Dygz wrote: » MMOPRGs should not be taking the concept of "losing streaks" from MOBAs. If what you want to play is an MMOBA - great. Or even an MMOFPS. But, that is not an RPG.
Noaani wrote: » Two things I've yet to see in any meaningful way. A PvE player that understands PvE content in MMO's and wants to see an action combat based PvE MMO - and an MMO with action combat and good PvE. I have discussed my theory in the past as to why I do not believe such a game can actually even exist - though no one has even tried.
NishUK wrote: » "The future is now old man!" There is no respectful response to give to something like this...
Dygz wrote: » They are not the same, but OK. New World is not an MMORPG.
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Two things I've yet to see in any meaningful way. A PvE player that understands PvE content in MMO's and wants to see an action combat based PvE MMO - and an MMO with action combat and good PvE. I have discussed my theory in the past as to why I do not believe such a game can actually even exist - though no one has even tried. I feel like an mmo with bosses being similar to Shadow of the Colossus (at least in size difference and the mechanics that come with that), where the whole raid of however many people would fight their own small mechanically difficult fights across the whole body of the boss. You could still have the holy trinity design for classes and make it so that each fighting point on the boss' body requires proper tanking (the tank moving around and blocking hits with their shield), proper healing (hitting precision casts onto the other 2 dudes) and proper dpsing (precision shots on weak points and other similar stuff)- all while there's some environmental hazards that make you move around even more. And I think UE5 would definitely allow for smth of that scale work fine enough and look just fucking incredible.
Azherae wrote: » I also think that all MMO gear should make a given player meaningfully better at playing the game the way they want to play it and not just 'the way that is better flat out'. I'm waiting for a game that achieves that.
Noaani wrote: » So, here are the issues with this (it is a situation I have already considered, so my opinion on it is already fairly well formed). First, if you have 20 people all each taking on a part of an encounter by itself, you aren't raiding. You are soloing together. If you take those 20 people and break them down to 4 groups of 5, and give each of these groups a part of the boss to deal with on their own, you are still not raiding, you are grouping in parallel. These are VERY different gameplay types. The second issue with this is how limiting it is for content. In the time I played EQ2, I took on well over 500 raid bosses. If a game were to try and create 500 encounters using this one mechanic where it splits a raid up in to smaller chunks since the combat system sucks with many players on one target, then you are going to find raid content in this game very repetitive, very quickly. As a single mechanic, there is nothing wrong with requiring people in a raid to solo or to group. I can recall encounters in EQ2 where each of these was needed. One was a giant worm thing that would swallow a player who then had to solo mobs in its stomach in order to get an item key to defeating the boss, and then get let out (pooped out?) so you could carry on the fight against said boss. Another was a dragon that would spawn an add periodically that would only be able to be taunted or damaged by a single group within the raid, but would deal massive damage to those not in said raid. Your group would have to pull the add away from the raid and take it on as per a group encounter, and then go back and join the raid proper. So, this is why your suggestion is overly restrictive. It is a mechanic that a developer can put in to raid encounters at will, yet under an action combat system, all encounters would essentially need this design element. The reason these encounters worked in EQ2 (those above) was because they were a rare mechanic, and when the group or individual that was asked to take on the specific task in question was finished, they went back to assisting the raid proper, on the target proper.
NiKr wrote: » Obviously some people will be similar to you and not interact with pvp most of the time, but sooner or later all the pvp losers will leave, which will either make the winners leave because they no longer have someone to fight or they'll move onto all the other players (in some shape or form) and then even more people will leave. So imo there should be at least some system that minimizes those losses. If you have a better system, I'll gladly support it.
JamesSunderland wrote: » "New World is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) developed by Amazon Games Orange County and published by Amazon Games released on September 28, 2021."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_(video_game) ok dygz... They are not the same, they just happen to share a title of being MMORPGs that have action combat(even tho as Noaani said Lost Ark is most likely more of a Action RPG than a MMORPG.)
Dygz wrote: » It shouldn't even be a thing in an MMORPG, so it doesn't need replacement. Again, that's an OK system for an MMOFPS. Ashes is focused on Objective-Based PvP.
Dygz wrote: » In Objective-Based PvP/Battlegrounds/Events there are no death penalties, so... I don't know what you are referring to as losing a ton of shit.
