Jesforart wrote: » Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system?
Neurath wrote: » Jesforart wrote: » Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system? The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game.
mcstackerson wrote: » To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
mcstackerson wrote: » Neurath wrote: » Jesforart wrote: » Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system? The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game. To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node.
mcstackerson wrote: » A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked.
mcstackerson wrote: » Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it?
mcstackerson wrote: » But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it.
mcstackerson wrote: » Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument.
Jesforart wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Neurath wrote: » Jesforart wrote: » Im not a professional game developer and i really tried my best to be unbiased. My interest were piqued when Steven started talking about the Military node during Jahlon's livestream. If the military nodes kingship is decided upon with combat, do you really believe that Tab-Targetting will be utilized within that node system? How do you introduce skillful play into such a system? The bigger concern about Military Node and the method of selection is the fact AoC will have Hard Counters. So it will be difficult not to see an endless stream of Hard Counters taking the pole position. It is a good method of ensuring a constant change of government but it is bad balance overall. Given that balance will be based on small groups/groups it will be interesting to see how this translates in the actual game. To get by this, they have talked about giving candidates a "champion" that they will fight with. I think it's early in the planning stage so we don't have much but the idea will be players will all compete with the same "class" when fighting for control of the military node. Im still not seeing a clear picture of this scenario. If the ultimate pvp goal is to end in a 1v1, what does the combat look like? Its probably going to be some type of tourney that elects the new governor. Intrepid is still developing the game, so im just gonna have some faith.
Wandering Mist wrote: » @Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too. Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else?
Jesforart wrote: » GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game.
Neurath wrote: » Jesforart wrote: » GW2 has defined action combat. And i will not leave that game until something better comes out. After 7+ years, no one has outdone that game. I used to have beautiful Sky Blue Plate Armour and a Vintage Style Rifle in Guild Wars 2. I sometimes wish I hadn't left Guild Wars 2 but when the combat changed I lost the spark I once had for Guild Wars 2. I used to also love jumping over enemy heads in PvP with my Rogue. I do miss those days but the Guild Wars 2 of those days died.
noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » A lot of MMOs have moved away from raids larger than 20 but even with that, this statement isn't true. Wildstar successfully implemented 40 man raids. Yes, the game ended up failing but it had the end game raiding was there and worked. A lot of games have, but this has coincided with games switching to a more action combat based combat system. From about 2006 to 2012, a lot of MMO players complained that tab target PvP was essentially shit. This is a statement I completely agree with - tab target combat systems simple are not well suited to PvP. This is a big part of the reason AAA MMO developers started even thinking about a different combat system, which is obviously where big budget action combat MMO's evolved from. Your comment that MMO's have been moving away from raid content needs to be looked at in this context. The question then becomes - are these gam4es moving away from raid content because players no longer want raid content, or are they moving away from it because the games coming out over the last decade or so are not well suited to it? This is a question I asked myself a while ago - and to me, the answer came in the fact that those games from 15 years ago are still quite popular, still recieving regular content additions. The main games I am talking about here are WoW, FFXIV, the two EQ games, LotRO (although I am not sure when this last one recieved any new content) and maybe a few others I am forgetting. The question really does need to be asked - why? These are the same games people were playing when they complained that tab target doesn't work for PvP - a statement that players were absolutely right to make. The answer that I came up with is that those games still offer by far the best PvE experience in any MMO, and so people still play them. This becomes an objective truth when you play through the PvE content in any of these games (even WoW), and then move on to something like BDO and attempt to play the PvE content there. This is what originally bought me to the question of - if PvE content in general is still so popular in these older games, why haven't the newer games attempted to make PvE content that is equally compelling? I'm actually quite happy to drop the specific notion of raid content in this discussion (at least for now, I may bring it back up later), simply because no game with action combat has had compelling PvE content at any level. So, a summary of events; Players complained over several years that tab target MMO's were not great for PvP. Developers gave players action combat MMO's that were better for PvP. Tab target MMO's remained the most popular, due to compelling PvE content. The next point in that list should be; Developers put compelling PvE content in their action combat MMO's. This has not happened. The fact that you bought up GW2 is actually quite on point. That game launched with a fairly ok action combat based system (not great, but what ever), but it also had no real PvE content other than events where the goal was to basically zerg the boss. Players asked for more finesse in their PvE content, and so the develoeprs game it to them. What that meant though, is they had to then alter the combat system to give different classes specific and definitive roles in group content - something they hadn't needed to have before that point. So, in order to add half way compelling PvE content (and it is only half way compelling) the developers had to gut out the action combat system, at least in part. mcstackerson wrote: » Just because game developers haven't created something yet doesn't mean it can't be created. Do you really lack the imagination to figure out how to translate mechanics from a tab game to an action setting? You are saying something is not possible, do you really believe no one will ever be able to do it? Again, this isn't a case of "I can't see", this is a case of "multi-million dollar companies that have combined hundreds (or thousands) of years experience in game development haven't figured this out". Imagine you were running a game developer that had an action combat game, and you saw that there are games from 15 years ago that are 10 times more popular than your game, because they have better PvE content. The first thing you would do, without even needing to think about it, is look in to getting more compelling PvE content in to your game. This is not rocket surgery. This is a logical conslusion that all MMO develoeprs would have had to go through. mcstackerson wrote: » But if you really think this is impossible then maybe we need to challenge the ashes devs to do the impossible. Are you saying that this is something they can't do? According to you, they would be doing the impossible if they did accomplish it. My theory, when expanded to Ashes, comes to the conclusion that Intrepid are aware of this whole situation. This is why, rather than going action and promoting the PvP aspects, or going tab and promoting the PvE aspects, they are going both and giving players the option to decide for themselves. I fully expect (and have said on these forums a number of times) that the average PvP build in Ashes will contain a higher percentage of action combat abilities than the average PvE build will - this is Intrepids solution, and I for one approve. mcstackerson wrote: » Once again, I challenge you to meet me in discord and we can test your reaction speed argument. I straight up don't have time for games right now - the whole world situation at present is keeping me far too busy (most of my posting is done from work). I would absolutely look at ESO if I were you. It is an example of an action combat system that attempted to be suited to PvE - and the results are bland, to say the least.
