Best examples of Action Combat? Starting to Feel Like Tab > Action

Yours truly is trying a lot of different MMO's lately, and it's starting to feel pointless to have an Action-style combat system in a real MMORPG.

Now, I've tried Lost Ark - which is probably the end-all of Action-style combat systems. I didn't stick with it (80 hours, according to the tracker) because Lost Ark feels like a single-player game. It's almost akin to a 2D-scroller, except you can move in all of the compass directions. The most useful insight it provided is that Action-style combat really isn't very useful against a single opponent, since the game is capable of not registering that you're trying to hit the enemy; it's true usefulness seems to be in fighting against groups of enemies. However, most MMO's will let you tab-target either yourself or a single enemy, and then fire off an AoE ability, in fighting groups.

Since enemies in MMO's tend to gather directly around you or bunch up together in small, cloistered groups that you can just AoE, is it really necessary to HAVE Action-style combat in an MMO? Isn't it more of a hack-and-slash game feature?

Just started trying Guild Wars 2 - which in previous forums-threads, some people identify as Action-combat, while others identify it as Tab-targeting. I've come to define GW2 as Action-combat, since you don't have to have an enemy targeted to use your combat abilities, and your weapon swings freely - damaging any enemies in your way. I've already tried Lineage 2, since AoC is supposed to take a lot of inspiration from it's systems, and just find it too static/old now to really get into, as a new player.

Are there some really good examples of Action-based systems anyone can recommend? I'm not enjoying the feel/gameplay of GW2, atm.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Q: is it really necessary to HAVE Action-style combat in an MMO?

A: Nowadays yes, but only to a certain extent as 100% Tab target becomes less viable even for MMORPGs as time goes by, and there is no need to go full on Action like BDO before the aim assist or Lost Ark.

I don't see how anyone could say that tab target is becoming less viable.

I would agree that it is essential in a PvP MMO, but not all MMO's need to even have PvP, let alone focus on it.

Ashes has PvP, for sure. As such, Ashes kind of needs action combat (tab target PvP really is boring). However, I see no reason at all as to why either PvP or action combat are necessary for a new (non-Ashes) MMO.

I would go as far as to suggest that any future PvE focused MMORPG would essentially need to be tab target based.

JamesSunderland

Noaani wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could say that tab target is becoming less viable.

I would agree that it is essential in a PvP MMO, but not all MMO's need to even have PvP, let alone focus on it.

Ashes has PvP, for sure. As such, Ashes kind of needs action combat (tab target PvP really is boring). However, I see no reason at all as to why either PvP or action combat are necessary for a new (non-Ashes) MMO.

I would go as far as to suggest that any future PvE focused MMORPG would essentially need to be tab target based.

Less viable in a sense that more and more people are learning and acquiring a liking for Action combat and starting to lean more towards it, which can be seem by the MMORPGs in recent years moving more towards the action combat side, not necessarely a mater of if it is better for PvP or not, its more about tab-target getting kinda outshined by the trend of part of the public.

It doesn't mean that Tab-target combat is worse than action combat or doesn't have value, much on the contrary i believe Tab-target combat fits MMORPGs the best, and a MMORPG that doesn't have TT at all isn't as good as one that has it, its a mater of implementation, many consider that FFXIV is currently the best MMORPG and its mostly TT, WoW is mostly TT, Lineage 2 was mostly TT and it had excelent pvp.

I believe the future of combat in MMORPGS will be blends of different amounts of TT and AC in different percentages.

Dygz

NWO is my threshold for action-combat.

Noaani

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Less viable in a sense that more and more people are learning and acquiring a liking for Action combat and starting to lean more towards it, which can be seem by the MMORPGs in recent years moving more towards the action combat side, not necessarely a mater of if it is better for PvP or not, its more about tab-target getting kinda outshined by the trend of part of the public.

Here's a question for you.

Do you think players are wanting action combat games and so developers are developing action combat games, or do you think developers are developing action combat games because the technology is there now to be able to pull it off, and since that is what developers are developing, players are picking up and trying?

My thoughts are definitely in the second group - due simply to the total absence of an actual long term successful full action combat MMORPG. Developers have nothing to point at in terms of successful games in this genre to say "this is why we need to make an action MMORPG". They have plenty of tab target games to point to in order to demonstrate potential for success - but no action MMO's. The only thing they can do, as far as I can see, is say that there hasn't been a super successful action MMORPG as yet because the ability to be able to actually make one is fairly recent - and so they are making one because they are now able to make one.

