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

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Caravans#Caravan_destruction
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges#Node_destruction
Both of those are objective-based pvp events. Both of them lead to resource loss in the case of a loss. Both of those will most likely have a decent amount of player resources. And depending on respawn mechanics during both events, any casual player might keep repeatedly dying which will decay their gear, so they'll be losing mats that way too (gear degradation quote is 64th reference on the caravan page).

It's really loss of Node resources. And that's still a portion; not a ton of shit.

"There's going to be gear degradation that occurs on death. In addition, there's obviously a time component. And also there's going to be an associated quest system." Which tracks each participant's wins and losses.
---Steven

Although, gear degradation conflicts, I think, with:
"There will not be death penalties applied to event-based deaths (Caravans, Guild Wars and Sieges). The penalties are in the outcome of the event.
So your number of deaths is likely going to impact your ability to win that particular event and that's going to be the penalty.
This is to encourage players to opt-in to the events because the more participation we have the more fun it can be and we understand that the community at large... there's already a risk versus reward component to these events. We don't need to stack on additional risk vs reward to increase the barrier to entry for players who may not be as interested."
----Steven

But, in any case, no one is forced to participate in a Caravan run, so repeating after a loss is a player choice; not something players are forced to do.
Node Sieges do not occur week after week. Players are not forced to participate in those.
And the particpants of Caravan raids and Sieges will run the spectrum of casual and hardcore. They aren't casual v hardcore.

Azherae

Well, I used this example somewhere before, but it was long ago, so hopefully it can help, though it does require watching some videos. Mostly just a few minutes of each.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4gkBr7MyzM

If you prefer the guide version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cVcbao6NZE

This monster is not 'hard' for most Monster Hunter veterans, but it is much more 'active' in Monster Hunter games, 'more action' is happening. Perfectly timed dodges, whiff punishes on its attacks, etc. By the nature of a Tab Target game, it 'becomes what you refer to'. 'Correct rotations while moving around ground hazards'. The 'Extreme' version just 'applies the Monster Hunter ruleset'. Only 3 people can fall, tanking doesn't work the same, etc.

Aaaand it's boring. Because by the nature of what a Rathalos is, you can't add more 'complex puzzle elements' if you want to represent it properly in a Tab Target game. Encounters in harder PvE content in Tab Target games require you to know and respond correctly to a massive number of mechanics, in unison. Various games have different styles (adding adds, creating area debuffs from the mob, requiring you to have and use specific items, or just spawning kill-zones that you have to dance through, or sometimes multiples of these, obviously).

That's 'what they think of to do' to make Rathalos even start to approach a 'Raid encounter'. Because otherwise it's just this (watch like 1 minute from 10:20 if not familiar with the game):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSg-HqQvz0Q

Now, that player is using a long range weapon, but the point is that once 'complexity' is encoded in 'movement and evasion', you will get a tier of player who will be able to overcome almost ANYTHING you throw at them that is physically possible to do. So what do devs do? They rightly make combat where there's stuff you can't avoid and therefore damage is taken. But these games are based on healing and mitigation too. The numbers don't work out.

I'm not saying these can't work in Ashes, I've outlined an 'Ashes Rathalos fight' before as an explanation to someone else somewhere. But that wouldn't be 'hard', just 'engaging'. It would barely become hard as other players showed up to PvP. But devs almost always find themselves thinking 'Ok this is proper hard content now, nearly no one will be able to do THIS, they'd have to play PERFECTLY'. And then someone will do it.

Full raid encounter difficulty is literally ABOUT overwhelming your players' mental stack while also threatening them with the DPS and Mitigation checks. Action games that aren't frustrating by design almost cannot threaten with the Mitigation check without being a serious pain to play for a large number of players. Not 'to win the encounter'. Just to PLAY.