NishUK wrote: » ( knuckle clicking )@Noaani Dark Runner has not been a top class since auramancy stopped giving the shaken debuff which allowed for trip. Top geared, little answer classes are archer and especially mage with Arc Lightning being easily one of the most ridicdulous skills in mmo history, to my knowledge anyway! Now I must work xD
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » So, here are the issues with this (it is a situation I have already considered, so my opinion on it is already fairly well formed). First, if you have 20 people all each taking on a part of an encounter by itself, you aren't raiding. You are soloing together. If you take those 20 people and break them down to 4 groups of 5, and give each of these groups a part of the boss to deal with on their own, you are still not raiding, you are grouping in parallel. These are VERY different gameplay types. The second issue with this is how limiting it is for content. In the time I played EQ2, I took on well over 500 raid bosses. If a game were to try and create 500 encounters using this one mechanic where it splits a raid up in to smaller chunks since the combat system sucks with many players on one target, then you are going to find raid content in this game very repetitive, very quickly. As a single mechanic, there is nothing wrong with requiring people in a raid to solo or to group. I can recall encounters in EQ2 where each of these was needed. One was a giant worm thing that would swallow a player who then had to solo mobs in its stomach in order to get an item key to defeating the boss, and then get let out (pooped out?) so you could carry on the fight against said boss. Another was a dragon that would spawn an add periodically that would only be able to be taunted or damaged by a single group within the raid, but would deal massive damage to those not in said raid. Your group would have to pull the add away from the raid and take it on as per a group encounter, and then go back and join the raid proper. So, this is why your suggestion is overly restrictive. It is a mechanic that a developer can put in to raid encounters at will, yet under an action combat system, all encounters would essentially need this design element. The reason these encounters worked in EQ2 (those above) was because they were a rare mechanic, and when the group or individual that was asked to take on the specific task in question was finished, they went back to assisting the raid proper, on the target proper. I guess it comes down to subjective definitions of what a raid is. I see it as a big group of people working towards one goal in one place against, most of the time, one target. It could be a small boss with spells that divide you into small groups or make you move around the room (ff14/wow style afaik), it could be a huge boss that you just unleash all your spells onto (L2 style), it could be the things you've described where particular members of the raid gotta do some particular action to progress the farm, or it could be one ginormous boss body that could involve all of the above mechanics in any given order of execution. To me those are all "raids", and I don't really see how they're any different. And on top of that you have different class combos, trinity or non-trinity systems, agro mechanics, dps rotations and all of that other shit that comes with a huge group of people working together in one place. And when it comes to the design difficulties of boss variety - the sky's the limit. Underwater bosses, sky bosses, horizontal bosses, vertical bosses, tight internal movement bosses, elemental being bosses, swarm bosses, fractured but whole bosses, mechanical/nature-based/magic-based/ether-based/void-based/gravitational/etc-ional bosses. I could probably come up with several hundred unique bosses with fairly unique mechanics within a day or two. And those types of bosses would be considered "epic" in the game, I'm not saying that each and every single boss should be a ginormous being (though that would be quite cool). The only thing that's stopping me from making those ideas come true is money Which is why I like Steven so much. He had the money to go full Bender on the genre. I wish I could do the same cause I got endless ideas and no means to realize them.
If anything, I'd say the same thing Nish said to Dygz - "the future is now, old man!" Why should we limit ourselves with preexisting notions of what's a raid and what's not a raid. The genres can evolve and add things to themselves w/o changing the core principle. A group of 40 people working towards a singular goal of beating a singular target by overcoming several different mechanical barriers sure as hell sounds like an mmorpg raid to me.
Noaani wrote: » Now imagine you are a developer wanting to fill that cup to the brim for some top end content. You have many, many bottles of liquid you can use - everything drinkable known to man. However, there isnt all that much room left in the action combat cup, so you cant put all that much liquid in it.
Noaani wrote: » So why are we asking for action combat to also drastically alter a genre, instead of just allowing it to exist in it's own one?
NiKr wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Now imagine you are a developer wanting to fill that cup to the brim for some top end content. You have many, many bottles of liquid you can use - everything drinkable known to man. However, there isnt all that much room left in the action combat cup, so you cant put all that much liquid in it. I think studios just haven't tried different approaches to action-based mmo pve. Though I did like pve in B&S, even if I hadn't reached any big scale raids (if there are any, I don't really know). We would only know if the cup will overfill once someone tries to push it to its limits. And I'm pretty sure no one has tried yet because it's too risky, and we currently live in the age of no risk. The sheer fact that Steven decided to make something that goes against the current trends so much is the proof to that "no risk" rule. Any other big company with investors can only see the success of wow and ff14 and them being tab "so that must be the secret sauce! Devs, go make a game like that". And any action-based game from korea/china is either too p2w for the western audience or relies too much on low ping, and west has been notorious for having problems with that. But I do think there's ways around that issue, but, again, it'd take a lot of risky money to even try and prove me wrong or right.
NiKr wrote: » We would only know if the cup will overfill once someone tries to push it to its limits.
Azherae wrote: » Which brings us back to the explicit goal of the 'Lineage 3' (Throne and Liberty) devs. To just... do that. 'Pour some ice out of the cup for the sake of a challenging group encounter'.
Azherae wrote: » But any game can do that, and probably while keeping Action stuff otherwise. In many ways, I consider it impossible for Noaani to be wrong about this. High level 4-man Monster Hunter showcases it pretty easily because it IS what you described and yet would NEVER work with more than 6-8 players total except on the largest of enemies if they were planning to actually use their mobility and other special skills, rather than 'one person get control of the monster and everyone else just wail on it with little or no real threat of damage'.
