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

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

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

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Never tried the multiplayer mods, but I’ll take your word for it. For 2011, combat was still pretty solid. Would have been cool to have more melee techniques, but that’s a limitation that can be over come.

Witcher 3 is another example of an action combat pve game. It does have a ‘lock target’ mechanism, but I rarely used this so combat would feel more fluid. There were a broader range of attack techniques as well.

I actually never played the Witcher series (I have it ready to go as soon as I get some free time, but free time is limited).

Perhaps the point I am making here is that Skyrim combat still has the same issue I am pointing at for all action combat in MMO's.

It is fine for soloing, I would even say it is better than tab target combat. However, it falls apart when you have multiple people taking on the same encounter.

Some games manage to make it so you can have perhaps 4 or 5 on one encounter, but an MMORPG should be striving for 20 - 40, and no action combat system has ever managed that.

I dont personally believe any action combat will ever be able to achieve that, as I see the limitations that would need to apply basically removing the aspects of action combat that make it what people like about action combat (mobility being number 1).

This is why I am firmly of the belief that action combat should have it's own genre.

MMORPG's are about cooperative PvE as much as anything - it is the one aspect that is inherent to the genre that isnt really found in other genres (a handful of games, but not other genres). Since action combat is not well suited to cooperative PvE, I dont see a place for it in MMORPG's.

However, since it is great for soloing, and great for PvP, I see the potential for an entire genre there, making use of it.

In the same way as happened to strategy games (Dune 2, specifically), should this new genre ever actually be created, a number of what we currently call MMORPG's would likely be retconned in to that new genre (BDO).

CROW3

Ah, I hear you. If you have time, Witcher 3 was damn near perfect as an RPG. There are only a few games that come close.

It’s a fair observation on action at scale. I never raided in ESO or Neverwinter so I’m curious to hear what folks with that experience have to say. All of my scaled raid experience is tab as a hunter & tank in WoW for 16 or so years.

Dygz

NishUK wrote: »

You seem to be a very selective person, I call it anti-social.

Who cares what you call it?

NishUK wrote: »

If you can't find a spec of happiness or some things to peek your interest from people without exact similar interests than you, well... ye I guess you need a game with a PvE only/RP server because I don't think your competitive at all.

Again, who cares what you guess?
MMORPGs typically support numerous playstyles. That's true even for MMORPGs with no PvP and/or minimal PvP. Also true for MMORPGs that are PvP-centric.
But, yes, if Corruption fails to deter ganking as Steven hopes and I feel Ashes is too PvP-centric. I won't play it.
I don't play games that I don't enjoy. That's OK. I don't have to play every MMORPG.

It's possible to enjoy objective-based PvP without being competitive, by the way. Especially when it's scheduled in advance, as it is for Castle and Node Sieges.

NishUK wrote: »

If it's good enough the whole playerbase will be happy and we will appreciate each other, not seperate us into groups like we don't belong with one another...

What makes your statement ludicrous is that it's circular logic.
Obviously, if the whole playerbase is happy, the whole playerbase is happy, so that is a meaningless statement.
Also, no, Human nature does not work such that people don't separate into groups based on what they like and don't like.
And people on opposite ends of a spectrum tend to clash when they try to play together.
People who love to explore the entirerty of a dungeon tend to clash with people who want to speed-run dungeons as quickly as possible.
Casual challenge players tend to clash with hardcore challenge players about whether to pursue the META when they are in the same group.
And people who want to enjoy the RPG features of an MMORPG are going to be highy frustrated if an MMORPG is played as if it's just a Hack & Slash where people rush from one combat to another combat as if the game is MMOFPS.

NishUK wrote: »

Archeage and a game like Ashe's can't go RP or PvE only most likely, PvP and contest is integrated, so you'll probably be stuck with all those damn kids, and "toxic" heads like myself I guess.

I don't think I said anything about Ashes going RP-only or PvE-only, so...
It's kind of bizarre that you mention that in reference to anything I said.
I don't think I've referred to you as toxic.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Ah, I hear you. If you have time, Witcher 3 was damn near perfect as an RPG. There are only a few games that come close.

It’s a fair observation on action at scale. I never raided in ESO or Neverwinter so I’m curious to hear what folks with that experience have to say. All of my scaled raid experience is tab as a hunter & tank in WoW for 16 or so years.

