Zeyd Arthurn wrote: » gaganu wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters me too, tab targeting is a proven mechanic over the years and is effective and so is action combat, I don't get why it's always the tab target fans that want to phase out action combat but if the action combat fans acted the same way they would get spammed with angry reactions
gaganu wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters me too, tab targeting is a proven mechanic over the years and is effective
I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters
Zeyd Arthurn wrote: » truenoir wrote: » You can't really make it class specific cause like shadonsol said then you limit people who want to play other classes but be able to utilize a non action combat system. But even so trying to throw both systems into the game has some negatives. So I understand people commenting on action combat vs tab targeting. In action combat your targeting is based on skill shots and aiming at targets. Dodging is skill based and monster interaction is completely different. Instead of monsters targeting you based on a tab target "follow you around like its sliding crossed a linear plane. They target your body but actions are not 100% never miss. This allows the system for "aiming" and "dodging" to be utilized. Currently the way action combat feels in Ashes is that when your playing action combat "dodge" can't really take place because when you side step monsters follow you and continue to attack side stepping with you. So the game doesn't really feel "great" for action combat feels like you might as well just play tab target so you never "miss" a target. Allowing the use of tab targeting for monsters and pvp just means that you don't have to skill shot your always gonna hit a target unless we go around giving a "timing based dodge Invincibility frame" to all dodge actions. I think the end of the day its gonna come down to just scrapping action combat and sticking to to tab targeting and just allowing certain skill shot skills to pull you into a 1 skill button moving radical like laying down a meteor blast or something. But the two systems don't work well in the same world without significant differences in monster combat. I know the reason why tab target was favored as well its because it's much easier to code you don't need to program hit boxes and physics mechanics for every skill. You just need math skills for distance of monster, damage sounds and effects. Also don't have to worry about latency issues like you do with say how New World came out and ping over 200 can cause you to miss hitboxes. Can't miss with tab targeting unless the target is outside of the hitbox range in which the client will just say you aren't close enough. And enough players from world of warcraft and other games know tab target well. Action combat is just the new flavor that came with games like Tera Online and Archeage. The Action combat part of it really is only really good for the combat in pvp in here but even still why even bother if you can tab target and never miss a person because you've locked onto them. The only way to make someone favor switching to out of tab targeting is making tab target work from a "only when infront of the character" type of view. Target character = when target is in front of player. ^ This would make it so during pvp tab target users can't lock onto someone using tab targeting and always hit targets. Overall I think its gonna just come down to scrapping action combat since the game really is programmed for more the tab target play style and not attempting to do some hybrid system that obviously won't work. Only dodging you really need to do is dodging static effects from bosses when a boss targets the floor. There's currently no advantages to playing action combat other then causing yourself to be stressed and frustrated because its useless vs tab target style monsters. why not just scrap tab targeting altogether in favour of action combat, it seems to be getting more and more popular nowadays tbh there are games that pulled it of like swords of legends online, they made hybrid kinda work
truenoir wrote: » You can't really make it class specific cause like shadonsol said then you limit people who want to play other classes but be able to utilize a non action combat system. But even so trying to throw both systems into the game has some negatives. So I understand people commenting on action combat vs tab targeting. In action combat your targeting is based on skill shots and aiming at targets. Dodging is skill based and monster interaction is completely different. Instead of monsters targeting you based on a tab target "follow you around like its sliding crossed a linear plane. They target your body but actions are not 100% never miss. This allows the system for "aiming" and "dodging" to be utilized. Currently the way action combat feels in Ashes is that when your playing action combat "dodge" can't really take place because when you side step monsters follow you and continue to attack side stepping with you. So the game doesn't really feel "great" for action combat feels like you might as well just play tab target so you never "miss" a target. Allowing the use of tab targeting for monsters and pvp just means that you don't have to skill shot your always gonna hit a target unless we go around giving a "timing based dodge Invincibility frame" to all dodge actions. I think the end of the day its gonna come down to just scrapping action combat and sticking to to tab targeting and just allowing certain skill shot skills to pull you into a 1 skill button moving radical like laying down a meteor blast or something. But the two systems don't work well in the same world without significant differences in monster combat. I know the reason why tab target was favored as well its because it's much easier to code you don't need to program hit boxes and physics mechanics for every skill. You just need math skills for distance of monster, damage sounds and effects. Also don't have to worry about latency issues like you do with say how New World came out and ping over 200 can cause you to miss hitboxes. Can't miss with tab targeting unless the target is outside of the hitbox range in which the client will just say you aren't close enough. And enough players from world of warcraft and other games know tab target well. Action combat is just the new flavor that came with games like Tera Online and Archeage. The Action combat part of it really is only really good for the combat in pvp in here but even still why even bother if you can tab target and never miss a person because you've locked onto them. The only way to make someone favor switching to out of tab targeting is making tab target work from a "only when infront of the character" type of view. Target character = when target is in front of player. ^ This would make it so during pvp tab target users can't lock onto someone using tab targeting and always hit targets. Overall I think its gonna just come down to scrapping action combat since the game really is programmed for more the tab target play style and not attempting to do some hybrid system that obviously won't work. Only dodging you really need to do is dodging static effects from bosses when a boss targets the floor. There's currently no advantages to playing action combat other then causing yourself to be stressed and frustrated because its useless vs tab target style monsters.