I mean, if you look at the three highest sustained population MMO's right now (WoW, ESO and FFXIV, afaik) all of them are essentially tab target. At absolute best, ESO could be considered tab target with an action accent.

If players were really after action combat, don't you think that action combat MMORPG's would be more popular than tab target MMORPG's by now?

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could say that tab target is becoming less viable.

I would agree that it is essential in a PvP MMO, but not all MMO's need to even have PvP, let alone focus on it.

If we're talking about a big multiplayer experience, it has to have some system that encourages Player versus Player interaction, unless you are settled with the fact that the mmorpg space will always be 2nd to other popular genres of the last 10 years or so.

I really can't understand how there is so much of this narrative of what mmo's SHOULD incorperate, why this kind of mentality I don't blame people for calling the genre dead.

Noaani wrote: »

I mean, if you look at the three highest sustained population MMO's right now (WoW, ESO and FFXIV, afaik) all of them are essentially tab target. At absolute best, ESO could be considered tab target with an action accent.

If players were really after action combat, don't you think that action combat MMORPG's would be more popular than tab target MMORPG's by now?

This is far reaching as the majority of users are casuals or of a niche mentality.
The players who like PvP (not only want PvP, I find a distaste in the writing here as usual) aren't playing games like BDO anymore because it lacks in end game content and there is a huge gate saying p2w or get lucky.

This is way more complex than what is being questioned here...

Voxtrium

Pretty much every genre outside of MMOs is action combat oriented @Noaani , so developers have a plethora or things to point at when evaluating if tab or action combat is better. Also it is blatantly obvious that tab targeting is easier and presents a lower skill cap.

I point out other genres and their action combat systems because most games present a focus type of game play, FPS, RPG etc, an MMO brings all of that together and that is why they are so difficult to make and develop. Adding action targeting presents innumerable obstacles, many of which require the best aspects of our current technology. To point at failed action target MMO's is like taking 5 coin flips and saying look it landed on tails 5 times, therefore all coin flips have a 100% chance of landing on tails.

Tyranthraxus

Thanks for the input, gang.

Going to give Neverwinter a try, starting this weekend (I played the original for a couple of months, in the 90's!), as yours truly grew up on the old D&D computer games. Heheh - even my screen name here is the final demon you fight in the 1st-ever D&D computer Game from 1988, The Pool of Radiance.

BDO will make the list, too. I don't much care for Korean-style MMO's, but they both look to be P2W, at any rate. Had looked at it previously, and it's got some of the annoying Korean tropes I usually avoid (i.e. a spiky-haired guy with a smirk on his face with one hand on his hip, while the other is holding a sword taller than he is and that weighs infinitely more than him, over the shoulder - or a wizard whose robes are so thick and long that they cover his hands when he runs, and the only part of his face you can see are two glowing eyes, between the overly-high ridge of the robes and the super-low brim of the hat.) Some things I just hate seeing, around an MMO.

The combat videos from Tera look okay, but I'm also not a fan of seeing lolli's around MMO's. Heh - and there don't seem to be a lot of people who still seem to have a positive opinion of Tera. Most of the other recommendations made are games I'm entirely unfamiliar with - but am willing to check them out!

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

If we're talking about a big multiplayer experience, it has to have some system that encourages Player versus Player interaction, unless you are settled with the fact that the mmorpg space will always be 2nd to other popular genres of the last 10 years or so.

I'm going to assume by this that you mean player vs player interaction in a way that isnt exclusive to PvP as it is usually discussed.

With that assumption out of the way, why does there need to be a system to encourage player versus player interaction? In my experience, people are more than able to find enough to fight and squabble over, without the need for things to be set up to encourage it.

Set up a game to encourage player cooperation, and let confrontation take it's own course.

NishUK

@Noaani ok, well I'll just have to swallow your stance "I would agree that it is essential in a PvP MMO, but not all MMO's need to even have PvP, let alone focus on it". To me there isn't even any 'PvP MMO' because the very premise of players not challenging one another in a multiplayer online space to me is ridiculous.

To me the foundations of an online game are pretty basic, challenge players via other players and if devs engineer things within that, that are addictive and enjoyable then you'll have a product that people will keep on coming back to (most days, not every year or so "xxx expansion is coming out, I'll play again then!").

