It sucks but Tab > Action

Tab > action
This is an MMO which means you need players to keep playing and unfortunately due to the current economic situation across the world right now your population doesn't have funds to uograde computers in households.
I would rather see Intrepid Studios succeed, stay in business and give the MMO populations hope that there is a company that is not trying take all of our money and time.
Maybe the sequel can be action combat or they can do a Battle Royale later once the company has made it 3 months past release date of the game

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

I don't know why people start talking about a boss encounters difficulty when talking about the combat system.

You answered your own question

Now, boss mechanics will be tailored to the combat system, and the difficulty will be set by the developers

If you are someone that enjoys good boss fights, tab target is for you.

If you are not, action combat may well be more your thing.

I think that the combat system is its own thing and boss mechanics is its own thing.

Developers should first make a satisfying combat system and then think about boss mechanics, and not the other way around.

I do agree with you that most action combat raids haven't been close to tab targeting raids (but I have never really played any AC mmos on a high lvl), but I also believe that AC raids can be much much more, and compete with tab targeting raids.

I hope IS will make some epic and difficult raids that we all are going to enjoy, and a combat system that is engaging and fun.

This is a perfectly valid position to have. It isn't the position I have, but it is valid.

I like content to be as varied as possible. In order for this to happen, a good portion of your focus in combat needs to be on the encounter. If 90% of your in combat attention is going to the combat system itself, that only leaves that 10% for any meaningful variation.

In a game where 50% of your attention is needed for combat, the developers have that other 50% of your attention they can take up via the encounters mechanics, meaning they can be far more varied.

While these two things are separate, they need to be considered in conjunction, and can be viewed at as two sides of the one coin.

Again, neither if these is a right or wrong position to have, they are totally about preference. The only thing is, if you are playing a game that has really good high end bosses, you shouldn't complain about the low end content being boring - and if you play a game where the combat system takes up all your time, you shouldn't complain about a lack of content variation.

Merek

Isn't this MMO supposed to break the mold, not conform to it? Tab target is horrible and if you're fine with it, you're part of the problem with MMO's. Now other than, "My computer is garbage, please, I don't want to upgrade!" you haven't really put forth a valid argument.

Songcaller

I think the AC Combat disposition is very flaky. To date, tab target games have had millions more players than AC Games. To state TT should be shunned because AC is superior shows a lack of knowledge based around both systems and furthermore compounds the fact that AC is better on a console compared to PC.

Caeryl

Neurath wrote: »

I think the AC Combat disposition is very flaky. To date, tab target games have had millions more players than AC Games. To state TT should be shunned because AC is superior shows a lack of knowledge based around both systems and furthermore compounds the fact that AC is better on a console compared to PC.

They have more players because they were the firsts and tech limitations at the time of development meant tab was the ONLY viable option. At this point choosing full tab when you can have a far more engaging and intuitive combat system is just shooting yourself in the foot.

mcstackerson

False. I think the best proof of this not being the case is the fact that we don't see tab targeting being used by games outside of MMOs. If tab was superior, then why wouldn't other third-person games use it?

I also consider the fact that games on the current market use it as a reason to try to move away from it as to lessen the overlap between games.

Neurath wrote: »

I think the AC Combat disposition is very flaky. To date, tab target games have had millions more players than AC Games. To state TT should be shunned because AC is superior shows a lack of knowledge based around both systems and furthermore compounds the fact that AC is better on a console compared to PC.

I don't think this is true. There are many more popular action games than tab games, they just aren't MMOs.

This is a preference but I'm pretty sure there is a large number of players who prefer aiming with a mouse.

Frostshot1

I completely disagree that Tab > than Action camera combat.

I played WoW for a long, long time. And Swtor after that. Then Tera came out and that pretty much killed WoW combat for me. I tried to play WoW again and just could not do it. Having to hold the right mouse button down all the time to give me some semblance of action combat. . . I broke 2 mice that way. And they were expensive ones. I could not go back to that kind of game play again.

For me, at this moment in time, GW2 has the best combination of tab and action there is. If you select action camera and set a quick key, you can easily swap between the old WoW style right mouse button to look around or the new action combat style. It really is the perfect solution for people who prefer one or the other.

I really hope that AoC shamelessly nabs this feature, for it is superior to everything else I have played.

Songcaller

Caeryl wrote: »

They have more players because they were the firsts and tech limitations at the time of development meant tab was the ONLY viable option. At this point choosing full tab when you can have a far more engaging and intuitive combat system is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Steven has said if we dont have hybrid we will have full tab. GCD was around due to the tech limitations. There is little difference in terms of tech between TT and AC. AC requires conal damage and soft targeting. Particle effects were limited through technology but the underlying principles between AC and TT are the same.

If there were tech issues then modders wouldn't have managed to make action parameters and implement them before game Devs made the transition. Modders can be better than some Devs but I digress. I dont particularly like TT (WoW) but I also despise the AC found in BDO.

TT wasnt the first targeting system. 2d targeting and directional targeting came first. I'm not sure why we moved from directional attacks to TT but TT remains one of the more popular targeting systems to date for MMOs.