maouw wrote: » Can we not do the "My favourite MMO is better than your favourite MMO"? It's going to be mostly opinions stated as facts and a whole bunch of ruffled feathers. Look, here's a cute thing: And to get back on topic, @Zeyd Arthurn Ashes was originally pitched with Tab Target only - and that's the original audience it drew, so in this specific case the option to try to integrate Action Combat is seen more like an extra feature that can be scrapped if it goes poorly. Although I also have a preference for Action, there are other good reasons why people prefer tab: Older folk find it difficult to use a reticle, so they need controls that are less intense and familiar to what they've grown up with - these people are also the main demographic of Ashes' founding audience as I understand it. Tab target allows computers (and related net code) to take shortcuts under the hood, instead of more expensive hitscanning. Ashes is really pushing the limits here using tab target, whereas hitscanning with 250v250 live clients just isn't feasible with current tech standards. There are other reasons, but I think those two are the strongest. The best we can do is provide what feedback we can so that Ashes has a really good chance at nailing Hybrid combat.
JONTA wrote: » Zeyd Arthurn wrote: » gaganu wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters me too, tab targeting is a proven mechanic over the years and is effective and so is action combat, I don't get why it's always the tab target fans that want to phase out action combat but if the action combat fans acted the same way they would get spammed with angry reactions I'm old I find tab easier I have played games with action as a caster and it's futile if stationary then yes i hit 100% if moving I'm down 50% thtas not fun to me or worth while to my grp
Noaani wrote: » Zeyd Arthurn wrote: » gaganu wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters me too, tab targeting is a proven mechanic over the years and is effective and so is action combat, I don't get why it's always the tab target fans that want to phase out action combat but if the action combat fans acted the same way they would get spammed with angry reactions Ok, lets compare. I'm going to use EverQuest as the tab target example. I could pick WoW, EQ2, or a dozen other games, but I am going for the original. The game is full tab target, and has been out for about 23 years, and is still popular enough to get a full expansion every year (they are about to launch their 28th expansion).It also has a Metacritic score of 85/100. Provide your counter-example of an action MMORPG that proves it can be a long lived combat type in this specific genre. The absolute best you can do is pick Tera, but I am somewhat interested to see which game you pick here.
truenoir wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Zeyd Arthurn wrote: » gaganu wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters me too, tab targeting is a proven mechanic over the years and is effective and so is action combat, I don't get why it's always the tab target fans that want to phase out action combat but if the action combat fans acted the same way they would get spammed with angry reactions Ok, lets compare. I'm going to use EverQuest as the tab target example. I could pick WoW, EQ2, or a dozen other games, but I am going for the original. The game is full tab target, and has been out for about 23 years, and is still popular enough to get a full expansion every year (they are about to launch their 28th expansion).It also has a Metacritic score of 85/100. Provide your counter-example of an action MMORPG that proves it can be a long lived combat type in this specific genre. The absolute best you can do is pick Tera, but I am somewhat interested to see which game you pick here. I wouldn't use just tera since bluehole's client and engine was trash. I would use either Onigiri or Dragon Nest but even Continent of the Ninth Seal was good. But we shouldn't be advertising as a action combat if we really don't have the right system for it.
McShave wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters. A lot of people want easy or less precision-demanding classes anyway, and a lot of healers don't think of themselves as precision aiming players, so I don't think there would be much resistance to this. DPS classes could get full action combat with ranged DPS requiring actual aim and precision. I think part of New World's initial success is that the fps style aiming is very popular with a huge portion of the gaming audience. If New World were full tab targeting, the game probably would've been dead at launch. Summoners could maybe be a hybrid. With summons being tab target, and everything else being action. Well, the great thing is you can customize how you play your class. You can choose to put your talent points into abilities that are more action-oriented instead of abilities that are more tab-oriented. It really is up to the player on how they want to play. Intrepid has said that you wont be able to go 100% into action or tab, but that said a long time ago before we had/ have any sort of testing. I don't think we'll get New World style combat, ranged attacks will be somewhat target based (attacks lock on to target near reticle on screen) and weapon attacks wont lock you into animations.
bigepeen wrote: » I want bards and clerics with full tab targeting, as they are primarily support characters. A lot of people want easy or less precision-demanding classes anyway, and a lot of healers don't think of themselves as precision aiming players, so I don't think there would be much resistance to this. DPS classes could get full action combat with ranged DPS requiring actual aim and precision. I think part of New World's initial success is that the fps style aiming is very popular with a huge portion of the gaming audience. If New World were full tab targeting, the game probably would've been dead at launch. Summoners could maybe be a hybrid. With summons being tab target, and everything else being action.
mcstackerson wrote: » So, if we follow this logic then you mean that since EQ1 is popular that if a modern game copied it's exact combat and player controls, you think it would be successful?