If you've played Monster Hunter, I can probably successfully explain it, but if you haven't, it would be harder. Just take my main point as 'Given relatively free action ability, developers are constantly surprised by just HOW good players can be at games'. So their better bet is to design things where your ability to act freely is not the key aspect of success... and then we're back to 'might as well be Tab Target'.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

and then we're back to 'might as well be Tab Target'.

I guess this will always be the case if you're trying to purely overwhelm your players. I haven't played MH, but I'd assume that the same concept applies to Souls games, where sooner or later they'll be beat by naked dudes running with sticks, which means that no matter how difficult the action-based encounter is - they'll beat it sooner or later in the most ridiculous way possible.

But I think at that point we're having a discussion of what's fun and engaging. Obviously there's people who're ready to bash their heads against bosses in both Souls games and in smth like wow mythic+++++ or ff14 ultimates. And in both of those cases the encounter will be beaten sooner or later. And both of those cases usually only appeal to the hardcorest parts of the gamer player base. So I think that as long as the base action game is fun for your rando casual - the top content can still provide difficulty through boss rng ability usage (within limits) or the same dancy mechanics that tab games use, but in context of an action game and its dodge/block mechanics.

But yes, at the end of the day, any action mmo might as well be tab. Except younger players come to dislike it more and more so I feel like the genre will shift towards it on its own sooner or later.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

But yes, at the end of the day, any action mmo might as well be tab. Except younger players come to dislike it more and more so I feel like the genre will shift towards it on its own sooner or later.

The difficulty tab target has is in getting players in to content that makes tab target combat shine.

If you play an action combat game, you are experiencing 50% of what the games combat has to offer in the first few minutes. Sure, you may have more abilities to follow, but the basics are laid down immediately.

In a tab target game, when you get to the top end, the "basics" can change from encounter to encounter. I mean, I have taken on one encounter that required the raid to find instruments and literally play a song with them during the encounter.

Since encounters like this generally only happen at the top end of the game, it means players dont actually get to experience what is good about that system until they have put dozens of hours in to said game.

This results in many players new to the genre (that do not have a guiding hand telling them what to eventually expect) considering the combat - and thus game - to be somewhat dull compared to action games which are better out of the gate.

As an issue for developers to tackle though, I'd rather this than having a combat system that is very quickly going to prove to have a limited duration - which is action combat.

Okeydoke

Hey Neurath can we get an economic update lol

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, I did say while I played. However, if that is no longer the case, all I can say is that the game had a melee class as the OP, uncontested king of PvP for half a decade, and now it has a mage class.

What was the point again?

Your train of thought is so much up EQ butt, again I say, a game that isn't popular enough to be talked about in such massive detail without there being other players for possible conflicting opinions, that you're naturally refusing to see eye to eye.

Arc Lightning, with 50%+ casting speed, is a 1 sec cast time, guaranteed to hit long ranged nuke, that will one shot any class bar tank that doesn't have a shield or above 12,000 mdef (which is hard!).
And THIS is the limit of tab target, where it devolves into nothing but concluding a player contest from stats alone.

Keep being ignorant.

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

If you play an action combat game, you are experiencing 50% of what the games combat has to offer in the first few minutes. Sure, you may have more abilities to follow, but the basics are laid down immediately.

In a tab target game, when you get to the top end, the "basics" can change from encounter to encounter. I mean, I have taken on one encounter that required the raid to find instruments and literally play a song with them during the encounter.

Since encounters like this generally only happen at the top end of the game, it means players dont actually get to experience what is good about that system until they have put dozens of hours in to said game.

This results in many players new to the genre (that do not have a guiding hand telling them what to eventually expect) considering the combat - and thus game - to be somewhat dull compared to action games which are better out of the gate.

As an issue for developers to tackle though, I'd rather this than having a combat system that is very quickly going to prove to have a limited duration - which is action combat.

"limited duration"....

"One thing tab target has going for it, picking up and playing instruments".

This isn't at all, any constructive argument for why tab is better or has more longevity than action. All this is, is you purposefully limiting action combat/player input to big up that tab is somehow infinitively versatile, this is complete nonsense.