Raiding in Neverwinter works quite well, the underlying design of the game is sub-par but the better bosses are designed to counter a lot of what comes up. There isn't actually a problem with 14-20 vs the boss. However, note that this absolutely isn't what most people experience because most of these 'raids' are just regular content that can be done with 5 heavily geared players, and there is no reward for doing it with 'more weaker players'.

The mobility aspect is not usually lost either, because the design is pretty easy to develop and build on. The enemy mechanics range from 'simplistic' to 'Why are all these things happening so fast dammit?' which is the point at which most people hit the wall. Mental stack and awareness get HIGH, particularly against 'witches' and 'dragons' due to the fact that the windup/telegraphs on their attacks, even WITH the big red marker to tell you where they will be, can still leave you unable to escape the range in time depending on your group's positioning.

I really want to say:
"In short, it works exactly how you'd expect it to work."
But the more I hang around these forums the more I realize that people don't HAVE the experiences that would make them 'expect' anything in particular, so take that with the usual flagon of salt.

CROW3

My first thought is that < Flagon of Salt > is a solid guild name.

That actually does sound like what I expected it might be. How does healing feel in the Neverwinter dynamic? Is is a blend of direct and AOE? Mostly ground targeting? I can’t remember if Neverwinter has a target lock (I think it does) - is that necessary in a raid setting or does the soft targeting (just reticle) work just fine?

NishUK

Dygz wrote: »

I don't think I said anything about Ashes going RP-only or PvE-only, so...
It's kind of bizarre that you mention that in reference to anything I said.
I don't think I've referred to you as toxic.

You keep saying "I don't think I said".
I mean you don't type that many words...

You had a view, something along the lines of "I have my doubts about Ashes, especially as they aren't planning to release an RP/PvE server".

Well you might not care about what I think but I've experienced many 100's of people on a personal level in mmo's and a sub guild leader/officer and not just casual pleasant talk, I thoroughly enjoy getting to know peoples mental state : P
Your views and you got to make a lot of things like a statement is something I wouldn't have near any large social/group/alliance setting I'm involved with, anyway.

Speaking of poor memory, what was ludicrous again about my view regarding combat?...
or do you want to make up another acronym again to throw other players somewhere else so you can feel extra special that the 'mmorpg' is exclusively yours?

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

My first thought is that < Flagon of Salt > is a solid guild name.

That actually does sound like what I expected it might be. How does healing feel in the Neverwinter dynamic? Is is a blend of direct and AOE? Mostly ground targeting? I can’t remember if Neverwinter has a target lock (I think it does) - is that necessary in a raid setting or does the soft targeting (just reticle) work just fine?

Neverwinter healing is complicated.

Basically, there are two flaws with it. Neverwinter likes to do big damage numbers for some reason (I don't know why, given the game it is based on, but let's give them that).

As a result, Heals are often big bursts around a character, but this, in turn, does limit sensible options of mobility for a lot of people since getting players to stand and fight in formations is about as hard as you'd expect. Of course, there are good Heal Over Time options, but those are Sticky Reticle like everything else, basically.

But they made the game easier by giving a lot of Lifesteal options, after a while, so that people didn't need to work together as much. Natural convergence because... well... people are bad at that. There are big direct burst heals, but in the harder fights, doing those is complex enough that most people need a target lock. This is fine and correct, because target-lock for allied actions (where you can reasonably assume in RP terms that the person knows it is coming and aims to be 'hit' rather than avoiding) is normal enough.

So, yeah... the base is there, but the devs compensated for the player skill repeatedly as time went on. After all, who wants to spend months building content that only 10% of your playerbase will engage with in a P2W game? That's not profitable at all.

The main thing to understand based on all that, therefore, is that healing used to be challenging and require coordination at some point, but making it hard is basically engaging attrition against Healers themselves outside of tight knit friend groups, which, interestingly, is only about 30% of MMO playerbase.

There's a study about how the more you do this, the faster you bleed Healers out of your game and then of course NEED to add the lifesteal and similar, but I would take really long to find it again.

Dygz

I think Neverwinter Online has a soft-lock/semi-sticky aim. IIRC.
One of the things I enjoyed while playing a Cleric is that Clerics have to deal damage to help rebuild their healing mana pool. Which means you're not just stuck healing and it does kinda feel more like a D&D Battle Cleric than the way Clerics play in typical MMORPGs.

