"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2022
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.
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.
I was thinking about what action combat has that tab doesn't and the main 3 things I could come up with is verticality, precision aiming and action dodges. Are there any tab games that utilize those mechanics? Can you think up any more features that can only work in action combat? Cause I think I can come up with a few intricate boss encounters that use all three of those across all types of classes, though I'm not sure if I'd be able to make hundreds of unique fights with them. But then again, outside of now infamously awesome and incredible EQ(2), I don't think there's any pve mmo that has over a 100 absolutely unique top lvl fights.
I was thinking about what action combat has that tab doesn't and the main 3 things I could come up with is verticality, precision aiming and action dodges. Are there any tab games that utilize those mechanics? Can you think up any more features that can only work in action combat? Cause I think I can come up with a few intricate boss encounters that use all three of those across all types of classes, though I'm not sure if I'd be able to make hundreds of unique fights with them. But then again, outside of now infamously awesome and incredible EQ(2), I don't think there's any pve mmo that has over a 100 absolutely unique top lvl fights.
Isn't GW2 the poster child of "hybrid" combat? So I'd imagine there's some overlap of abilities/actions between the two systems. Are there any purer tab games that utilize action dodge as a general mechanic and not as smth class-based?
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Quite sad if we're going to seperate everything into their own categories.
Games have categories. Video games have categories. MMOs have categories.
An RPG is not designed the same way as an FPS. An RPG is not designed the same way as a Survival Game.
An RPG is not designed the same way as a Throne War Simulator.
That doesn't mean that every MMORPG has to have tab-target or be tab-target only.
It does mean that an MMORPG should not have combat as fast as a Hack & Slash... because then what people do is Hack & Slash and completely ignore the RP.
Which is one of my issues with BDO. In BDO, I never feel like I'm playing a role. I don't feel like I'm playing a class.
It feels like I've chosen a character in Mortal Combat - only that character is moving through a 3D open world.
I press a bunch of buttons and defeat a bunch of stuff. And then move to the next match.
NWO did a great job with actionc ombat.
We'll have to see how well Ashes can do with their hybrid design.
Could be that the hybrid design will be the future of Western MMORPGs.
I agree that EQ tab-target is too slow and boring. As is what I've seen of Pathfinder combat.
I was thinking about what action combat has that tab doesn't and the main 3 things I could come up with is verticality, precision aiming and action dodges. Are there any tab games that utilize those mechanics? Can you think up any more features that can only work in action combat? Cause I think I can come up with a few intricate boss encounters that use all three of those across all types of classes, though I'm not sure if I'd be able to make hundreds of unique fights with them. But then again, outside of now infamously awesome and incredible EQ(2), I don't think there's any pve mmo that has over a 100 absolutely unique top lvl fights.
This is probably not the most useful way to look at this anyway. I'll just 'complain' again. Even discussing 'Tab' vs 'Action' is meaningless. It's like getting two buckets for collecting sand on a beach and then labeling them differently based on which TYPE of random seashell they contain when you scoop a big pile of sand up.
Just ignore all of that. If you want good bosses, design the experience you want/need the players to have and work backwards, and whatever comes out, build. Ashes' encounter team is doing this already. The only question here is 'whose expectations are they going to annoy?'
'Action' Players - "I dodged that but the AoE is so big in this game that it doesn't let me truly dodge!"
'Tab' Players - "I can't do anything because I have to be moving around all the time like a maniac!"
Or they could just design it properly (evading to the outer range of abilities lowers damage for example) and make BOTH those extremist sides upset like they already seem to be doing. Same thing for higher end PvE.
"16 man content? That's barely a raid at all! Where are my mechanics?"
"40 man content? This is just DPS check vs random wipes/convoluted mechanics/add swarms."
Somewhere in there is a sweet spot where you just have to accept that a tradeoff had to be made and live with losing whoever is hardcore against it. And if you say 'Hybrid' Combat, low mobility, Split Body animation, you've basically already decided what that spot is because you design these things by designing your goals and constraints, not 'I want this game to have good PvP' or 'I want this game to have good PvE'.
That'd be the most realistic reason why it's taking so long, too, wouldn't it? Combat systems don't take THIS long. Too many good bases that you could just reasonably 'copy' if you knew your targeted constraints. They're just probably working out those things still.
Isn't GW2 the poster child of "hybrid" combat? So I'd imagine there's some overlap of abilities/actions between the two systems. Are there any purer tab games that utilize action dodge as a general mechanic and not as smth class-based?
Umm
WoW's monk class?
Grasping at straws here... 😂
Dodging is more of a staple in the action RPG genre
Just ignore all of that. If you want good bosses, design the experience you want/need the players to have and work backwards, and whatever comes out, build. Ashes' encounter team is doing this already. The only question here is 'whose expectations are they going to annoy?'
Well yeah, that's exactly what I was doing in my head, but I was trying to figure out what kind of boss could I come up with that would illustrate AC's features the best, which is why I asked about what those features are, outside of the things I've listed.
My thought process started out from vague basic mechanics which would then be supported by the detailed combat system changes, when required. But to know what the basics are - you gotta look at what action combat does that tab doesn't.
Dodging is more of a staple in the action RPG genre
Which was my point exactly. If there's barely any tab games where action dodging is a general mechanic rather than a class skill - then it's mainly an AC feature.
Just ignore all of that. If you want good bosses, design the experience you want/need the players to have and work backwards, and whatever comes out, build. Ashes' encounter team is doing this already. The only question here is 'whose expectations are they going to annoy?'