You're going on about raids and all kinds of qwerky things that can happen inside them, I'm finally glad I got the overview on you, you're a PvE only co-op player and this is restrictive to the online space.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Yeah, I did say while I played. However, if that is no longer the case, all I can say is that the game had a melee class as the OP, uncontested king of PvP for half a decade, and now it has a mage class.

What was the point again?

Your train of thought is so much up EQ butt, again I say, a game that isn't popular enough to be talked about in such massive detail without there being other players for possible conflicting opinions, that you're naturally refusing to see eye to eye.

Arc Lightning, with 50%+ casting speed, is a 1 sec cast time, guaranteed to hit long ranged nuke, that will one shot any class bar tank that doesn't have a shield or above 12,000 mdef (which is hard!).
And THIS is the limit of tab target, where it devolves into nothing but concluding a player contest from stats alone.

Keep being ignorant.

Right.

But again, what is the point of this?

Are you trying to say that tab target will always beat action? Because that is not the case.

Are you trying to say that a developer can set tab or action to be the best class in PvP as and when they wish? Why would this be an issue?

Again, I am asking you what the point of bringing this up even was. This aspect of the discussion here has nothing at all to do with EQ, or with EQ2, I am asking you what is the relevance of the fact that Archeage now has caster as top PvP right now.

I mean, you can't really even say that this is an action vs tab thing, because calling Archeage action combat in any form is something of a stretch (which is why I referred to Darkrunner as a melee class, not as an action combat class).

So again, I am asking - what is the point here?

NishUK

"And THIS is the limit of tab target, where it devolves into nothing but concluding a player contest from stats alone."

"Are you trying to say that tab target will always beat action?"

I have nothing else to say if it's too complex, carry on with EQ nostalgia....

Sol Raven

Dygz wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

i kinda put both of them in the same category as Action Combat MMORPGs
(mmorpgs where the absolute majority of the skills aren't required to have a target to be used)
(even tho i kinda prefer New world's bootleg dark souls combat over Lost arks isometric Moba looking action combat tho).

They are not the same, but OK.
New World is not an MMORPG.

Although New World may not have been incredible with it's PvE content, it is 100% an MMORPG.

NishUK wrote: »

Koreans, always focus on player competitive aspects at the forefront, I'd say pretty much as far away as possible to where no one can say that "I can play this alone".
In regards to action combat from B&S and BDO, they didn't go nearly as competitive and player need focused as they usually do, I think they were happy to settle with the project that is action combat existing in an mmo ,

This is exactly why the BNS PvP crowd left. It was dwindling for a while because of the lack of new content and proper balancing, and then they cemented the grave by implementing changes that weren't asked for and helped no one. Eventually, I stopped drinking the coolaid and left myself, because even though the rewards were good, what's the point of free shop currency from wins if you feel empty playing the game? Fighting the same people, waiting ages to get into a match (even during set hours they implemented to keep PvPers in the same timeframe, limiting when you can find a match), and not being surprised when you see leaderboards anymore because nobody new is playing the game enough anymore to get good enough to see that level. It became all so frustrating and eventually felt like just as much of a chore playing arena or 6v6 as it did to do daily quests.

NishUK wrote: »

which is a performance and netcode marvel and then attempt to build mmo systems around it, at which both of them failed pretty miserably. BDO even locked trading and limited marketplace/AH pricing as to put a massive halt on dedicated players making economy and progression look stupid!

Agreed. BNS performance and netcode was an absolute nightmare outside of Korea alone. Even topend systems with incredible internet access could struggle sometimes in both of these aspects. Eventually, they did away with 4 party alliance raids and limited it to 12 man, and raids still ran like wet dog shit.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

"And THIS is the limit of tab target, where it devolves into nothing but concluding a player contest from stats alone."

So, you got the part where I said that action is better for PvP in general, and I am talking about tab target as it relates to PvE, right?

And if this is something that we want to just ignore, how about we take in to consideration that the stats a player has are a result of how well they are playing all aspects of the game?