There were some free aim heals - and it was actually kind of fun from a story perspective to try to heal a target and have someone else accidently run between you and soak that heal. Flaws and failing can be part of the fun of a great adventure.
I also liked using AoE heals. Both kinda help make it feel like a reflection of playing a Cleric in Table Top D&D.
And, Roll/Dodge/Block were pretty fun action combat features.

IIRC, there was some ground telegraphs in the game, but it wasn't crazy chaotic, like Wildstar.
I don't really recall ground telegraphs for Cleric heals. Seems like the heal AoEs were more burst rather than being static enough to need a ground telegraph, but it's been almost a decade since I played. I burned out right after the release of the first expansion.
And I've basically been waiting for something like the Node system ever since.

CROW3

Oye. Complicated seems an appropriate descriptor. The hardest part being the low population and P2W being in conflict with the dogged nature of raiding. Giving self-heals in the form of life steals reminds me of what WoW did when the game shifted hard toward solo casuals.

Sounds like a low threshold for healers to bail out for other games.

That said …

If you set the p2w, low pop, and big damage aside - did the action underpinnings work at scale for healers or is it much more favorable to dps / tanks?

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Oye. Complicated seems an appropriate descriptor. The hardest part being the low population and P2W being in conflict with the dogged nature of raiding. Giving self-heals in the form of life steals reminds me of what WoW did when the game shifted hard toward solo casuals.

Sounds like a low threshold for healers to bail out for other games.

That said …

If you set the p2w, low pop, and big damage aside - did the action underpinnings work at scale for healers or is it much more favorable to dps / tanks?

The Action used for Healers is explicitly designed in NWO to mimic Tab Target healing EFFECTIVENESS without coming out exactly the same way.

In fact, almost all healing works like this in MMORPGs of the last few years, with only two Innovative methods that I am aware of. I personally consider the innovative ones to be better suited for Action MMOs. So, from the perspective of 'could a player who is used to healing in a Tab Target game effectively act as a healer here while still experiencing some Action', the answer is yes.

From the perspective of 'could this have been done better or in a way more suited to improving the gameplay from the Action perspective', the answer is 'very yes'. That said, I think it's usually better for games to make healing 'easy and similar to tab target' since adding mechanical skill to healing is a barrier to entry for a reasonably large portion of the healerbase.

People already struggle with targeting and healing allies with Tab Target, particularly in mobility situations where they must get out of central attack cones/blast radii.

Azherae

I think I can explain this directly, actually, so indulge me.

Healers are designed archaically in almost all games that are not Battle Arena shooters or specific MOBAs. Whether or not one likes the design, there are some factors that come up due to it.

Why are Healers a low mobility class?
Now, this isn't true in EVERY game, but consider it the other way. Why aren't they EXPLICITLY a high mobility class that heals from close range?

The answer is basically because it would be a type of challenge that most players in ye olde days that wanted to play 'as Healers' wouldn't want, and therefore we got 'stuck' with this sort of 'I magically call upon my Divine Power/Deity and that Deity knows exactly who I am pointing at and heals them' while I safely stand over here'.

But it would make much more 'sense' to at least have a type of Healer that is VERY mobile but heals at close range, whether they do that by 'magic' or not. In an Action-y game, a mobile Healer gets to experience the challenge too, of getting in and out of their healing position while avoiding damage. They wear light armor anyway in most games (and have no true justification for why they don't wear heavier armor other than old D&D tropes).

The class normally is in the backline 'because it's easier to not take damage there', but in an Action heavy game, where both the enemy and the tank/DPS are moving around quite a lot, this guarantee falls very quickly, yet the Healer remains static. The Healer just 'sits there and hopes that no one messes up and pulls the enemy to them or causes them to end up in an attack cone/circle'. But why? A healer could simply... be mobile... and react. If limited to closer range healing, and with longer 'recovery times' after certain mobility skills for using self heals (assume for example that a fast teleport-like dash up to another player to heal them, only works on OTHER players, because MAGIC), then the complaint of 'I can't catch the healer to kill them' changes too.

The Healer must come into RANGE to heal the person you are hurting, and therefore be in danger. As opposed to now, where other people have to devote focus and dedicated effort to catching the healer, making balance more difficult.

Action MMORPGs may someday stop doing this, just as some MOBAs and Shooters have done. And maybe then, 'Action vs Tab' will be less of a consideration...

Orrrr... a bunch of people will complain that they just want to heal and not have to move around all the time.