Well yeah, that's exactly what I was doing in my head, but I was trying to figure out what kind of boss could I come up with that would illustrate AC's features the best, which is why I asked about what those features are, outside of the things I've listed.
My thought process started out from vague basic mechanics which would then be supported by the detailed combat system changes, when required. But to know what the basics are - you gotta look at what action combat does that tab doesn't.
Well, in short, it 'doesn't matter'.
Even though AoC will require most players to choose at least 1/4 'Action Combat Skills', it's unlikely that those who do choose to do this will be relegated to being less effective. We could assume that they will make it so that certain bosses are easier to beat with one form or another, but if they don't do that, then it'll be limited.
The current design is already moreso 'you can just choose to use your reticle or not use it for most things'. But as for the concept overall... there's nothing innate to Action that is a 'positive feature' in an MMO except the one thing many players don't actually want. The higher awareness requirement and skill gap (predictive flows, feints, etc). Verticality is achievable in tab games using just basic options, but doesn't enhance most content. Evasion skills are okay but in larger battles, just 'using a Tab Target ability in a specific way' does the job equally well or better. Precision Aiming is probably the best option.
Anyways maybe you can get something out of this discussion from last year. Mostly just that page, which is a big read in itself.
Isn't GW2 the poster child of "hybrid" combat? So I'd imagine there's some overlap of abilities/actions between the two systems. Are there any purer tab games that utilize action dodge as a general mechanic and not as smth class-based?
As has been said, most tab target games have abilities for things like dodge and block. In most cases, they have secondary effects as well.
Sure, tab games make them class skills and not all classes get them, but it makes more sense for a mage to cast a spell than to dexterously jump out of the way. It also makes more sense for a tank in full plate armor with a shield to use said shield as doing a combat roll in plate armor isn't really a "thing".
So, in an action game, you press a butting and dodge, while in a tab game, you press a button and dodge - if that is what your class does. If not, you block, or you cast a shield spell, or what ever else it is that your class does.
Basically, active dodge is not the poster child for action combat, because all tab games have active defenses, tab games just have more variety (generally speaking).
Thanks for the suggestions, you guys. I've now tried NWO and BDO, though both for less than 20 hours, at this point.
NWO? Tried this one, first. It was more static-feeling - which just kind of happens, as an MMO gets older. The action combat was neat to see, but it's hard to imagine that it will be like-able in group PvE content. Have tried Fighter and Ranger thus far for just a few hours, each. It was odd that they give you so many abilities at such a low level - but it was VERY handy in getting to know the *feel* of the classes. Graphics are pretty dated, but the game has an okay feel.
BDO? Such wasted potential.... Pop-up ads to sell you in-game stuff - in the MIDDLE of playing, I can't figure out how to get the combos list off the screen, there's glowing ads in the *normal*, all-the-time UI. I actually kind of like the 'T' feature where it will auto-walk your character to the mission objective, but I wouldn't include it in the "ideal MMO". The engine itself is great, though! Looks and feels very modern - but I'm getting the impression that with its action-based system there's probably not a lot of difference in the feel between the different classes. Sure, there's a bunch of them - but at this point, I can already tell that probably the only big difference in their individual feel will be if they are more melee or ranged-based.
Thanks again for the suggestions, gang. I'll poke around a bit more in each of these, as I want to have insight into their crafting/trading systems. Overall, the experience has absolutely reinforced the notion that Tab > Action, for MMO's - at least in PvE. I could see an Action-based system for PvP, but I know lag/connection will factor in. Maybe we'll get something unique in combat between open-world combat and Arena combat, in Ashes (asides from the Champions-system).
From my own personal experience, I enjoyed the action combat of Black Desert Online the best. I have played other action-combat games from Tera, ESO's hybrid, BDO, BnS (briefly), GW2 and probably a few more that I can't remember.
BDO is the only one, in my opinion, that had a high skill ceiling. It did animation canceling much better than any other game I have played. If I could take BDO's combat and put it into any other game, I would be thrilled.
As a Tekken fan, BDO really showcased the potential for fighting mechanics in the mmo space but I have to side with the fact also that it completely avoided group mechanics that the genre is known for.
I look forward to its potential being expanded in the future to bring in a mass audience wanting excellent diversity in gameplay but right now it clearly just can't impress the mmorpg tab base enough and I'm clearly disappointed.
As a Tekken fan, BDO really showcased the potential for fighting mechanics in the mmo space but I have to side with the fact also that it completely avoided group mechanics that the genre is known for.
I look forward to its potential being expanded in the future to bring in a mass audience wanting excellent diversity in gameplay but right now it clearly just can't impress the mmorpg tab base enough and I'm clearly disappointed.
As a combat system, something like what BDO (or Tekken) uses is great when it is two players squaring off against each other.
That is where it shines.
Why use it anywhere else, when there are better options for other situations?
@Noaani I'm going to turn a new leaf and attempt to stay calm and composed instead of straight out slam games that don't have all the required mechanics to allow not only a varience of competitive levels but don't feel as active and intuitive to play.
Game feel is also really important to me and I definetly feel it should embody the role that you're playing, If I'm a high end Rogue I would love to view a cartwheel with no hands, stabbing something, kicking off of it's body and that mobility requires more precise input and is a viewable, distinctly unique and definetly has a role in gameplay. Where as in WoW's tab and traditional mechanics, Rogue is an alternative gameplay style to Warrior ie similar attack and mobility patterns and to dodge you simply activate a dodge skill and defensively there is no difference between an average player and a great player.