If I am playing the economic aspect of an MMORPG better than you, and this results in me having better gear (better stats) than you, I should be able to beat you in combat.

A players gear is a direct reflection of how well they are playing multiple aspects of the game. Even if a player is handed their gear, that means they are playing the multiplayer aspect of the game better than you, and thus deserve to beat you.

Why should this not be the case? If you want a game that does not have these aspects of the game as factors, play a game and/or genre that does not include these aspects of the game.

NishUK

Sol Raven wrote: »

Agreed. BNS performance and netcode was an absolute nightmare outside of Korea alone. Even topend systems with incredible internet access could struggle sometimes in both of these aspects. Eventually, they did away with 4 party alliance raids and limited it to 12 man, and raids still ran like wet dog shit.

Didn't experience Blade and Soul sadly but from playing BDO in the UK connecting to netherlands/germany I would say the game had excellent netcode.

I can't deny, that a tab target system, as ugly a potential as it is, might be suited more for America. That whole country is a whining baby when it comes to internet and netcode issues, I think their average ping is 80 or something and that is terrifying for any good action online so.

Sol Raven

NishUK wrote: »

Sol Raven wrote: »

Agreed. BNS performance and netcode was an absolute nightmare outside of Korea alone. Even topend systems with incredible internet access could struggle sometimes in both of these aspects. Eventually, they did away with 4 party alliance raids and limited it to 12 man, and raids still ran like wet dog shit.

Didn't experience Blade and Soul sadly but from playing BDO in the UK connecting to netherlands/germany I would say the game had excellent netcode.

I can't deny, that a tab target system, as ugly a potential as it is, might be suited more for America. That whole country is a whining baby when it comes to internet and netcode issues, I think their average ping is 80 or something and that is terrifying for any good action online so.

I would gladly play action over tab target at any cost. Tab target isn't nearly as satisfying in PvP.

Noaani

Sol Raven wrote: »

NishUK wrote: »

Sol Raven wrote: »

Agreed. BNS performance and netcode was an absolute nightmare outside of Korea alone. Even topend systems with incredible internet access could struggle sometimes in both of these aspects. Eventually, they did away with 4 party alliance raids and limited it to 12 man, and raids still ran like wet dog shit.

Didn't experience Blade and Soul sadly but from playing BDO in the UK connecting to netherlands/germany I would say the game had excellent netcode.

I can't deny, that a tab target system, as ugly a potential as it is, might be suited more for America. That whole country is a whining baby when it comes to internet and netcode issues, I think their average ping is 80 or something and that is terrifying for any good action online so.

I would gladly play action over tab target at any cost. Tab target isn't nearly as satisfying in PvP.

See, I agree with you.

However, action combat isn't nearly as satisfying in PvE, which is why I prefer tab.

NishUK

Noaani wrote: »

A tab target combat system is not all that great for PvP. Action combat is where it's at there. It makes what you do as a player more interesting, but also makes the player you are fighting more interesting.

However, when it comes to PvE, tab target is where it's at.

With tab target, there absolutely is less to the combat system from a players perspective. However, this leaves developers free to make up that difference on the encounter side of things.

If you work on the assumption that developers can develop content in either tab or action combat that will overwhelm players (they can), you then have to assume that they can develop content to give players as much or as little to do as they want, and that action or tab have no bearing on how intense it is to fight a PvE encounter.

Based on this, action combat gives developers less wiggle room on the encounter side of things than tab combat does meaning there is less room for variation in PvE content.

The other downside to this is that tab target is often boring on trash mobs, where as with action combat you still have that action combat system.

It is essentially only at the top end of PvE where action combat shortfalls become glaringly obvious, though they can be spotted in other aspects of you look.

Let's say, for instance, that an mmorpg is 90% open world, including huge caves/towers/labyrinths whatever and 10% raid encounter (where the doors are locked behind you or....instanced -vomit- ), are you focusing mmo's gameplay entirely on making accessible the co-ordination of a 10+ man group?