CROW3

Azherae wrote: »

In fact, almost all healing works like this in MMORPGs of the last few years, with only two Innovative methods that I am aware of. I personally consider the innovative ones to be better suited for Action MMOs. So, from the perspective of 'could a player who is used to healing in a Tab Target game effectively act as a healer here while still experiencing some Action', the answer is yes.

From the perspective of 'could this have been done better or in a way more suited to improving the gameplay from the Action perspective', the answer is 'very yes'. That said, I think it's usually better for games to make healing 'easy and similar to tab target' since adding mechanical skill to healing is a barrier to entry for a reasonably large portion of the healerbase.

People already struggle with targeting and healing allies with Tab Target, particularly in mobility situations where they must get out of central attack cones/blast radii.

Ok, makes sense.

From what I remember in GW2, healing was also mostly AOE or ground targeting hots. I didn’t play a healer, and only did a handful of group content before walking away from the game. My friend who was a always our healer in different games found the whole experience frustrating.

It makes me wonder if the supporting roles are what is holding up decisions on the combat type…

CROW3

Azherae wrote: »

I think I can explain this directly, actually, so indulge me.

Healers are designed archaically in almost all games that are not Battle Arena shooters or specific MOBAs. Whether or not one likes the design, there are some factors that come up due to it.

Why are Healers a low mobility class?
Now, this isn't true in EVERY game, but consider it the other way. Why aren't they EXPLICITLY a high mobility class that heals from close range?

The answer is basically because it would be a type of challenge that most players in ye olde days that wanted to play 'as Healers' wouldn't want, and therefore we got 'stuck' with this sort of 'I magically call upon my Divine Power/Deity and that Deity knows exactly who I am pointing at and heals them' while I safely stand over here'.

But it would make much more 'sense' to at least have a type of Healer that is VERY mobile but heals at close range, whether they do that by 'magic' or not. In an Action-y game, a mobile Healer gets to experience the challenge too, of getting in and out of their healing position while avoiding damage. They wear light armor anyway in most games (and have no true justification for why they don't wear heavier armor other than old D&D tropes).

The class normally is in the backline 'because it's easier to not take damage there', but in an Action heavy game, where both the enemy and the tank/DPS are moving around quite a lot, this guarantee falls very quickly, yet the Healer remains static. The Healer just 'sits there and hopes that no one messes up and pulls the enemy to them or causes them to end up in an attack cone/circle'. But why? A healer could simply... be mobile... and react. If limited to closer range healing, and with longer 'recovery times' after certain mobility skills for using self heals (assume for example that a fast teleport-like dash up to another player to heal them, only works on OTHER players, because MAGIC), then the complaint of 'I can't catch the healer to kill them' changes too.

The Healer must come into RANGE to heal the person you are hurting, and therefore be in danger. As opposed to now, where other people have to devote focus and dedicated effort to catching the healer, making balance more difficult.

Action MMORPGs may someday stop doing this, just as some MOBAs and Shooters have done. And maybe then, 'Action vs Tab' will be less of a consideration...

Orrrr... a bunch of people will complain that they just want to heal and not have to move around all the time.

So, does that more mobile healer put a player into more of a sub game of tag with short range heals, versus the stationary heal canon?

I only healed the last part of legion on my Paladin, which was very much a stay put and lob yellow light at the tank. My aforementioned healer buddy always played Druid and spent a good deal of time running around deploying hots and activating his heals. I can’t say which is better since it’s really not my cup of tea.

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I think I can explain this directly, actually, so indulge me.

Healers are designed archaically in almost all games that are not Battle Arena shooters or specific MOBAs. Whether or not one likes the design, there are some factors that come up due to it.

Why are Healers a low mobility class?
Now, this isn't true in EVERY game, but consider it the other way. Why aren't they EXPLICITLY a high mobility class that heals from close range?

The answer is basically because it would be a type of challenge that most players in ye olde days that wanted to play 'as Healers' wouldn't want, and therefore we got 'stuck' with this sort of 'I magically call upon my Divine Power/Deity and that Deity knows exactly who I am pointing at and heals them' while I safely stand over here'.

But it would make much more 'sense' to at least have a type of Healer that is VERY mobile but heals at close range, whether they do that by 'magic' or not. In an Action-y game, a mobile Healer gets to experience the challenge too, of getting in and out of their healing position while avoiding damage. They wear light armor anyway in most games (and have no true justification for why they don't wear heavier armor other than old D&D tropes).