Khronus

I still see tab target as something that requires skill to be able to do well. Yeah anyone can tab target and start spamming but who you are attacking, who you are protecting, where you are positioned, and HOW you are attacking are all very important. I personally would prefer tab target as I can help my guild members much easier in this scenario. However, if we end up having more action based abilities, I would not be turned off from this.

Okeydoke

The game isn't coming out for at least a couple years. I'd hope the economic situation has changed by then.

The action vs tab debate goes on and on because there is no right answer. Action definitely has certain benefits over tab. But tab is no slouch. It can be extremely engaging and dynamic when done right in a game.

I'm not really for either over the other. I've played several of both. Hoping for a good hybrid. I really don't want BDO action combat. A lot of people hold that up as the gold standard of AC. But to me that was just like a bunch of crack bunnies magically gangbanging each other, shit bouncing around and flying all over the place. And I don't really want something as static as WoW tab target either. It's important for game companies to innovate and just straight tab target with no iframes/roll dodges etc are pretty outdated.

But you don't want action combat like the Darkfall series either where fps gods just go around shitting on everyone. Not in a partial loot game where death has consequences. And I'd guarantee the devs are trying to appeal to a larger audience than Darkfall ever had.

So Ashes needs its own system. Something good and fresh, somewhat unique, that works for the kind of game they're trying to make.

Edit: by the way, original poster's post is so troll

mcstackerson

Neurath wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

They have more players because they were the firsts and tech limitations at the time of development meant tab was the ONLY viable option. At this point choosing full tab when you can have a far more engaging and intuitive combat system is just shooting yourself in the foot.

Steven has said if we dont have hybrid we will have full tab. GCD was around due to the tech limitations. There is little difference in terms of tech between TT and AC. AC requires conal damage and soft targeting. Particle effects were limited through technology but the underlying principles between AC and TT are the same.

If there were tech issues then modders wouldn't have managed to make action parameters and implement them before game Devs made the transition. Modders can be better than some Devs but I digress. I dont particularly like TT (WoW) but I also despise the AC found in BDO.

TT wasnt the first targeting system. 2d targeting and directional targeting came first. I'm not sure why we moved from directional attacks to TT but TT remains one of the more popular targeting systems to date for MMOs.

Calculating aiming on a client vs aiming over a server are completely different monsters, especially when you are trying to design a system that mitigates exploitation.

There very much are differences in tech when calculating the two, especially when projectiles get involved. It isn't as much a matter of how possible it is but how efficient it can be. Efficiency is important here because the large number of players they want to have will push the system to its limits.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Efficiency is important here because the large number of players they want to have will push the system to its limits.

This is true now, not so much in the past.

Games in the mid 2000's had no issue lowering the player count as the situation required. A game could have very easily had full action combat in 2008 with fully instanced content similar to DDO.

They didn't, because it actually isn't an inherent draw or better system. It has just been in vouge for the last few years, due to the massive popularity of first person shooters and Battle Royal games.

MMO's having action combat are very much just them trying to attract that playerbase - nothing more, nothing less. This isn't a bad thing, nor a good thing. It is just a thing.

Songcaller

mcstackerson wrote: »

Calculating aiming on a client vs aiming over a server are completely different monsters, especially when you are trying to design a system that mitigates exploitation.

There very much are differences in tech when calculating the two, especially when projectiles get involved. It isn't as much a matter of how possible it is but how efficient it can be. Efficiency is important here because the large number of players they want to have will push the system to its limits.

Yeah, there are two types of AC. One where you aim to shoot (FPS) and one where you have soft target/conal damage. Collision has been around for a fair few years (Can't remember the first MMO to use Collision) but collision would dictate how effective projectiles would be in terms of AC. AC is a broad term for multiple iterations where as TT is a narrow spectrum.

Iterations of AC aren't identical. IS seem to think AoE Skills are AC. Terminologies are problematic. We've had AOE Skills in TT for decades. Again, conal attacks can be classed as 'AoE' which I believe makes the terminologies an issue. AoE is also an umbrella term. I do not see the restriction to be in terms of technology. Technology dictates how many players can interact in a given area, technology doesn't dictate how skills are handled. You would code the UI and the skills to either be AC or TT. I agree with Noanni in that modern AC has links to FPS. FPS has had the technology for decades.

An MMO could have transitioned into FPS styled AC much earlier but it wasn't desired. Most MMOs chose to copy WoW. If WoW wasn't created, then, the switch to AC would have come much sooner. I'm still not a fan of BDO styled AC. I prefer Shadow of Mordor styled AC.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

AC is a broad term for multiple iterations where as TT is a narrow spectrum.

I completely disagree with this statement.

AC is a fairly broad term, for sure, and is used to describe a general combat system that has evolved over a decade or so.

However, tab target is a term that is used to describe a combat system that has evolved over two and a half decades.

There is as much variation in tab target implementations as there is in action combat implementations.

Songcaller

You can have soft target, free aim and active manoeuvres in AC.

In Tab Target you have hard target, singular target selection and active manoeuvres.

Thus, Tab Target is indeed limited in a narrow spectrum in terms of targeting.