You said tab is crap on trash mobs, ofc that's correct but when did anyone ask for a world mainly littered with trash mobs? That's development and vision problems right there, I'd love to argue with someone who thinks that trash mobs should exist for the sole purpose of gold gaining or relief benefits which imo is for cheap entertainment.

"Top end PvE where action combat falls short off the mark"

When I say BDO is the future of mmorpg combat, I did not at all suggest that BDO was a good game, but there needs to be more understanding and experience from your end.
Some bosses in BDO really had mechanics that suited action combat well, purely from an action standpoint, nothing group or role reliance based (this is why I'll say it was massively flawed), you'd have to dodge and block appropriately or die savagely like in Dark Souls, which imo was and felt fantastic.
What needs to be considered those in stamina and cooldown limiter's as what you are definetly suggesting is that action combat is a complete spam fest of dodge/attack/cancel/roll/attack/duck/attack/dive....and then obviously will all this, sole reliance is key but group mechanics etc has devolved to "tard levels".

There is a simple evolution here, not a preference choice, if you apply the same limits to the tab target mmo's of the past played out then it's simply an upgrade of player input, balancing and excitement.

^ let me expand on that, ( tab target ) so a dev wants to make a mage feel great and powerful, they design a spell that has a lot of power, some range number and cast time, simple as that. Then with that you have simple vertical progression on gear etc and then we're left with a mage that simply does his job, "big dick deepz". For the user, they are satisfied with their progression and watching a hp bar massively depleted and allies are happy that they have it in group, then after a while this all becomes normal and meta. Then we're left with people saying something along the lines of "xxx mage is braindead easy, 1 click and dead, casting time is stupid fast with top gear, fuk devs" and all the "Toxicity" that people are used to on both a PvE and PvP front.

( Action combat / Hyrbrid ).... so a dev wants to mage a mage feel great and powerful, they design a spell that has a lot of power, it's got the typical + it requires aim. What does aim allow, all sorts of interesting add ons or power, user decision, from gearing because it has a skill involved or a "flaw", it requires you to hit the target (I'm talking about PvE enjoyment too btw!) which has always since FPS and LoL, been a point of true satisfaction or true dismay but it certainly makes things interesting and it encourages growth and discipline.
Then with that comes what the recieving user can do, well in a typical tab game they are restricted to whatever defensive abilities they have going for them, or die because they're the wrong class or a simple DD but in an action/hybrid game this is expanded and this is the important catch here (pvp)....

BOTH players are heavily involved, in the moment, from a reactionary and skill stand point and that is the essence of a multiplayer game, the caveats then of group cohesion and relieance on party members is dressed on after, including encounters appropriate to this

All you're focus is towards, is having almost pre-determined scenerio's.
Not to mention that Youtube guides etc sully the experience of battles only focused on orchestration and that is not just limited to the simple system of tab targetting.

What needs to be focused is the replay factor, you're view is grossly about limiting player input in both PvE and PvP to focus on the game and its completion but what other genre's and korean audience are trying to drive down the necks of people cursed by WoW/FF14 raid-gasm is not only are players the main content but that content is the only way to get true replayability and more importantly, provide appeal to people who have played other genre's of games that rely on the skill, adaptability and reaction of players.

I won't stand for your narrative, you are stagnating this genre with your views, as I said before, people like yourself are happy to have this as a 2nd rate game and with it some niche audience existing that likes to nerd over stats/gearscores/accomplishments and whatever else, this isn't a multiplayer game trait, it's a shared experience!

When Steven is explaining the weather system, he's having a "nerd" over shifting economies and reliance on other products, that is a multiplayer experience, that is player driven and choice factors and they will replay themselves without having to add content after content driving a book's worth of lore down your throat constantly + some scenerio's and cutscenes and whatever other crap and then you end up with an achievement that you can show off on reddit!
I'm not saying that it can't exist (getting a hugely off topic here in regards to combat) but to focus only on it is ridiculous and limiting.
How many times have people have played Summoner's Rift map, countless billions of times because it works, Riot pretend like they're all about content with CGI and adding a lore to Jinx over and over again but that has nothing to do with their game, what made them successful and the multiplayer experience.