JustVine wrote: » Oh we are including metacritic as a valid measurement tool this time Noaani?
JustVine wrote: » Oh we are including metacritic as a valid measurement tool this time Noaani? Glad to hear you are onboard. Here is my own offering to this discussionhttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/absolver category: multiplayer action rpg according to metacritic Metascore 75 player reviews 94 player score 6https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/our-absolver-review-2000106688 if we really need to dispell the whole 'its not an mmo so doesn't get to be discussed when talking about mmos' nonsense for my point to get through. Openworld pvp, constantly described as an rpg, decent amounts of players allowed in the same zone instance. Not massive multiplayer. But serviceable when talking about combat. Also they greatly improved pve post this review which was their only real complaint. Absolver uses a tab target mainly but no targeting is required to attack and in fact tab targeting can be a disadvantage when fighting multiple enemies so certain dungeons require increased skill with untabbed targeting. Metascore 75 player reviews 94 player score 6 That's a good metascore. Does it get to count as a sign it's good and should be investigated or should we ignore metascores and therefore your critique of Onigiri's lack of one above? For reference as to games more commonplace in the forums here are two commonly cited games frequently referenced as acceptable for debate about AoC by most people when talking about combat or over all game design.https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/lineage-ii-the-chaotic-chronicle metascore 62 128 reviews 6.9 If I wanted to look like a completely biased uninformed moron I could have cited the erthia expansion numbers instead with 9 reviews and a 4.2. But I am not because that's not a fair representation of the community.https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/everquest-ii metascore 83 reviews 90 7.3 That's a pretty good Metascore. Is everquest 2 better than lineage 2 because it has higher scores? Does the metascore of absolver matter here since it's above Lineage 2's? Let's throw in wildstar just to point out a deadgame that most people feel was good and has a bunch more reviews, but isn't playablehttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/wildstar metascore 82 reviews 958 7.5 Lineage 2's reviews #'s are not that far off from Absolvers. Should we be caring about the fact that it has smaller review numbers than Wildstar? Is it invalid to talk about smaller games or not? Oh and just for those who didn't want to bother fact checking Noaani's disingenuous claim about Onigiri they picked the latest port which was to switch rather than the ones with longer held communities to make their point look more impactful.https://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/onigiri 8 reviews 7.6https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/onigiri 12 reviews 7.4https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/onigiri 11 reviews 5.2https://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/onigiri 4 reviews 3.8 As for Continent of the 9th Sealhttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/continent-of-the-ninth-seal 21 reviews 6.3 Yes they aren't as popular and have lower reviews but I personally think it'd be silly to consider the entirety of a games success to validate or invalidate a single part of the games design that was good. If we take that approach Wildstar died and is unplayable. I could make the, in my opinion, disingenuous arguement that Onigiri is playable while Wildstar isn't, so has more players than Wildstar and is therefore more successful. So let's ignore Wildstar in conversations. It's the same type of logic. Last bit of fun: the game that serves as a large base of this game's designhttps://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/archeage metascore 80 767 reviews player score 3.4 We all know that score is in reaction to pay 2 win not that the game's combat was bad. But do the player scires matter more or the meta ones (that imo more accurately reflect the games quality.) Have I made a good enough case that this metacritic business should be retracted and discarded?
Noaani wrote: » JustVine wrote: » Oh we are including metacritic as a valid measurement tool this time Noaani? It isn't a great measuring tool, but it is a great way to quickly discount a game. If someone says "this game is a great example of why X can be good in a game", and that game hasn't even had enough Metacritic reviews to have a score (despite being 10 years old), then that game can be discounted. If it does have a good enough score (or indeed any score), then you need to look a little further in to that game, as I did in the post above (and found that the game in question had been dropped by multiple publishers, across every region). You complain about my take on Onigiri, yet my main point was that it didn't even have a Metacritic score due to not having enough published reviews. Even if you take all four platforms and combine them, it STILL doesn't have enough reviews to have an actual Metacritic score. If you want to hold that up as a shining beacon of what an action combat MMO can be, then go for it. My point was that it probably isn't the best game to point to when people ask about action combat MMO's - but hey, if you disagree with that assessment, next time someone asks you about action games and if action combat can be any good in an MMO, I expect you to point to it.
truenoir wrote: » My main point wasn't trying to say that we have to go action combat but we can't advertise as "brand new action combat game" if overall the experience is geared towards being a tab target.