The class normally is in the backline 'because it's easier to not take damage there', but in an Action heavy game, where both the enemy and the tank/DPS are moving around quite a lot, this guarantee falls very quickly, yet the Healer remains static. The Healer just 'sits there and hopes that no one messes up and pulls the enemy to them or causes them to end up in an attack cone/circle'. But why? A healer could simply... be mobile... and react. If limited to closer range healing, and with longer 'recovery times' after certain mobility skills for using self heals (assume for example that a fast teleport-like dash up to another player to heal them, only works on OTHER players, because MAGIC), then the complaint of 'I can't catch the healer to kill them' changes too.

The Healer must come into RANGE to heal the person you are hurting, and therefore be in danger. As opposed to now, where other people have to devote focus and dedicated effort to catching the healer, making balance more difficult.

Action MMORPGs may someday stop doing this, just as some MOBAs and Shooters have done. And maybe then, 'Action vs Tab' will be less of a consideration...

Orrrr... a bunch of people will complain that they just want to heal and not have to move around all the time.

So, does that more mobile healer put a player into more of a sub game of tag with short range heals, versus the stationary heal canon?

I only healed the last part of legion on my Paladin, which was very much a stay put and lob yellow light at the tank. My aforementioned healer buddy always played Druid and spent a good deal of time running around deploying hots and activating his heals. I can’t say which is better since it’s really not my cup of tea.

That would essentially be the idea, yes. Ground AoE heals are a pain in a game with even medium mobility. Tab Target allows you to 'just lock and track' the ally, but results in 'becoming a heal turret', and designers then focus on 'how can we make your heals different or stronger?' instead of 'how can we challenge your skill in movement or targeting the way we are doing for everyone else?'

It results in Healers playing a relatively different game from everyone else, and then ALSO being relatively unable to defend themselves when placed into danger other than... standing still and healing themselves even MORE (which in turn again requires that their healing is even stronger).

This of course leads to the dualboxing epidemic soon after 'serious' or 'good' players realize that they could be more effective with a Pocket Healer instead of relying on a whole separate person that they have to communicate with.

NishUK

@Azherae you know, moba's did a fantastic job of not having to solely rely on healing, it really broadened the playing field and gave players options (quite a few would say, more "straight" options).

The problem with the standard mmo format, is that it promotes team play instead of it actually being team play. Tank goes in, dps follow or range fire, healers stay safe and do their job, it's the ABC/123 you could be speaking another language and get shit done.
Then when mmo's or new ones try to expand gameplay everyone plays and finds the cogs are sitting right, well it's because you've kept the jobs entirely the same and so heavily focused on one thing!

"Hi, I'm a ranger"
"nice, what you do"
"I shoot a bow, I'm a dps"
"great, nice....("LF Healer/Tank, this century please")"

Theme wise is the ranger a Legolas turret? ofc not, why aren't there supportive elements out of him, it's kept so billy basic in the mmo world.

When everyones shifting around, more so in hybrid/action games, when you have an ally nearby, just 1, the experience can be a lot realistic, it's not like they look at each other and go "we're dps!....shit! wanna be best friends? dood!....let's die and on respawn cry about healer suck, huhu!".

All I'm saying is, it's cool to have specializations but the genre has got to evolve eventually from a hardened trinity system and the hardened formation that comes with it, tech and graphics have improved greatly and young people are used to that high octane gameplay from all sorts of games, it's been a long time needed...

Azherae

NishUK wrote: »

@Azherae you know, moba's did a fantastic job of not having to solely rely on healing, it really broadened the playing field and gave players options (quite a few would say, more "straight" options).

The problem with the standard mmo format, is that it promotes team play instead of it actually being team play. Tank goes in, dps follow or range fire, healers stay safe and do their job, it's the ABC/123 you could be speaking another language and get shit done.
Then when mmo's or new ones try to expand gameplay everyone plays and finds the cogs are sitting right, well it's because you've kept the jobs entirely the same and so heavily focused on one thing!

"Hi, I'm a ranger"
"nice, what you do"
"I shoot a bow, I'm a dps"
"great, nice....("LF Healer/Tank, this century please")"

Theme wise is the ranger a Legolas turret? ofc not, why aren't there supportive elements out of him, it's kept so billy basic in the mmo world.

When everyones shifting around, more so in hybrid/action games, when you have an ally nearby, just 1, the experience can be a lot realistic, it's not like they look at each other and go "we're dps!....shit! wanna be best friends? dood!....let's die and on respawn cry about healer suck, huhu!".