But I have to stress I'm not a PvP or some Mafia boss looking to monopolize the economy "mad head", I want there to be avenues for everyone but the stubborness of people like yourself is that there can only be one, "this isn't your game", how can a fantasy game with multiple choices of avatar, progression, playstyles etc etc have a limited audience, tell me, logically. Even if you believe it to be logical I'll ignore it, I'm pretty much done here...

And I just want to say, those on about the importance of the end game have an extremely limited view on what makes a multiplayer game work and continue to work and attract new players.

Dygz

New World is not an MMO RPG. New World is an Open World MMO as described by the designers, themselves. Originally designed to be designed to be focused on PvP - which was so toxic, they decided to add in some PvE. The crafting is Survival Game style crafting.
It is not an RPG and is not trying to be an RPG.

BDO is not the future of Western MMORPG combat.
It is a staple of Eastern MMO Action/Hack and Slash "RPGs".
It could be the future of Western MMOs that are not RPGs.

Sol Raven

NishUK wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

A tab target combat system is not all that great for PvP. Action combat is where it's at there. It makes what you do as a player more interesting, but also makes the player you are fighting more interesting.

However, when it comes to PvE, tab target is where it's at.

With tab target, there absolutely is less to the combat system from a players perspective. However, this leaves developers free to make up that difference on the encounter side of things.

If you work on the assumption that developers can develop content in either tab or action combat that will overwhelm players (they can), you then have to assume that they can develop content to give players as much or as little to do as they want, and that action or tab have no bearing on how intense it is to fight a PvE encounter.

Based on this, action combat gives developers less wiggle room on the encounter side of things than tab combat does meaning there is less room for variation in PvE content.

The other downside to this is that tab target is often boring on trash mobs, where as with action combat you still have that action combat system.

It is essentially only at the top end of PvE where action combat shortfalls become glaringly obvious, though they can be spotted in other aspects of you look.

Let's say, for instance, that an mmorpg is 90% open world, including huge caves/towers/labyrinths whatever and 10% raid encounter (where the doors are locked behind you or....instanced -vomit- ), are you focusing mmo's gameplay entirely on making accessible the co-ordination of a 10+ man group?

You said tab is crap on trash mobs, ofc that's correct but when did anyone ask for a world mainly littered with trash mobs? That's development and vision problems right there, I'd love to argue with someone who thinks that trash mobs should exist for the sole purpose of gold gaining or relief benefits which imo is for cheap entertainment.

"Top end PvE where action combat falls short off the mark"

When I say BDO is the future of mmorpg combat, I did not at all suggest that BDO was a good game, but there needs to be more understanding and experience from your end.
Some bosses in BDO really had mechanics that suited action combat well, purely from an action standpoint, nothing group or role reliance based (this is why I'll say it was massively flawed), you'd have to dodge and block appropriately or die savagely like in Dark Souls, which imo was and felt fantastic.
What needs to be considered those in stamina and cooldown limiter's as what you are definetly suggesting is that action combat is a complete spam fest of dodge/attack/cancel/roll/attack/duck/attack/dive....and then obviously will all this, sole reliance is key but group mechanics etc has devolved to "tard levels".

There is a simple evolution here, not a preference choice, if you apply the same limits to the tab target mmo's of the past played out then it's simply an upgrade of player input, balancing and excitement.

^ let me expand on that, ( tab target ) so a dev wants to make a mage feel great and powerful, they design a spell that has a lot of power, some range number and cast time, simple as that. Then with that you have simple vertical progression on gear etc and then we're left with a mage that simply does his job, "big dick deepz". For the user, they are satisfied with their progression and watching a hp bar massively depleted and allies are happy that they have it in group, then after a while this all becomes normal and meta. Then we're left with people saying something along the lines of "xxx mage is braindead easy, 1 click and dead, casting time is stupid fast with top gear, fuk devs" and all the "Toxicity" that people are used to on both a PvE and PvP front.