Before I said Archeage was a "hybrid", more accurately it is a tab target system (besides some auto attacks and other skills) with more mobility and certain iframes that are closing the gap between tab and action.The mobility and reaction to enemy mobility aspect of this game is an important distinction from WoW, instead of WoW's focus in managing cooldowns and rotations while "roaming" around opponents.
AA slims down that "DPS Rotation" mastery and focuses a lot more on mobility choices and the ranged capabilities of characters and it gives a much clearer picture, viewably, on who is melee and who is ranged with clearer windows of engagement/disengagement and defensive clarity.
Why did I bring AA up, because it's a tab game that works better for open world combat, which some people see as the main part of an mmo experience and imo is a broader scope of one. I also think it will hold true to a boss+add encounter experience just as well, the crucks is maintaining the Trinity system which is kept in a simple check due to less random mobilty from everyone in a game like WoW but I feel can be corrected with ingeniuety. Do I think AA tab is a winner for Ashes....no, because not only doesn't it bring all newer competitive mechanics but tab target systems naturally promote raw vertical progression stats from gear (as opposed action already being good and just make gear bonuses specialize class skills), as it's one of the only ways to elevate tab combat, which imo is all very bad for taking people away from the current popular games from other genres as I'm completely against GS barriers in the pursuit of a truly massive and competitively accessible multiplayer experience.
Also, tab target suffers really badly from meta builds and playstyles as there are limited ways to play under tab mechanics really, it's much more exciting and thrilling on the action side of life to see people having a "great day" or a "poor day", it's refreshing.
BDO has MANY flaws,
it's spammy and the mobility is too high but if it's made way less spammy and mobile then it has the potential to be an excellent base.
The focus is the trinity system though, you can't have characters too solo reilant and flying away in the distance like a DBZ character when you've designed all these nice classes to promote amplification and synergy. That is the real easyiness and accessibilty of WoW and FF14, to keep formations and things orderly due to the lack of mobilty and mechanics and then ofc with that, devs just purely focus on the encounters then, but that is specifically for raid mmo's only and as we know, both these 2 have ditched their open world, shamefully.
There is a lot to be evulated and polished for the future of action combat (including appropriate tutorials and undertanding), I think I can agree with Hybrid to cut time for sure or just purely on the basis to make it reilable. What I can never agree with though, as a person who looks at things first from a competitive stand point, as do many others who are taking "refuge" in other mulitplayer genre's is to continue leaning on tab target as the feel of it is, in a nutshell, simply not exciting enough for the year 2010+ and beyond.
I want this mmo to draw in A LOT of players, I want it to have "big boy" expert players streaming on twitch, I want to see loads of guys like myself excited with their blood pumping over perfecting themselves and their trade and tab will never do that I'm sorry.
Noaani I'm going to turn a new leaf and attempt to stay calm and composed instead of straight out slam games that don't have all the required mechanics to allow not only a varience of competitive levels but don't feel as active and intuitive to play.
Game feel is also really important to me and I definetly feel it should embody the role that you're playing, If I'm a high end Rogue I would love to view a cartwheel with no hands, stabbing something, kicking off of it's body and that mobility requires more precise input and is a viewable, distinctly unique and definetly has a role in gameplay. Where as in WoW's tab and traditional mechanics, Rogue is an alternative gameplay style to Warrior ie similar attack and mobility patterns and to dodge you simply activate a dodge skill and defensively there is no difference between an average player and a great player.
Before I said Archeage was a "hybrid", more accurately it is a tab target system (besides some auto attacks and other skills) with more mobility and certain iframes that are closing the gap between tab and action.The mobility and reaction to enemy mobility aspect of this game is an important distinction from WoW, instead of WoW's focus in managing cooldowns and rotations while "roaming" around opponents.
AA slims down that "DPS Rotation" mastery and focuses a lot more on mobility choices and the ranged capabilities of characters and it gives a much clearer picture, viewably, on who is melee and who is ranged with clearer windows of engagement/disengagement and defensive clarity.
Why did I bring AA up, because it's a tab game that works better for open world combat, which some people see as the main part of an mmo experience and imo is a broader scope of one. I also think it will hold true to a boss+add encounter experience just as well, the crucks is maintaining the Trinity system which is kept in a simple check due to less random mobilty from everyone in a game like WoW but I feel can be corrected with ingeniuety. Do I think AA tab is a winner for Ashes....no, because not only doesn't it bring all newer competitive mechanics but tab target systems naturally promote raw vertical progression stats from gear (as opposed action already being good and just make gear bonuses specialize class skills), as it's one of the only ways to elevate tab combat, which imo is all very bad for taking people away from the current popular games from other genres as I'm completely against GS barriers in the pursuit of a truly massive and competitively accessible multiplayer experience.
Also, tab target suffers really badly from meta builds and playstyles as there are limited ways to play under tab mechanics really, it's much more exciting and thrilling on the action side of life to see people having a "great day" or a "poor day", it's refreshing.
BDO has MANY flaws,
it's spammy and the mobility is too high but if it's made way less spammy and mobile then it has the potential to be an excellent base.