Obviously, in terms of Conal Skills and AoE Skills both TT and AC have access.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

Thus, Tab Target is indeed limited in a narrow spectrum in terms of targeting.

We weren't just talking about targeting - but if you want to restrict the discussion to *JUST* targeting, I'll play along.

You can have games with offensive and defensive targets - this in itself is a massive departure from games without it (you then have abilities that affect both your offensive and defensive target).

You can have enemies broken down in to groups, effectively giving you two types of AoE's, those that work normally, and those that attack all members of the target group.

Each of these things are just alterations on the targeting system of the game in question, and each has as deep an impact on the combat system as the various implementations of action combat have.

Songcaller

You have made the conclusion seem much easier. Both TT and AC have the same underlying mechanics. You can target groups in TT and you can target groups in AC. I do not see why technology is a cause for why AC hasn't been done earlier. The TT Games do have a wide scope of skills and a wide scope of orientation. AC has a wide scope of skills and a wide scope of orientation.

What I seem to have failed to get across is that not all AC has free aim like FPS, whereas, all TT have similar if not identical systems in play. Which is why I describe TT as being narrow. You can build an AC System with conal and AoEs alone (BDO). You can also build a TT with conal and AoEs alone. Technology doesn't dictate the design choices but the combat designers dictate which system will be used.

In terms of Hybrid Combat - you would focus on Conal and AoEs which would match TT and AC. You would then throw in some Free Aim like APOC for Projectiles for AC. You would still be limited in terms of hard targets for TT but the lines would be blurred. It is the fundamental basics to a Hybrid System and if IS consider Conal and AoEs as AC then TT and AC will be pretty balanced.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

What I seem to have failed to get across is that not all AC has free aim like FPS

No, you got that across just fine.

What I am saying is that not all tab target games are hard target, nor are singular target. There are a multitude of mechanics in various games that make tab target combat systems as varied as action combat systems.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

rikardp98 wrote: »

I don't know why people start talking about a boss encounters difficulty when talking about the combat system.

You answered your own question

Now, boss mechanics will be tailored to the combat system, and the difficulty will be set by the developers

If you are someone that enjoys good boss fights, tab target is for you.

If you are not, action combat may well be more your thing.

I think that the combat system is its own thing and boss mechanics is its own thing.

Developers should first make a satisfying combat system and then think about boss mechanics, and not the other way around.

I do agree with you that most action combat raids haven't been close to tab targeting raids (but I have never really played any AC mmos on a high lvl), but I also believe that AC raids can be much much more, and compete with tab targeting raids.

I hope IS will make some epic and difficult raids that we all are going to enjoy, and a combat system that is engaging and fun.

This is a perfectly valid position to have. It isn't the position I have, but it is valid.

I like content to be as varied as possible. In order for this to happen, a good portion of your focus in combat needs to be on the encounter. If 90% of your in combat attention is going to the combat system itself, that only leaves that 10% for any meaningful variation.

In a game where 50% of your attention is needed for combat, the developers have that other 50% of your attention they can take up via the encounters mechanics, meaning they can be far more varied.

While these two things are separate, they need to be considered in conjunction, and can be viewed at as two sides of the one coin.

Again, neither if these is a right or wrong position to have, they are totally about preference. The only thing is, if you are playing a game that has really good high end bosses, you shouldn't complain about the low end content being boring - and if you play a game where the combat system takes up all your time, you shouldn't complain about a lack of content variation.

I do agree with you that, if the combat system is simple then it's much easier to focus one the boss mechanics. But I also think that, the better a person is in a curtain system (ac or tt) then that person can focus more on the boss mechanics.

From the beginning, one may need 90% focus on the combat system, but they better you get the less focus you need, and more focus can be directed to the boss mechanics. This is true for both ac and tt systems. Just because a person playes a TT game doesn't mean they can have 50% focus on the mechanics.

I my self remember when I started raiding in wow. I was awful because I was so focused on my rotation that I "forgot" the mechanics. But after playing it for hours i got my rotation down to reflex and could focus almost all my attention to the mechanics. This is true for TT and I also believe it is true for AC.

So I don't really agree with the AC = 90/10 and TT = 50/50.

rikardp98

Noaani wrote: »

Games in the mid 2000's had no issue lowering the player count as the situation required. A game could have very easily had full action combat in 2008 with fully instanced content similar to DDO.

Actually this is not true, or I wouldn't personally play a action combat game10+ years ago when average latency a player had was far to high for an action combat system, and that's is why tab-targeting was the way to go.

To day when players have more like 50ping or less, the delay of pressing your attack til it hit the target is so small that one doesn't really notice it.

Jayma

That not only a technical issue, it's a shift in the type of game (but yeah TT is more resilient to massive combats, and more readable too). TT targeting is more rpg feels and obviously AC move it to an action game.

For example, if you have a dodge mechanism like GW2, there is no meaning to have an evasion stat on a character. Because the capacity to evade hit will be tied to your own irl reflex. Same for targeted projectile shoot, the precision stat has no meaning if you need to target it manually.

And i prefer rpg game to any action game

And be cautious that any too much precise need of 3D collisions can easily turn ugly with big battle (or bad network) or open the game to aimbot and other stuff.

Child Item