Tab vs Action for Ashes of Creation

The 'tab vs action' discussion has been going on forever as both sides fail to convince one another that theirs' is the better option. Tab target has been a staple in most MMOs as it's traditional and very easy to implement while action requires more money, time and technology. Tab target is successful and does work however, there's a growing number of people - especially young people think it is outdated.The most popular games of our time are the ones with engaging combat as they have fun and engaging combat, which draws young people who make up the majority of gamers today. However, we all know that there is more to MMOs than just the combat; it is a living world, and as the MMORPG community is somewhat diverse, many have different reasons to why they play MMOs. 'combat makes or kills a game' is still relevant tho. Ashes want to achieve a hybrid combat, and despite the fact they claim the player choice will determine play-style, the game will supposedly feel more like one or the other. So I ask you; what kind of combat would you like to see in Ashes; more tab or action-oriented?

(Please note that this is part of a small survey I've been conducting and your answers will be of great help 🧝🏻‍♂️)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azryil

I don't mind action combat when I'm running around the world working on quests or exploring, but I find it a bit clunky when it comes to larger encounters and PvP especially for melee. ultimately I prefer tab over action combat for MMOs.

WizardTim

Really it breaks down to tab targeting being easier to play the game mindlessly vs action targeting requiring focus and determination in combat.

Downside to action targeting is it severely limits the balance tools and character skill progression. It removes your use of accuracy and evasive defenses and replaces them with pure player skill to anticipate and react to opponent's attacks and attempts to dodge.

I feel that, in a game like AoC, a hybrid system would very much be the best route. To be clear, I imagine "hybrid" games to be like The Secret War (before they fucked it up) and Wildstar, games that involve telegraphs which need to be dodged and tab to designate what target your character is actively (or should be actively) shooting. Other examples are Tabula Rasa, Star Wars Galaxies, and ESO.

That being said, many MMOs have attempted the hybrid systems, and have had varying degrees of success and failure. I don't believe that system itself is flawed so much as other massive game development elements that impacted the otherwise fun games.

I honestly don't see pure action targeting as something that has a place in a MMORPG. Planetside 1 and 2 had very different progression methods to a game like AoC, and the lack of balance control that action targeting would require would just hamper the potential of combat.

TL;DR: I'm in favor of hybrid systems, as long as they require sufficient focus to keep my attention on the game and not on Netflix.

Nagash

who needs to aim when you have AOE and minions ^^

WizardTim

nagash wrote: »

who needs to aim when you have AOE and minions ^^

Two other examples for why action combat isn't super great in an MMO, players will never be able to compete with AI speed and precision without RNGs helping to determine at least some of the factors.

Dygz

I'm 55 and I think tab target is slow af.
I prefer action combat - as long as the kill time is not FPS fast.
I wouldn't call tab-target traditional - I would call it archaic. I also wouldn't want to go back to the blocky vanilla EQ graphics.

But, we don't really have to do a vs to convince other people, since Ashes combat is a hybrid.
I don't see why the game would feel more like one than the other since it's really up to player choice.

Caeryl

I’d prefer action combat with the option (not requirement) to use tab targeting for locking targets.

Tab targeting has always been finicky and in my experience unreliable. “Scroll through targets” it says, I press the button and it picks something outside my screen because it’s “next closest” even when I obviously am not interested in the mobs behind me.

I like systems that prioritize what I’m focusing on.

Wandering Mist

It's interesting that you mention League of Legends with regards to combat as that has very much a hybrid combat system. There is a healthy mix of targeted abilities and skill shots, and the game is designed in such a way as to balance these 2 kinds of abilities. Sometimes it's better to use targeted abilities, sometimes it's better to use skill shots.

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

One of the reasons why I love League of Legends as a concept is that it has a healthy mix of characters that favour different skill sets. Some characters rely heavily on mechanical skill, whereas others rely more on game knowledge and strategy. For example, there's a character called Garen who has absolutely no skill shots at all. Mechanically he is one of the simplest characters in the game. However, his lack of "action combat" mechanics means that to play him well you need to know when to engage and when to back off. If you jump into a bad fight YOU WILL DIE.

On the other hand, a character like Zed is very mechanically challenging to play, but requires less game knowledge to play effectively. If Zed gets caught out of position or jumps into a bad fight, he can either outplay it or just jump away no problem at all.

Anyway, going back to Ashes, I think the idea is that each class will have access to both targeted abilities and skill shots, with the skill shots generally being stronger than the targeted abilities. We have been told for instance that hard-cc abilities will most likely be manually targeted only. As an ideal I think this is a good approach to take, but of course it will all depend on exactly how it will be balanced.

As for whether I prefer tab-targeting or action combat, I've experienced good and bad examples of both in various different games so it matters little to me as long as there is some depth to the combat, with choices that the player can make based on their prefered playstyle. Just because a game has action combat doesn't automatically make it more fun/interesting than tab-target combat.

mcstackerson

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

georgeblack

I prefer action combat after years of playing tab targeting.

However action combat needs to have individual ability cooldowns.

Abilities should be cancelled in order to block, dodge or counter incoming attacks. Both the animation and the effect.
This will make combat reactive.