The focus is the trinity system though, you can't have characters too solo reilant and flying away in the distance like a DBZ character when you've designed all these nice classes to promote amplification and synergy. That is the real easyiness and accessibilty of WoW and FF14, to keep formations and things orderly due to the lack of mobilty and mechanics and then ofc with that, devs just purely focus on the encounters then, but that is specifically for raid mmo's only and as we know, both these 2 have ditched their open world, shamefully.
There is a lot to be evulated and polished for the future of action combat (including appropriate tutorials and undertanding), I think I can agree with Hybrid to cut time for sure or just purely on the basis to make it reilable. What I can never agree with though, as a person who looks at things first from a competitive stand point, as do many others who are taking "refuge" in other mulitplayer genre's is to continue leaning on tab target as the feel of it is, in a nutshell, simply not exciting enough for the year 2010+ and beyond.
I want this mmo to draw in A LOT of players, I want it to have "big boy" expert players streaming on twitch, I want to see loads of guys like myself excited with their blood pumping over perfecting themselves and their trade and tab will never do that I'm sorry.
So, here's the thing.
All of the "issues" you talk about here (WoW's lack of mobility, stat creep etc), these are all development choices individual games make. They are not requirements of a tab target system.
Every largely successful MMORPG to date has been content focused. You are asking for a shift from that, rather than asking for a new genre.
Now, on to the issue with your last paragraph. If those things all happen, the game has a worthwhile life of 6 - 9 months. You may well enjoy it for that 6 - 9 months, but Steven will be out millions of dollars.
An MMO needs to be active and popular for either years or decades. Neither action combat nor PvP has managed that.
As such, it makes FAR more sense for developers to meet your desires with a game that isn't an MMORPG and thus doesn't take nearly ass much time or money to develop. This also means it won't be a persistent world, which will extend the life of that PvP game somewhat. Idon't get how you don't see that you are better served with a game genre that is NOT the MMORPG genre, and that continuing to hang around this genre will not only result in disappointment for you, it will result in disappointment for people wanting an MMORPG.
I live turn based strategy games. However, you will not see me ever ask for X-COM style combat in an MMORPG. I am smart enough to know that such gameplay is better found elsewhere.
Instead of basically saying "WoW and FF14 are the only ones to show longevity and all others have proven to die", which, to any experienced mmo veteran is a completely unfair statement as we don't know of their potential thanks to corporate greed practices (+ they stuck to an easy practice of raid supplying and ignored open world and pvp improvements), why don't you explain why combat alone is a turn off and a no go zone for a genre? you're locking the genre, I'd appreciate it you you'd place some effort in providing something that can be argued against but I think you're fully aware of what you're doing. I'm not scared because Steven has played and felt the essence of Lineage 2 and Archeage, I will not shit the bed that badly if Steven decides to go close to AA but he will not alter further in the past from that, you should be the most concerned here
Also you completely disregarded my point on gear and tab combat, you know full well what makes tab combat richer and that's to increase power, casting/attack speed.
And I literally can't believe you, I said about accessibility but here you are, literally saying an mmorpg can only be a certain way and others must adapt or play a different game...it's completely selfish, you're priority is way too high on raid's being the only reliable mmorpg entertainment.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
An MMO needs to be active and popular for either years or decades. Neither action combat nor PvP has managed that.
On the pvp front, Eve online is older than wow.
To the other half, action combat is newer, the same way that tab was new at one point. Imagine if people who played muds had your logic and said it's the only way to do things since that was the only successful games prior to tab games. It's easy to see that the combat system is popular if you look outside of MMOs and it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking imagine them in an MMO.
On the topic of who is better served by MMOs, the games you mentioned don't use their persistent world for much. They use them for leveling and sometimes side activities like daily quests but then the bulk of their content is removed from the world and put in instances. If anyones desires are better met with a different game than an MMO, it's yours. You routinely complain about your content being in the persistent world so why do you think you are in a position to say who would be better served by an MMO?
An MMO needs to be active and popular for either years or decades. Neither action combat nor PvP has managed that.
On the pvp front, Eve online is older than wow.
Indeed.
However...
There was a recent Fan Fest for EVE. Lots of presentations, announcements about the plans for the future of the game, that sort of thing.
You know what announcement got BY FAR the biggest cheer from this audience of die hard EVE fans?
Changes to Excel.
That is the kind of game EVE is targeted at. Not typical PvP gamers - especially not those that talk about how important "feeling" is to them in a game.
EVE is aimed at those that think. It happens to have PvP (though I played it for a year without any PvP at all, so...), but that is not its target.
Indeed action combat is new, and tab is old. And indeed MUD's were a thing before tab.
The thing is, back in the day, MUD's were called MUD's,and they still are. They still exist. MMORPG's with tab target combat spun out or them, they didnt supplant them.
Why then should action combat supplant tab? Should we not be arguing that action combat be a new genre to spin off from the MMORPG genre?
I mean, as I said earlier, this is how things happen. RTS games spun out of turn based strategy when the tech allowed for it, they didnt supplant turn based strategy. MOBA's spin out of RTS games, they didnt replace them.
I simply do not get why we are asking for action to supplant tab, rather than being its own thing, in a genre that is better suited to its particular pros and cons.
To me, this seems like it would be better for literally everybody.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
An MMO needs to be active and popular for either years or decades. Neither action combat nor PvP has managed that.
On the pvp front, Eve online is older than wow.
Indeed.
However...
There was a recent Fan Fest for EVE. Lots of presentations, announcements about the plans for the future of the game, that sort of thing.