There's not a lot else to say because of such a differing opinion from both of us but so far I'm keeping faith that a node system with spring a lot of competition, instead of games like ff14 that are single player games shared/co-op within an online space.

@Tyranthraxus I don't know how much you've seen of BDO but I find that take ridiculous, I'll join anyone in slamming BDO for its lack of mmo fundamentals all day but in terms of graphics, cosmetics, art style/theme, music and solo gameplay, to knock it harshly imo is insulting to the obviously big passion behind it.
The only thing I can agree with is the basic wizard/witch basic dress, which is ...yes, it's not practical to the theme of the game really, I guess...but these characters are so super human anyway that it would be perhaps a little bit bogus to see them in very realistic clothing/fitting, perhaps.

Songcaller

For a time, we had full pvp in one mmo. Then the people who wanted breaks from pvp managed to persuade the game devs to add npc guards to locations.

These npc guards would one shot anything that did a combat move near it. These guards did not stop the pvp. Only moved the pvp.

What I learnt was that even the hardest players need downtime. It is not about pvp 24/7 it is about quality pvp and quality moments.

arsnn

Azherae wrote: »

Still plugging Neverwinter as always.

In terms of 'games that are not necessarily otherwise great proper MMOs', Blade and Soul is among the best as far as I know, and Onigiri is a specific type of thing that works decently due to being very spacing dependent, but isn't necessarily 'not tab targeted' either.

All these games are relatively lower mobility games, which I feel is somewhat required for the RPG part of MMORPG to happen. Even in voice chat, you can't really roleplay (not necessarily heavy RP, just sometimes 'basically any') if you can't rely on spacing or make predictions about situations.

The 'problem' with Tab Targeting in my opinion is that it often takes the 'spacing' aspect out of the game too, which feels to me to be a meaningful downgrade to the experience. Building in any type of 'tab targeting works but your spacing determines your damage or effectiveness' essentially makes the 'tab target' mode useless for difficult content, and refusing to build that in leads to the 'action target' mode useless for medium content.

Overall, Neverwinter does it best, even if you don't like the abilities in the game, you can sort of imagine what the game would feel like with more satisfying abilities, so maybe try that if you haven't.

You might be delighted to hear Intrepid´s combat designer Douglas Miller worked at cryptic, the studio behind neverwinter

Although he did not seem to be part of the inital combat dev/design crew, he had his hands on class balancing, designing new classes and PvE encounters.
I hope he does a good job at bringing over the action part to AoC, but still adapting to AoC´s requirements of slower methodical and tactical gameplay, especially for large scale PvP.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

To me the foundations of an online game are pretty basic, challenge players via other players and if devs engineer things within that, that are addictive and enjoyable then you'll have a product that people will keep on coming back to (most days, not every year or so "xxx expansion is coming out, I'll play again then!").

The thing is, I fully agree with this as the foundation for a non-persistent online game.

It is that persistency of MMORPG's that alters the paradigm.

An online FPS game where you cant attack other players would suck. As would an online RTS, BR, MOBA, 4X, racing game, fighting game, almost anything.

The only two genres I can think of where there is no inherent need for player confrontation in order to make an online aspect work are RPG's, and flight sims. Both of these games *can* have that PvP aspect, but neither *need* it.

You're more than welcome to say you prefer PvP. However, objective data (the fact that PvP in MMORPG's is still a niche within a niche) should prove to you that what you consider a foundation for an online game is not what the bulk consider the foundation.

Ashes absolutely will have PvP as a foundation to the game - but that doesnt mean it is a requirement of the genre. If anything, that PvP foundation is going to knock 10 years off the life of this game.

Songcaller

The game will die without pvp. It will be like all other mmos under pve players. No siege wars, no guild wars, no end game and no corruption.

I must work within the framework because pve people want corruption, pvp players do not want corruption.

Therefore, you can keep repeating we are pvp focussed but we are not at all. If all pvp was bad all mobas would fail and all competitive simulators would fail.

Most people think an open world withactive pvp is true pvp when really it is the laziest, blandest and depravic pvp in the world.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

The game will die without pvp.

If they removed PvP now it would, without a doubt.

However, don't expect Ashes to have a lifespan even close to that of WoW or EQ2 - let alone the original EQ, all of which are still going strong (well, still going).