Normal attacks should not be weaved.
Normal attacks should have a function such as low regeneration of MP per hit.

Tera Online and GW2 are examples of good action combat. The combat was beautiful, reactive and full of impact.

Eso and bdo are bad examples of action combat in my personal experience.
Eso was full of non strategic rotations, no matter what type of enemy were you facing. One rotation to burst down an enemy and one rotation to keep your HP up. The builds that could do that effectivelly were a handful. No cooldowns, no feel of impact, glitched animations due to animation csnceling playstyle as if the game was a moba.
Abilities on bdo looked like burst photo mode.

Others might disagree.

Magic Man

wanderingmist wrote: »

It's interesting that you mention League of Legends with regards to combat as that has very much a hybrid combat system. There is a healthy mix of targeted abilities and skill shots, and the game is designed in such a way as to balance these 2 kinds of abilities. Sometimes it's better to use targeted abilities, sometimes it's better to use skill shots.

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

@wanderingmist pls read carefully. I didn't say tab is easier than tab or vice versa - I merely pointed out the fact that tab is easier to implement and less costly. About league of legends, it can be considered a hybrid tho the game has so much more to offer than traditional tab target games when it comes to combat. Also there's the fact that it doesn't require aiming and not third person but I get what you mean. If Ashes has some similar features to League then all is good 🧝🏻‍♂️

Archived User1

Wandering Mist

mcstackerson wrote: »

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

Wandering Mist

kayra wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

It's interesting that you mention League of Legends with regards to combat as that has very much a hybrid combat system. There is a healthy mix of targeted abilities and skill shots, and the game is designed in such a way as to balance these 2 kinds of abilities. Sometimes it's better to use targeted abilities, sometimes it's better to use skill shots.

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

@wanderingmist pls read carefully. I didn't say tab is easier than tab or vice versa - I merely pointed out the fact that tab is easier to implement and less costly. About league of legends, it can be considered a hybrid tho the game has so much more to offer than traditional tab target games when it comes to combat. Also there's the fact that it doesn't require aiming and not third person but I get what you mean. If Ashes has some similar features to League then all is good 🧝🏻‍♂️

Yes I did read your post, and my comment about difficulty was in response to some of the other replies on this thread, not your OP. As for your statement about ease of implementation, I would argue that while action combat is harder to initially implement, tab target systems are harder to balance in the long term.

mcstackerson

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

I disagree with the comparison as target and aimed abilities are the same thing and not two completely different games. Yes, they are both strategy games but they are played in a very different manner. Abilities on the other hand aren't that different. The only difference between a point and click and a aimed ability is a point and click is garenteed to land on the target you click on.

Yes, in games like league, characters compensate for there ability being a garenteed hit, there abilities usually have a drawback, like range, which might forces them to use some kind of strategy but you can get the same strategies with a free aim kit. My argument is there is nothing that makes a point and click kit inherently require more strategy.

Do characters like zed or ahri require less of a strategy then annie? What about anivia? Is there no strategy to her kit? Which irelia required more strategy, new or old? A better comparison might be new and old aatrox.

T Elf

I actually prefer TAB, but I'll work with whatever we end up with.

Wandering Mist

mcstackerson wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

I disagree with the comparison as target and aimed abilities are the same thing and not two completely different games. Yes, they are both strategy games but they are played in a very different manner. Abilities on the other hand aren't that different. The only difference between a point and click and a aimed ability is a point and click is garenteed to land on the target you click on.

Yes, in games like league, characters compensate for there ability being a garenteed hit, there abilities usually have a drawback, like range, which might forces them to use some kind of strategy but you can get the same strategies with a free aim kit. My argument is there is nothing that makes a point and click kit inherently require more strategy.

Do characters like zed or ahri require less of a strategy then annie? What about anivia? Is there no strategy to her kit? Which irelia required more strategy, new or old? A better comparison might be new and old aatrox.

OK, let's imagine you have 2 different fireball spells. One is tab targeted, the other is manually aimed. Both spells have identical costs, ranges, damages, etc.

The manually aimed fireball is harder to hit with because your opponent can dodge it. On the other hand the tab targeted fireball is harder to defend against because the only way to avoid it is to move out of range.

Successfully defending against the tab targeted fireball requires you to pick the right moment to fight, because as soon as you are in range of your opponent you can get hit.

By contrast, active dodging allows you more leeway since you can move into range of your opponent and still avoid getting hit.

Nagash

elf wrote: »

I actually prefer TAB, but I'll work with whatever we end up with.

Glad I'm not the only one

mcstackerson

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

I disagree with the comparison as target and aimed abilities are the same thing and not two completely different games. Yes, they are both strategy games but they are played in a very different manner. Abilities on the other hand aren't that different. The only difference between a point and click and a aimed ability is a point and click is garenteed to land on the target you click on.

Yes, in games like league, characters compensate for there ability being a garenteed hit, there abilities usually have a drawback, like range, which might forces them to use some kind of strategy but you can get the same strategies with a free aim kit. My argument is there is nothing that makes a point and click kit inherently require more strategy.