You know what announcement got BY FAR the biggest cheer from this audience of die hard EVE fans?
Changes to Excel.
That is the kind of game EVE is targeted at. Not typical PvP gamers - especially not those that talk about how important "feeling" is to them in a game.
EVE is aimed at those that think. It happens to have PvP (though I played it for a year without any PvP at all, so...), but that is not its target.
Indeed action combat is new, and tab is old. And indeed MUD's were a thing before tab.
The thing is, back in the day, MUD's were called MUD's,and they still are. They still exist. MMORPG's with tab target combat spun out or them, they didnt supplant them.
Why then should action combat supplant tab? Should we not be arguing that action combat be a new genre to spin off from the MMORPG genre?
I mean, as I said earlier, this is how things happen. RTS games spun out of turn based strategy when the tech allowed for it, they didnt supplant turn based strategy. MOBA's spin out of RTS games, they didnt replace them.
I simply do not get why we are asking for action to supplant tab, rather than being its own thing, in a genre that is better suited to its particular pros and cons.
To mez, this seems like it would be better for literally everybody.
I wonder if you look at another MMO announcements, what were the things people got excited for? WoW announced a new race, customizable dragons, crafting, and a new form of flying. None of those are pve or pvp content so by your logic, if one of those got the most "cheers," wow players don't care about pve or pvp.
Point i'm trying to make is people usually get excited for the new shinny thing which isn't always a primary gameplay loop.
Action and tab are both third person methods of controlling your character. WoW has used free aim skills to supplement their tab combat from the beginning. I think we consider them the same genre because they are the same gameplay wise. If you think it should be a new genre's then cool but I'm not sure why that matters.
why don't you explain why combat alone is a turn off and a no go zone for a genre?
I have done this, or at least what I am assuming you are asking for here.
Action combat necessitates that top end PvE has less variety to it. It is simply not up to the task of allowing for the kind of encounter variety that tab target can offer.
However, it is better for PvP.
As such, a game with action combat is best served focusing on PvP, and accepting that its PvE game will be lacklustre at best. I am fairly sure you and I agree on this.
On the other hand, tab target is shit for PvP, but allows for more variation in PvE. Thus, a game that is tab target based us best served ignoring PvP, and focusing on PvE.
Since that action game is PvP focused, and since this allows players to make their own stories (when a player is your enemy, the developers cant write the story there), this means that action/PvP game is best served focusing on systems and mechanics, without as much of a concern for quests and storytelling (not complete neglect here, just less focus). You also want a players ability to be the major factor in deciding a characters over all strength.
That PvE/tab target game, however, needs to focus on the story of its PvE. Since players aren't the prime antagonist, the developers need to explain to us why we want to kill that big bad guy. This means storytelling and quests are far more important here. In such a game, you would want a characters over all strength to be based on a cumulation of activities that player has been successful on with that character, basically how well they have played the game as a whole.
Even aspects such as a persistent world may be a thing the developer of an action combat/PvP game may decide to avoid, as this is the cause of gear gap between players, leaving some groups of players in situations where they are never able to compete due to not having the gear, and the upgrades they need are only to be attained via competing against other, which they can't do because they don't have good enough gear. If neither quests/lore nor gear is to be much of a factor, there is no actual point to a persistent world.
In the tab/PvE game, this isnt too much of an issue. Since players aren't fighting each other, there is far less of a concern in relation to gear gap.
So, as an answer to your question above (or what I assume it is you are asking), and also as an answer to @mcstackerson above, if you follow the logic of an action combat game and a tab target game, you get the two following games (assuming competent developers for both).
One is somewhat fast paced combat, with a higher skill entry point but also a higher general combat skill ceiling, has PvP as its focus but basically no PvE worth talking about, has no real need for quests or lore, gear is a minor factor in relation to player ability, and the game doesn't necessarily need a persistent world - an argument could be made that it would be a better game without it.
The second game has a slower pace of combat, with a lower entry level skill requirement, but has its scaling in terms of skill requirement and pace contained within the content, rather than the combat system - meaning both can literally go as high as developers want, or as low as they want, leading to massive variety in gameplay. This game has no PvP, but has strong storytelling, and solid quests, and gear is important and a reflection of how well a player has played the game. A persistent world is a given for this game.
To me, when I look over the two games above, I see two different genres. They are as different from each other as an MMORPG is from a BR, or turn based strategy is from RTS.
I simply do not understand the perspective that action is taking over tab - action combat in games should take it's rightful place as a new genre.
Comments
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.
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.
PvP | Hardcore | Organized & Dedicated
See, I agree with you.
However, action combat isn't nearly as satisfying in PvE, which is why I prefer tab.
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.
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.
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.
PvP | Hardcore | Organized & Dedicated
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
GW2 had action dodges in is tab mode?
An RPG is not designed the same way as an FPS. An RPG is not designed the same way as a Survival Game.
An RPG is not designed the same way as a Throne War Simulator.
That doesn't mean that every MMORPG has to have tab-target or be tab-target only.
It does mean that an MMORPG should not have combat as fast as a Hack & Slash... because then what people do is Hack & Slash and completely ignore the RP.
Which is one of my issues with BDO. In BDO, I never feel like I'm playing a role. I don't feel like I'm playing a class.
It feels like I've chosen a character in Mortal Combat - only that character is moving through a 3D open world.
I press a bunch of buttons and defeat a bunch of stuff. And then move to the next match.
NWO did a great job with actionc ombat.
