ravudha wrote: » I'd like to see things move more toward action combat, but would be happy with a hybrid system. Either way can still be designed to require a lot of skill and be engaging.@kayra I'm not sure I follow what your concern is with player numbers since any game can be both niche and successful at the same time if there's enough of a market share to support it. Is your concern that MMOs may become extinct/neglected if the combat doesn't evolve, or that MMOs should be as successful as other games to be considered successful, or something else?
wanderingmist wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
damokles wrote: » Tbh, i like both. Tab-targetting is relaxing and depends for most parts on muscle memory, while action is a constant action that needs you to keep on you toes.
mcstackerson wrote: » wanderingmist wrote: » 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. You kind of are oversimplifying things. You can't necessarily rely on mechanics to win, it depends on the strategy. For starters, tab targeting requires mechanics too, action combat just adds on top of those mechanics by requiring you to aim. Messing up your strategy in a tab target system is messing up mechanically and a person can win in a tab target system because they have better mechanics. Yes, mechanics play a bigger role in a free aim system but I don't think it's correct to say a person will win because they have better mechanics. It depends on the strategy and how reliant it is on mechanics. Think league, there are characters like Garen that don't require a lot of mechanics to be successful and then there are characters like zed that do. A player playing zed could have better mechanics then someone playing garen but loses because zed is more mechanically demanding then garen and they aren't able to fully utilize his strategy because of that demand. In ashes, we kind of had a good example of what could happen brought up in this thread. Nagash brought up that he would build his character/strategy around summons and AOEs. A strategy that doesn't require a lot of precise mechanical skill. He could go against someone who built a precise archer with small projectiles that require perfect aiming. Nagash doesn't necessarily need to have better mechanics to beat the archer. He doesn't need to be as precise with his aoes and summons, as the archer does with his arrows. Yes, mechanics play a bigger role in a free aim system and they can make executing a strategy harder but I don't think that means better mechanics wins in a free aim system or that strategic mistakes are more punished in a tab target system because of how strategies vary. The only exception is probably a mirror match.
elf wrote: » damokles wrote: » Tbh, i like both. Tab-targetting is relaxing and depends for most parts on muscle memory, while action is a constant action that needs you to keep on you toes. I think you hit the nail on the head with this one; I find action combat exhausting and hard on the hands, whereas tab targeting no so much, and I do play a game to "relax". Perhaps that's why all the other MMORPG activities besides combat are so appealing.
nagash wrote: » I think different classes also suit tab targeting such as healers and summoners
dygz wrote: » nagash wrote: » I think different classes also suit tab targeting such as healers and summoners I'm not sure that will be the case in Ashes. For instance, in NWO, healers have to kill stuff in order to regain healing mana. NWO is all action combat. Sometimes other characters or mobs would block and/or spoil your aimed shot. The Ashes devs want Clerics to be more active during combat than just standing in the back focused on heals. I expect them to have the same philosophy for Summoners. So, even with healers and summoners - it's probably going to be up to each player to decide which form of combat they prefer.
seaber wrote: » Almost every mmorpg has hybrid combat and it doesn't matters where on the spectrum AOC's combat lies. Some have bad combat with more targeting, like Bless. Some have good combat with more targeting, like FFXIV. Some have bad combat with more action, like Wildstar. Some have good combat with more action, like AA.