Neurath wrote: »

Therefore, you can keep repeating we are pvp focussed but we are not at all. If all pvp was bad all mobas would fail and all competitive simulators would fail.

The major difference between MOBA and MMORG PvP is that in a MOBA, everything resets constantly. Lose a match and it doesn't matter, you just go in to the next one in the same state you started the last. In an MMORPG, if you lose, you lose something that you can no longer take in to the next fight, but the person that just beat you is able to take in to their next fight.

This is a massive advantage to the person that wins - especially people that have a >50% win rate. However, someone has to have a <50% win rate, and eventually these people realize that they simply aren't making it in said MMORPG, and so leave. Since in order for someone to have a >50% win rate, someone else needs to have a <50% win rate (basic math), and since people with <50% win rates just left, there will then be a new group of people that have to start having a <50% win rate, and the cycle will start all over again.

This is why all PvP MMO's have a history of starting out with a large (or even massive) population, but before long end up with only the few hardcore PvP players left - and there aren't really enough of them to support more than two AAA MMO's at a time.

Songcaller

I'm not sure what you reference. I love the conversations we have but there is no pvp xp. It makes no difference if u die in pve or pvp in Ashes.

There is no progression for pvp only leader boards. There is no pve progression only leader boards.

When I can buy any gear and also boost to max, I do not even need to pve.

I do not understand how you can counter the concepts with wow and eq.

Swg was very popular and very pvx until cu2 which made it like eq and wow and the playerbase died.

You will always back end game. I will always back gameplay.

I take your input and I do try to give your pve players enough areas but of course our pvp areas will have a lot of extra resources and sources which pvp players will sell to pvd players.

If I could count on all players to give a good game I would not need to separate the game modes to ensure a decent experience for all parties.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I'm not sure what you reference. I love the conversations we have but there is no pvp xp. It makes no difference if u die in pve or pvp in Ashes.

There is no progression for pvp only leader boards. There is no pve progression only leader boards.

Yeah, but players still stand to lose a lot in PvP in Ashes.

Caravans , nodes, freeholds. Not to mention the fact that a loss in PvP alters the content you have access to.

There are a LOT of players that are not even going to stick it out though one node loss. In Ashes - especially if a player sticks to smaller nodes - there is a real possibility that players could lose 3 or 4 nodes in a year.

Hell, a lot of people will just quit the game if they lose two or three caravans in a row.

I'm not saying Ashes should change any of this - Intrepid will never recover from that.

All I am saying is that players need to look at the game in a realistic fashion - which is that the games life as a multi-server game of the scale Intrepid wants it to be is likely to be limited to five years. After that, there will probably only be one server per region, and some of the smaller regions (Oceania, specifically) will likely be merged in to NA servers.

Compare that to a game like EQ that still has 10 servers running after 23 years, and yeah, that is a shorter life than an MMO could (should) have.

Songcaller

Yes. I understand. I have done my best but there is a lot of work to do. I have smuggled other games into my zones but I do not feel confident changing kickstarter parts because I do not want is or myself sued.

At the end of the day, I must build the game promised by Steven. Hell, I have to suffer the worst kind of open development at the moment lol. It is not easy making changes when you have to fight the same idiots day after day just to instill a single concept.

Marcet

tab is better, yeah, unless they develop a good hybrid

Nerror

Neurath wrote: »

Yes. I understand. I have done my best but there is a lot of work to do. I have smuggled other games into my zones but I do not feel confident changing kickstarter parts because I do not want is or myself sued.

At the end of the day, I must build the game promised by Steven. Hell, I have to suffer the worst kind of open development at the moment lol. It is not easy making changes when you have to fight the same idiots day after day just to instill a single concept.

Just curious here @Neurath , but I have seen several times you write posts like you are somehow part of the development team. Calling it "my game" etc. Are you actually hired by Intrepid, or did you just plonk down the $500 like the rest of us in A1? I am pretty sure it's the latter, so I am mostly interested if it's just your peculiar (to me) way of referencing the game, or if you are really so invested in this game succeeding that you feel like you are actually part of the development team?

I mean no offense at all - you do you - but the curiosity is killing me here.

Ludullu

Nerror wrote: »

I mean no offense at all - you do you - but the curiosity is killing me here.

Same.

Child Item