We'll have to see how well Ashes can do with their hybrid design.
Could be that the hybrid design will be the future of Western MMORPGs.
I agree that EQ tab-target is too slow and boring. As is what I've seen of Pathfinder combat.
This is probably not the most useful way to look at this anyway. I'll just 'complain' again. Even discussing 'Tab' vs 'Action' is meaningless. It's like getting two buckets for collecting sand on a beach and then labeling them differently based on which TYPE of random seashell they contain when you scoop a big pile of sand up.
Just ignore all of that. If you want good bosses, design the experience you want/need the players to have and work backwards, and whatever comes out, build. Ashes' encounter team is doing this already. The only question here is 'whose expectations are they going to annoy?'
'Action' Players - "I dodged that but the AoE is so big in this game that it doesn't let me truly dodge!"
'Tab' Players - "I can't do anything because I have to be moving around all the time like a maniac!"
Or they could just design it properly (evading to the outer range of abilities lowers damage for example) and make BOTH those extremist sides upset like they already seem to be doing. Same thing for higher end PvE.
"16 man content? That's barely a raid at all! Where are my mechanics?"
"40 man content? This is just DPS check vs random wipes/convoluted mechanics/add swarms."
Somewhere in there is a sweet spot where you just have to accept that a tradeoff had to be made and live with losing whoever is hardcore against it. And if you say 'Hybrid' Combat, low mobility, Split Body animation, you've basically already decided what that spot is because you design these things by designing your goals and constraints, not 'I want this game to have good PvP' or 'I want this game to have good PvE'.
That'd be the most realistic reason why it's taking so long, too, wouldn't it? Combat systems don't take THIS long. Too many good bases that you could just reasonably 'copy' if you knew your targeted constraints. They're just probably working out those things still.
Umm
WoW's monk class?
Grasping at straws here... 😂
Dodging is more of a staple in the action RPG genre
My thought process started out from vague basic mechanics which would then be supported by the detailed combat system changes, when required. But to know what the basics are - you gotta look at what action combat does that tab doesn't.
Which was my point exactly. If there's barely any tab games where action dodging is a general mechanic rather than a class skill - then it's mainly an AC feature.
Well, in short, it 'doesn't matter'.
Even though AoC will require most players to choose at least 1/4 'Action Combat Skills', it's unlikely that those who do choose to do this will be relegated to being less effective. We could assume that they will make it so that certain bosses are easier to beat with one form or another, but if they don't do that, then it'll be limited.
The current design is already moreso 'you can just choose to use your reticle or not use it for most things'. But as for the concept overall... there's nothing innate to Action that is a 'positive feature' in an MMO except the one thing many players don't actually want. The higher awareness requirement and skill gap (predictive flows, feints, etc). Verticality is achievable in tab games using just basic options, but doesn't enhance most content. Evasion skills are okay but in larger battles, just 'using a Tab Target ability in a specific way' does the job equally well or better. Precision Aiming is probably the best option.
Anyways maybe you can get something out of this discussion from last year. Mostly just that page, which is a big read in itself.
As has been said, most tab target games have abilities for things like dodge and block. In most cases, they have secondary effects as well.
Sure, tab games make them class skills and not all classes get them, but it makes more sense for a mage to cast a spell than to dexterously jump out of the way. It also makes more sense for a tank in full plate armor with a shield to use said shield as doing a combat roll in plate armor isn't really a "thing".
So, in an action game, you press a butting and dodge, while in a tab game, you press a button and dodge - if that is what your class does. If not, you block, or you cast a shield spell, or what ever else it is that your class does.
Basically, active dodge is not the poster child for action combat, because all tab games have active defenses, tab games just have more variety (generally speaking).
NWO? Tried this one, first. It was more static-feeling - which just kind of happens, as an MMO gets older. The action combat was neat to see, but it's hard to imagine that it will be like-able in group PvE content. Have tried Fighter and Ranger thus far for just a few hours, each. It was odd that they give you so many abilities at such a low level - but it was VERY handy in getting to know the *feel* of the classes. Graphics are pretty dated, but the game has an okay feel.
BDO? Such wasted potential.... Pop-up ads to sell you in-game stuff - in the MIDDLE of playing, I can't figure out how to get the combos list off the screen, there's glowing ads in the *normal*, all-the-time UI. I actually kind of like the 'T' feature where it will auto-walk your character to the mission objective, but I wouldn't include it in the "ideal MMO". The engine itself is great, though! Looks and feels very modern - but I'm getting the impression that with its action-based system there's probably not a lot of difference in the feel between the different classes. Sure, there's a bunch of them - but at this point, I can already tell that probably the only big difference in their individual feel will be if they are more melee or ranged-based.
Thanks again for the suggestions, gang. I'll poke around a bit more in each of these, as I want to have insight into their crafting/trading systems. Overall, the experience has absolutely reinforced the notion that Tab > Action, for MMO's - at least in PvE. I could see an Action-based system for PvP, but I know lag/connection will factor in. Maybe we'll get something unique in combat between open-world combat and Arena combat, in Ashes (asides from the Champions-system).
BDO is the only one, in my opinion, that had a high skill ceiling. It did animation canceling much better than any other game I have played. If I could take BDO's combat and put it into any other game, I would be thrilled.
As a Tekken fan, BDO really showcased the potential for fighting mechanics in the mmo space but I have to side with the fact also that it completely avoided group mechanics that the genre is known for.