Do characters like zed or ahri require less of a strategy then annie? What about anivia? Is there no strategy to her kit? Which irelia required more strategy, new or old? A better comparison might be new and old aatrox.

OK, let's imagine you have 2 different fireball spells. One is tab targeted, the other is manually aimed. Both spells have identical costs, ranges, damages, etc.

The manually aimed fireball is harder to hit with because your opponent can dodge it. On the other hand the tab targeted fireball is harder to defend against because the only way to avoid it is to move out of range.

Successfully defending against the tab targeted fireball requires you to pick the right moment to fight, because as soon as you are in range of your opponent you can get hit.

By contrast, active dodging allows you more leeway since you can move into range of your opponent and still avoid getting hit.

So how does the tab target one require more strategy? Yes, you have different options on the defensive side but i don't see how one is more strategic.

Range is a factor in both scenarios, i can stay out of range of both the targeted and the free aim spell but the free aim spell gives me an extra option, i can try to dodge it. Does this extra option mean there is less strategy?

You are also focusing on the defensive side of things for some reason. lets compare the offensive side. With the tab target, i just need to move into range and line of site and i hit them. With the aimed skill i have to do both those things but i also have to predict there movements as they can dodge. Once again, i don't see how the tab target spell requires more strategy.

Caeryl

Tab targeting is typically “better stats/higher levels win”

Action combat allows for stat discrepancies to be overcome by player skill.

Wandering Mist

mcstackerson wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I prefer free aim system and have been happy with what we have seen in APOC. I think there is a lot you can do with "action combat" and wish we see more games experimenting with different free aim systems.

wanderingmist wrote: »

I very much disagree with the notion that tab targeting is easier than action combat or vice versa. It's apples and oranges, with each combat system requiring different kinds of skill. Action combat systems typically rely more on mechanical or micro skill, whereas tab targeting systems typically require greater knowledge and a strategic mindset. Yes this is a generalisation and depends hugely on how the combat system is implemented.

I disagree with this. I don't think there is any kind of mechanics that requires knowledge or strategy that you couldn't replicate in a action system. On the other side, there is a limit on how mechanical a tab target game can be. League is a great example, there is nothing they can do with a point and click ability that they couldn't do with an aimed one but you can't create the same mechanical requirements an aimed ability has with a point and click one.

Think of it like comparing Chess to Starcraft. In Chess you are limited in what you can do because you can only move 1 piece at a time, and there are restrictions on how much you can do with different pieces. By limiting the player in this way, the emphasis switches more to strategy than in a RTS like Starcraft. Yes there is a strategy element to Starcraft but often the strategic mistakes a player makes can be overcome with pure mechanical skill. If you choose a bad build order in Starcraft you can still win with high enough mechanical skill, whereas a single mistake in a chess opener can lose you the match outright.

Going back to tab-target vs action combat, allowing players to actively dodge incoming attacks in some way makes it easier for the player to make up for mistakes in their positioning or awareness, more so than if they couldn't actively dodge attacks. It is far easier to recover from mistakes in an action combat system compared to a tab-target system where attacks made against you are guaranteed to land.

I disagree with the comparison as target and aimed abilities are the same thing and not two completely different games. Yes, they are both strategy games but they are played in a very different manner. Abilities on the other hand aren't that different. The only difference between a point and click and a aimed ability is a point and click is garenteed to land on the target you click on.

Yes, in games like league, characters compensate for there ability being a garenteed hit, there abilities usually have a drawback, like range, which might forces them to use some kind of strategy but you can get the same strategies with a free aim kit. My argument is there is nothing that makes a point and click kit inherently require more strategy.

Do characters like zed or ahri require less of a strategy then annie? What about anivia? Is there no strategy to her kit? Which irelia required more strategy, new or old? A better comparison might be new and old aatrox.

OK, let's imagine you have 2 different fireball spells. One is tab targeted, the other is manually aimed. Both spells have identical costs, ranges, damages, etc.

The manually aimed fireball is harder to hit with because your opponent can dodge it. On the other hand the tab targeted fireball is harder to defend against because the only way to avoid it is to move out of range.

Successfully defending against the tab targeted fireball requires you to pick the right moment to fight, because as soon as you are in range of your opponent you can get hit.

By contrast, active dodging allows you more leeway since you can move into range of your opponent and still avoid getting hit.

So how does the tab target one require more strategy? Yes, you have different options on the defensive side but i don't see how one is more strategic.

Range is a factor in both scenarios, i can stay out of range of both the targeted and the free aim spell but the free aim spell gives me an extra option, i can try to dodge it. Does this extra option mean there is less strategy?

You are also focusing on the defensive side of things for some reason. lets compare the offensive side. With the tab target, i just need to move into range and line of site and i hit them. With the aimed skill i have to do both those things but i also have to predict there movements as they can dodge. Once again, i don't see how the tab target spell requires more strategy.

It's not so much that tab targeting has more strategy involved, but that it relies more on strategy than action combat does. You can of course employ the same amount of strategy in both systems, but if your strategy fails in action combat you can still win due to mechanical skill.

This is impossible to do in tab target combat and the result is that strategic mistakes are punished more in tab target than in action combat.

Child Item