facing the wrong way.
This statement is just purely wrong.
They are using Unreal Collision detection, which is how they build action abilities.
Do we know that Melee is always Action?
I'll try to be really clear about what I mean, because that's not quite what I remember from Alpha-1 or the demo
At around 7:30 in the melee showcase linked, we see the Fighter taking on a group of enemies. The first enemy to hit that character probably 'became their tab target' (a simple thing that many games use).
We know that the game applies full damage to the target and cleave damage to secondary targets. But it doesn't feel to me as if the Fighter would have been action targeted on that mob that hit it first, in that showcase, yet it is always the one to take the full-damage.
I'm not claiming this means that you can't or don't have the Melee Action option, I'm questioning whether or not it's actually guaranteed. Given some... other things... that I experienced in Alpha-1, if someone was to ask me 'is this doing more damage to that particular enemy because they are the Tab Target despite the character's facing' I would definitely be inclined to say 'yes'.
They use unreal engine. The game is literally built on object level collision.
Yes, so do I, I don't see the connection between what you're saying and what I'm asking or pointing out, so could you clarify a bit more?
ESO's ranged targeted attacks use an action-targeting system. So if your reticle is near an enemy, it will auto-select them, then the attack will home in on them no matter how much they move during projectile travel time. In order to allow people to select the healer out of a clump of players, there is also a tab backup. You have a tab-target, but your reticle has to be pretty close to the selected target, or your attack will pick someone else who is closer (or fire off without a target and never hit anything)
I think ESO's system is as close to "action" as we will get for ranged attacks in AoC, but most people will just use tab since that's an option. That is nothing like a complete action-combat system like NW, where all projectiles (aside from musket hit-scans) are free-fire and rely on collision mechanics
Finding collision between 2 objects in unreal is super cost effective. So designing an ability with it would be the preferred way when you want an action ability, or basic attack.
They're still tab games, just like in TERA the healers can highlight their allies because their heals are action oriented tab abilities. Or New Worlds Life Staff lets you select a target to heal directly.
Different set of codes and calculations, yes.
TERAs still not a hybrid game because of a few mechanics just like New World isn't a hybrid game just because of the healing staff.
They're coded differently from tab games, because they aren't tab.
And they both require measure of aiming and precision, we're not even at the point where accurizing can be discussed yet.
Orientation is present in every modern MMO and most games wont let you attack what you're not facing.
It is not aiming though.
I'm not saying that they can't do that. I'm questioning if they actually do that.
It's a design choice that could be made the other way, and now that I think back on it really hard, I'm starting to think it was (but Alpha-1 was long ago and obviously things changed since then).
If you build a game where 'RNG evasion matters', 'your tab Target' matters, 'your attack cone is anywhere from 145 to 270 degrees', and projectiles curve toward their Tab Target...
I'm not going to be surprised if you also have a cleave cluster layer centered around the Tab Target.
These takes are hot as they come.
The definition of aiming
point or direct (a weapon or camera) at a target.
If you want to assume / debate they wouldn't use the most optimal calculation go for it.
Er... ok let's step back a bit.
I am asking about the experience of others, for now. I don't really want to even debate if the calculation is optimal or not, to me it's a design choice based on the type of game they want to make.
My experience in Alpha-1 as I remember it, calls into question for me which way they made that design choice, and rewatching that part of the melee showcase reminds/reinforces that 'state of uncertainty'.
So, for others who did play in Alpha-1 and test the melee, particularly toward the end... do you remember how your cleave damage worked relative to your Tab Target's positioning when fighting multiple targets? Obviously we can't easily use the melee showcase without making certain assumptions because they turned off the UI/targeting reticles.
I've chosen to make one such assumption. "An enemy that attacks you becomes your Tab Target", because that's a common thing in my experience to help players respond more quickly. If you disagree that this is even potentially happening in the showcase, that's fine, I won't argue or defend my assumption.
Could you still have a "tabbed target" even if you have no abilities that actually use it? Yes
Does the system auto-target a unit your engaged with? Yes
Does your action ability require you to have a target? No
Did they revamp melee combat then highlight the changes in a showcase? Yes
Geometry and aiming are extremely hot takes.
Ok, it seems we're on the same page...
So yes. 'Based on what I see in the revamped melee combat, your Tab Target might be the target that automatically takes the primary damage from your melee attack as long as they are anywhere in the cone'.
I'm moreso trying to ask if anyone else remembers experiencing that before the revamp, since then I can determine if it's worth my time to go look through all the video my group recorded to check, or not.
Is it what people want with aiming a bow to actually hit somebody? This is where I'll put in my opinion.
The skill ceiling is to high for a LARGE part of their intended audience, they already have a lot of systems that will be hard for the traditional MMO players, they didn't want to add another layer like aiming small projectiles or hitscan.
Regardless if people think they should or shouldn't isn't even an argument anymore, it just won't happen.
If you review melee basic attacks, they're very broad and forgiving, it's the balance between close ranged, and not having never missing single target ranged attacks.
We will see how they advance the kits of melee and ranged to see what % is tab versus action, but all in all, they will be utilizing both types.
And personally - I like all the styles of MMO combat, just as long as it's fun (subjective).