I look forward to its potential being expanded in the future to bring in a mass audience wanting excellent diversity in gameplay but right now it clearly just can't impress the mmorpg tab base enough and I'm clearly disappointed.
As a combat system, something like what BDO (or Tekken) uses is great when it is two players squaring off against each other.
That is where it shines.
Why use it anywhere else, when there are better options for other situations?
Game feel is also really important to me and I definetly feel it should embody the role that you're playing, If I'm a high end Rogue I would love to view a cartwheel with no hands, stabbing something, kicking off of it's body and that mobility requires more precise input and is a viewable, distinctly unique and definetly has a role in gameplay. Where as in WoW's tab and traditional mechanics, Rogue is an alternative gameplay style to Warrior ie similar attack and mobility patterns and to dodge you simply activate a dodge skill and defensively there is no difference between an average player and a great player.
Before I said Archeage was a "hybrid", more accurately it is a tab target system (besides some auto attacks and other skills) with more mobility and certain iframes that are closing the gap between tab and action.The mobility and reaction to enemy mobility aspect of this game is an important distinction from WoW, instead of WoW's focus in managing cooldowns and rotations while "roaming" around opponents.
AA slims down that "DPS Rotation" mastery and focuses a lot more on mobility choices and the ranged capabilities of characters and it gives a much clearer picture, viewably, on who is melee and who is ranged with clearer windows of engagement/disengagement and defensive clarity.
Why did I bring AA up, because it's a tab game that works better for open world combat, which some people see as the main part of an mmo experience and imo is a broader scope of one. I also think it will hold true to a boss+add encounter experience just as well, the crucks is maintaining the Trinity system which is kept in a simple check due to less random mobilty from everyone in a game like WoW but I feel can be corrected with ingeniuety.
Do I think AA tab is a winner for Ashes....no, because not only doesn't it bring all newer competitive mechanics but tab target systems naturally promote raw vertical progression stats from gear (as opposed action already being good and just make gear bonuses specialize class skills), as it's one of the only ways to elevate tab combat, which imo is all very bad for taking people away from the current popular games from other genres as I'm completely against GS barriers in the pursuit of a truly massive and competitively accessible multiplayer experience.
Also, tab target suffers really badly from meta builds and playstyles as there are limited ways to play under tab mechanics really, it's much more exciting and thrilling on the action side of life to see people having a "great day" or a "poor day", it's refreshing.
BDO has MANY flaws,
it's spammy and the mobility is too high but if it's made way less spammy and mobile then it has the potential to be an excellent base.
The focus is the trinity system though, you can't have characters too solo reilant and flying away in the distance like a DBZ character when you've designed all these nice classes to promote amplification and synergy. That is the real easyiness and accessibilty of WoW and FF14, to keep formations and things orderly due to the lack of mobilty and mechanics and then ofc with that, devs just purely focus on the encounters then, but that is specifically for raid mmo's only and as we know, both these 2 have ditched their open world, shamefully.
There is a lot to be evulated and polished for the future of action combat (including appropriate tutorials and undertanding), I think I can agree with Hybrid to cut time for sure or just purely on the basis to make it reilable. What I can never agree with though, as a person who looks at things first from a competitive stand point, as do many others who are taking "refuge" in other mulitplayer genre's is to continue leaning on tab target as the feel of it is, in a nutshell, simply not exciting enough for the year 2010+ and beyond.
I want this mmo to draw in A LOT of players, I want it to have "big boy" expert players streaming on twitch, I want to see loads of guys like myself excited with their blood pumping over perfecting themselves and their trade and tab will never do that I'm sorry.
All of the "issues" you talk about here (WoW's lack of mobility, stat creep etc), these are all development choices individual games make. They are not requirements of a tab target system.
Every largely successful MMORPG to date has been content focused. You are asking for a shift from that, rather than asking for a new genre.
Now, on to the issue with your last paragraph. If those things all happen, the game has a worthwhile life of 6 - 9 months. You may well enjoy it for that 6 - 9 months, but Steven will be out millions of dollars.
An MMO needs to be active and popular for either years or decades. Neither action combat nor PvP has managed that.
As such, it makes FAR more sense for developers to meet your desires with a game that isn't an MMORPG and thus doesn't take nearly ass much time or money to develop. This also means it won't be a persistent world, which will extend the life of that PvP game somewhat. Idon't get how you don't see that you are better served with a game genre that is NOT the MMORPG genre, and that continuing to hang around this genre will not only result in disappointment for you, it will result in disappointment for people wanting an MMORPG.
I live turn based strategy games. However, you will not see me ever ask for X-COM style combat in an MMORPG. I am smart enough to know that such gameplay is better found elsewhere.
Instead of basically saying "WoW and FF14 are the only ones to show longevity and all others have proven to die", which, to any experienced mmo veteran is a completely unfair statement as we don't know of their potential thanks to corporate greed practices (+ they stuck to an easy practice of raid supplying and ignored open world and pvp improvements), why don't you explain why combat alone is a turn off and a no go zone for a genre? you're locking the genre, I'd appreciate it you you'd place some effort in providing something that can be argued against but I think you're fully aware of what you're doing. I'm not scared because Steven has played and felt the essence of Lineage 2 and Archeage, I will not shit the bed that badly if Steven decides to go close to AA but he will not alter further in the past from that, you should be the most concerned here
Also you completely disregarded my point on gear and tab combat, you know full well what makes tab combat richer and that's to increase power, casting/attack speed.