( Action combat / Hyrbrid ).... so a dev wants to mage a mage feel great and powerful, they design a spell that has a lot of power, it's got the typical + it requires aim. What does aim allow, all sorts of interesting add ons or power, user decision, from gearing because it has a skill involved or a "flaw", it requires you to hit the target (I'm talking about PvE enjoyment too btw!) which has always since FPS and LoL, been a point of true satisfaction or true dismay but it certainly makes things interesting and it encourages growth and discipline.
Then with that comes what the recieving user can do, well in a typical tab game they are restricted to whatever defensive abilities they have going for them, or die because they're the wrong class or a simple DD but in an action/hybrid game this is expanded and this is the important catch here (pvp)....

BOTH players are heavily involved, in the moment, from a reactionary and skill stand point and that is the essence of a multiplayer game, the caveats then of group cohesion and relieance on party members is dressed on after, including encounters appropriate to this

All you're focus is towards, is having almost pre-determined scenerio's.
Not to mention that Youtube guides etc sully the experience of battles only focused on orchestration and that is not just limited to the simple system of tab targetting.

What needs to be focused is the replay factor, you're view is grossly about limiting player input in both PvE and PvP to focus on the game and its completion but what other genre's and korean audience are trying to drive down the necks of people cursed by WoW/FF14 raid-gasm is not only are players the main content but that content is the only way to get true replayability and more importantly, provide appeal to people who have played other genre's of games that rely on the skill, adaptability and reaction of players.

I won't stand for your narrative, you are stagnating this genre with your views, as I said before, people like yourself are happy to have this as a 2nd rate game and with it some niche audience existing that likes to nerd over stats/gearscores/accomplishments and whatever else, this isn't a multiplayer game trait, it's a shared experience!

When Steven is explaining the weather system, he's having a "nerd" over shifting economies and reliance on other products, that is a multiplayer experience, that is player driven and choice factors and they will replay themselves without having to add content after content driving a book's worth of lore down your throat constantly + some scenerio's and cutscenes and whatever other crap and then you end up with an achievement that you can show off on reddit!
I'm not saying that it can't exist (getting a hugely off topic here in regards to combat) but to focus only on it is ridiculous and limiting.
How many times have people have played Summoner's Rift map, countless billions of times because it works, Riot pretend like they're all about content with CGI and adding a lore to Jinx over and over again but that has nothing to do with their game, what made them successful and the multiplayer experience.

But I have to stress I'm not a PvP or some Mafia boss looking to monopolize the economy "mad head", I want there to be avenues for everyone but the stubborness of people like yourself is that there can only be one, "this isn't your game", how can a fantasy game with multiple choices of avatar, progression, playstyles etc etc have a limited audience, tell me, logically. Even if you believe it to be logical I'll ignore it, I'm pretty much done here...

And I just want to say, those on about the importance of the end game have an extremely limited view on what makes a multiplayer game work and continue to work and attract new players.

Couldn't agree more with all of these points. Honestly nothing to add on here other than from a PvP perspective, even when playing PvE I had to have action combat. PvE is already a snooze fest for me, add tab target combat system to it and holy moly, give me a shot or something, good lord.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

^ let me expand on that, ( tab target ) so a dev wants to make a mage feel great and powerful, they design a spell that has a lot of power, some range number and cast time, simple as that. Then with that you have simple vertical progression on gear etc and then we're left with a mage that simply does his job, "big dick deepz". For the user, they are satisfied with their progression and watching a hp bar massively depleted and allies are happy that they have it in group, then after a while this all becomes normal and meta. Then we're left with people saying something along the lines of "xxx mage is braindead easy, 1 click and dead, casting time is stupid fast with top gear, fuk devs" and all the "Toxicity" that people are used to on both a PvE and PvP front.