Ventharien wrote: » Wandering Mist wrote: » @Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too. Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else? By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content.
Wandering Mist wrote: » Ventharien wrote: » Wandering Mist wrote: » @Jesforart literally everything you said about the pros and cons of action combat can be applied to tab target combat too. Also can we please get away from this cliched "action combat is more skillful than tab target". It's not, never has been and never will be. The whole notion that tab target combat is easy to use is absolute rubbish. If it were so easy then why is there such a huge gap in performance between the best WoW players and everyone else? By any measure you use, action systems use more skill. In addition to timing and memorization, the hallmarks of tab, you have to add accuracy, and a higher degree of positioning. Also, there isn't really a big gap at all between the best WoW players and everyone else. They often have the benefits of a large organized guild for progression and supplies (flasks/feasts/gold for boes) but their actual outputs or sustain aren't that far ahead of everyone elses. Especially as time goes on, or when there's a gap in content. I would argue that tab target combat relies just as heavily on positioning as action combat does. In a tab target system you can't rely purely on reactionary movement to keep you safe. Dodge back and forth all you like and you'll still get hit. The way you avoid getting hit is by playing in and out of range and using line-of-sight. That's the key here. When you limit a player's ability to dodge attacks, the player has to think a lot more and plan ahead, rather than relying on reflexes to win. Comparing action combat to tab target combat in terms of difficulty is like comparing StarCraft 2 to Chess. I would agree with you that action combat requires more MECHANICAL skill than tab target, but there is more to skill than raw mechanics. And yes there is a big difference between good and bad WoW players. You only have to look at boss rankings and logs to see it. Players with the same item level gear can have vastly different performance based on their skill.
mcstackerson wrote: » I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat.
mcstackerson wrote: » Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content.
Ventharien wrote: » By any measure you use, action systems use more skill.
noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » I'm pretty sure developers have said that they moved away from 40 man raids because of the challenges of organizing that many people at one time so I don't think it has anything to do with action combat. They have, but that is in relation to why a game like WoW went from 40 player raids to 20 player raids. It has no bearing at all on why action combat games have no raid content, nor any compelling PvE content at all. And as I said, I am quite happy in this discussion to just talk about compelling PvE in general, without actually restricting it to raid content. Action combat games just don't have enjoyable PvE content. My understanding of combat in Wildstar was that it was essentially optional action combat, rather than all action combat, all the time. Both my understanding of the game - and the video above - suggest that the game is more a tab target game than an action one. Just because the developers wants to call it an action game, doesn't mean it is fully action combat. Going purely on the above video, the game looks even less action combat based than ESO. mcstackerson wrote: » Tab targeting is just a combat system and doesn't equate to more compelling pve content. I'm not necessarily saying this is the case. You absolutely could take a tab target game and simply make players have to aim their abilities and call it action combat. This wouldn't be a good idea, but it absolutely is possible to do. What I am saying is that all the things that player expect with an action combat system, such a combat system isn't overly well suited to cooperative PvE situations, and the more people you add to that situation, the less suitable it is. A short list of some of the action combat issues that I am talking about (this is not all of them, but is a list of some of the oldest, as well as some newer); Mobility is right at the top of the list of things that players wanting an action combat system would deem necessary, yet are unconductive to cooperative PvE situations. Action combat games tend to not pigeonhole classes/builds in to single roles, which is something compelling cooperative PvE content needs. Action combat games (at least over the last 5 years or so) have some form of player collision, which adds further issues to cooperative PvE situations. Spell/ability collision is also appearing more and more in action combat games - which again, the more players present, the more of an issue this is. As I've said, these things aren't strictly necessary in order to call a game action combat. What they are, are things that players expect to see in full action combat games. Developers can strip some of these aspects out of their game to make it better suited to PvE content. However, this is that whole thing about a compromise between a full action combat system and a combat system that is suitable for PvE that I have been talking about. They have a choice between either a full, proper action combat system, or the ability to add in cooperative PvE content in a way that players won't hate.
mcstackerson wrote: » More then just wow developers have said this and as I said, it's not hard to see why the industry went in this direction. In the wildstar video, I'm pretty sure every skill you saw the player use was aimed. Most skills were aimed in Wildstar. Ok, even if action combat games tend to do those things, I don't think any of that is necessary and some of those aren't unique to action combat. I also don't think making the game tab suddenly means you wont have any of those. From the beginning, they have always said they wanted combat to be more mobile and the initial pax/Alpha 0 tab combat was this way. My point is, if those are things you don't like, you should argue against those things. As you said, those aren't necessarily parts of action combat. It's miss-guided to argue against action combat because you think it will prevent those things from becoming aspects of combat. All of those were already part of the combat system before the action side was ever introduced. I also don't find collision an issue and for me, it enhances the combat experience. Yes, collision makes it harder to zerg content down with a high number of players. It forces you to be more coordinated. Combine this with the fact that it's silly that 40+ people can stand in the same space, I think it makes the game better. How does being able to move through other players and enemies make the pve content more compelling? I feel the opposite.