And I literally can't believe you, I said about accessibility but here you are, literally saying an mmorpg can only be a certain way and others must adapt or play a different game...it's completely selfish, you're priority is way too high on raid's being the only reliable mmorpg entertainment.
To the other half, action combat is newer, the same way that tab was new at one point. Imagine if people who played muds had your logic and said it's the only way to do things since that was the only successful games prior to tab games. It's easy to see that the combat system is popular if you look outside of MMOs and it doesn't take a lot of critical thinking imagine them in an MMO.
On the topic of who is better served by MMOs, the games you mentioned don't use their persistent world for much. They use them for leveling and sometimes side activities like daily quests but then the bulk of their content is removed from the world and put in instances. If anyones desires are better met with a different game than an MMO, it's yours. You routinely complain about your content being in the persistent world so why do you think you are in a position to say who would be better served by an MMO?
However...
There was a recent Fan Fest for EVE. Lots of presentations, announcements about the plans for the future of the game, that sort of thing.
You know what announcement got BY FAR the biggest cheer from this audience of die hard EVE fans?
Changes to Excel.
That is the kind of game EVE is targeted at. Not typical PvP gamers - especially not those that talk about how important "feeling" is to them in a game.
EVE is aimed at those that think. It happens to have PvP (though I played it for a year without any PvP at all, so...), but that is not its target.
Indeed action combat is new, and tab is old. And indeed MUD's were a thing before tab.
The thing is, back in the day, MUD's were called MUD's,and they still are. They still exist. MMORPG's with tab target combat spun out or them, they didnt supplant them.
Why then should action combat supplant tab? Should we not be arguing that action combat be a new genre to spin off from the MMORPG genre?
I mean, as I said earlier, this is how things happen. RTS games spun out of turn based strategy when the tech allowed for it, they didnt supplant turn based strategy. MOBA's spin out of RTS games, they didnt replace them.
I simply do not get why we are asking for action to supplant tab, rather than being its own thing, in a genre that is better suited to its particular pros and cons.
To me, this seems like it would be better for literally everybody.
I wonder if you look at another MMO announcements, what were the things people got excited for? WoW announced a new race, customizable dragons, crafting, and a new form of flying. None of those are pve or pvp content so by your logic, if one of those got the most "cheers," wow players don't care about pve or pvp.
Point i'm trying to make is people usually get excited for the new shinny thing which isn't always a primary gameplay loop.
Action and tab are both third person methods of controlling your character. WoW has used free aim skills to supplement their tab combat from the beginning. I think we consider them the same genre because they are the same gameplay wise. If you think it should be a new genre's then cool but I'm not sure why that matters.
I have done this, or at least what I am assuming you are asking for here.
Action combat necessitates that top end PvE has less variety to it. It is simply not up to the task of allowing for the kind of encounter variety that tab target can offer.
However, it is better for PvP.
As such, a game with action combat is best served focusing on PvP, and accepting that its PvE game will be lacklustre at best. I am fairly sure you and I agree on this.
On the other hand, tab target is shit for PvP, but allows for more variation in PvE. Thus, a game that is tab target based us best served ignoring PvP, and focusing on PvE.
Since that action game is PvP focused, and since this allows players to make their own stories (when a player is your enemy, the developers cant write the story there), this means that action/PvP game is best served focusing on systems and mechanics, without as much of a concern for quests and storytelling (not complete neglect here, just less focus). You also want a players ability to be the major factor in deciding a characters over all strength.
That PvE/tab target game, however, needs to focus on the story of its PvE. Since players aren't the prime antagonist, the developers need to explain to us why we want to kill that big bad guy. This means storytelling and quests are far more important here. In such a game, you would want a characters over all strength to be based on a cumulation of activities that player has been successful on with that character, basically how well they have played the game as a whole.
Even aspects such as a persistent world may be a thing the developer of an action combat/PvP game may decide to avoid, as this is the cause of gear gap between players, leaving some groups of players in situations where they are never able to compete due to not having the gear, and the upgrades they need are only to be attained via competing against other, which they can't do because they don't have good enough gear. If neither quests/lore nor gear is to be much of a factor, there is no actual point to a persistent world.
In the tab/PvE game, this isnt too much of an issue. Since players aren't fighting each other, there is far less of a concern in relation to gear gap.
So, as an answer to your question above (or what I assume it is you are asking), and also as an answer to @mcstackerson above, if you follow the logic of an action combat game and a tab target game, you get the two following games (assuming competent developers for both).
One is somewhat fast paced combat, with a higher skill entry point but also a higher general combat skill ceiling, has PvP as its focus but basically no PvE worth talking about, has no real need for quests or lore, gear is a minor factor in relation to player ability, and the game doesn't necessarily need a persistent world - an argument could be made that it would be a better game without it.
The second game has a slower pace of combat, with a lower entry level skill requirement, but has its scaling in terms of skill requirement and pace contained within the content, rather than the combat system - meaning both can literally go as high as developers want, or as low as they want, leading to massive variety in gameplay. This game has no PvP, but has strong storytelling, and solid quests, and gear is important and a reflection of how well a player has played the game. A persistent world is a given for this game.
To me, when I look over the two games above, I see two different genres. They are as different from each other as an MMORPG is from a BR, or turn based strategy is from RTS.
I simply do not understand the perspective that action is taking over tab - action combat in games should take it's rightful place as a new genre.