This entire paragraph does little more than show a total lack of understanding of tab target games. It is the equivalent of me saying "all you need to do in an action game is point your mouse at a mob and it dies".

You and I both know this is not true, and such a statement would show a total lack of understanding of action combat in it's entirety. If I were to display this level of lack of knowledge, you would stop replying to me (and that would be valid).

Keep in mind - for the entirety of any discussion you have in relation to action/tab combat, that the above statement about action combat is literally the level you are (or at least seem to be) operating at in regards to your knowledge of tab target combat.

What needs to be focused is the replay factor

I agree - and not just in terms of one encounter, but in terms of keeping players in the game for new content as well.

This is why variation in encounter design is key. This takes things back to my cup/ice/liquid analogy from a few posts back in this thread. Tab combat allows developers to make encounters with more variation. Encounters can actually be VASTLY different in a tab target game, where as with an action combat game, they are all somewhat the same, by necessity.

In terms of replayability, when you are talking about an end game with 30 - 40 raid encounters that are valid at any one time (assuming we are planning a somewhat standard raid game), then maximizing replayability dictates maximum variety in those encounters.

Even if you are trying to suggest that action combat can have more varitation on the same mob than tab target (this is an unfounded suggestion, if it is one you are making), it is better off having 30 encounters (the low end) that are all vastly different but where each plays the same each of the 15 or so times you kill them, than having 30 encounters that are all largely the same, but have slight variance each time you fight them.

I mean, I am all for talking about how replayability is key - it is as good a point to make in terms of why tab target is inherently better as anything I can come up with.

not only are players the main content but that content is the only way to get true replayability and more importantly, provide appeal to people who have played other genre's of games that rely on the skill, adaptability and reaction of players.

This is all fairly untrue.

Again, look no further than existing games as proof of this.

I'll say it one more time, if you like PvP and prefer it, that's great. However, if you are going to make a point about something to me, make sure it is one that you can back up objectively, or state it as subjective.

The simple, objective FACT is that PvE MMORPG games have a longer life, and maintain a healthier population than PvP focused MMORPG games. Make what ever excuses you want for it, but that is the objective fact.

Making players each others content is an inherently bad design for a persistent world.

NishUK

Dygz wrote: »

New World is not an MMO RPG. New World is an Open World MMO as described by the designers, themselves. Originally designed to be designed to be focused on PvP - which was so toxic, they decided to add in some PvE. The crafting is Survival Game style crafting.
It is not an RPG and is not trying to be an RPG.

BDO is not the future of Western MMORPG combat.
It is a staple of Eastern MMO Action/Hack and Slash "RPGs".
It could be the future of Western MMOs that are not RPGs.

It competed in the same market therefore it is, unless you're saying that 'RPG' doesn't mean roleplaying game but means 'Raid Party game', then I'm going to start questioning my fellow man here and their obsession for needed systems and attempting to seperate audiences when the tech and experience is there for us to come together.

Quite sad if we're going to seperate everything into their own categories.

SirChancelot

Noaani wrote: »

SirChancelot wrote: »

NishUK wrote: »

Just look at league of legends, we need casuals happy to earn "gold rank" and dedicated players happy and proud earn a little bit more with platinum and beyond, not this quit and wait mentality, waiting for the next expansion and not taking it as their main gaming experience!

/ epic rant "completed!"

I can really appreciate that approach

So, maybe you can help me out here.

Are you suggesting players should stick with the game even if they are not enjoying it, or are you saying the developers should do what they can to ensure people continue to enjoy the game?

One of these I absolutely agree with, the other I can't see how anyone could think.

I guess to compare to the LoL analogy it would mean making ashes fun to play at all 'competitive' levels. Maybe I don't have a big guild to go down the biggest baddest raid bosses, but I should still have content to enjoy, find challenging, and not get shit on by other players who have more time and money.

Child Item