All I'm saying is, it's cool to have specializations but the genre has got to evolve eventually from a hardened trinity system and the hardened formation that comes with it, tech and graphics have improved greatly and young people are used to that high octane gameplay from all sorts of games, it's been a long time needed...

Sorry, I don't play those sorts of games.

I only play high-focus games with actual group mechanics, aim, etc. Not to knock what you're saying at all, I just am... 'above' that experience, to be frank. I've played too many better games, maybe the sort of games you're talking about, to even put any thought toward those simplistic/restrictive ones.

I just want to know if Ashes will end up being another simplistic/restrictive one, so I'm waiting. If it is, thankfully I have a backup, since I'm not in the 'No Cash For Ingame Advantage EVER!' crowd, so I can play Korean MMOs with less misery if the dynamic gameplay is good.

I'm fine with the Trinity system. I see no reason it needs to evolve away from that. But again, I play better games. Quite frankly the definitions and explanations I get for how that system works in most games just seems pathetic to me, but I don't have any negativity toward the Trinity system itself because I don't PLAY those games. I play ones where it works.

NishUK

@Azherae they can evolve to have group mechanics, I love aim and want that to be more of a thing especially for making mages and rangers more exciting (not nerfing them to make them only aim, infact I would make them do more damage if their efforts were more calculated and precise!).

In regards to the Trinity System I have no problems with its foundation, it's merely just devs lack of passion and bravery inside of that to make a system more reasonable for gameplay demands that many have experienced in some way from say the FPS and Moba genre.

I mean you couldn't get more crystal clear if you take LoL as an experiment, people want the action, only a small % actually want to play supportive elements but then when you introduce mechanics and characters like Thresh and Pyke they go "ok, that's pretty cool!". I'm really not biased against traditional healing/buffing gameplay and theme wise but devs have stayed stale with expanding it, there's so much to explore.

Noaani

NishUK wrote: »

In regards to the Trinity System I have no problems with it's foundation, it's merely just devs lack of passion and bravery inside of that to make a system more reasonable for gameplay demands that many have experienced in some way from say the FPS and Moba genre.

You know what I hate about the FPS genre? The lack of a persistent world.

This is what I have come to expect from playing MMORPG's, and it is about damn time FPS games realized that this is just where games are headed. They really need to get with the times!

See, this doesn't work. Different genres are different genres for a reason. Just because something is happening in one genre, doesn't mean it needs to (or should) happen in another.

If players from one genre like a thing that the genre they play does, great! They can continue to play that genre that has that thing they like and expect.

Azherae

NishUK wrote: »

@Azherae they can evolve to have group mechanics, I love aim and want that to be more of a thing especially for making mages and rangers more exciting (not nerfing them to make them only aim, infact I would make them do more damage if their efforts were more calculated and precise!).

In regards to the Trinity System I have no problems with it's foundation, it's merely just devs lack of passion and bravery inside of that to make a system more reasonable for gameplay demands that many have experienced in some way from say the FPS and Moba genre.

I mean you couldn't get more crystal clear if you take LoL as an experiment, people want the action, only a small % actually want to play supportive elements but then when you introduce mechanics and characters like Thresh and Pyke they go "ok, that's pretty cool!". I'm really not biased against traditional healing/buffing gameplay and theme wise but devs have stayed stale with it, there's so much to explore.

Like I said, I don't think about any of these things. You're describing a world that I 'don't live in', to me.

Every time I hear about RPGs other than the ones I play and maybe two others, I think 'I'm so sad that the rest of you have to play this crap and form all these half-opinions, but I can't help much'. There's two options here.

1. All the games I hear about kind of suck.
2. All the people who explain the games kind of suck at them.

And it really doesn't matter which is true, to me. All that matters is that EITHER Ashes is great and not just another one of those same games, OR that Throne and Liberty is.

I appreciate your passion, but y'all up here talking about 'Action' and 'New Tanking Dynamics' and I'm thinking 'Is Rogue gonna get some equivalent of SATA Dancing Edge so my friend can dump Enmity onto our Bard when our Paladin needs to take a breather because all his mitigation skills are down, and if so, what options will the Bard have for kiting assuming she used her strongest Evasion buff performance?'

I'm sure that other games have some equivalent of stuff like this, but it's nearly never what we end up discussing around here.

tl;dr the MMOs I play ALREADY play like MOBAs (or whatever, to me it's just 'play like interesting games') and I'm just looking for the next good one because the 'fantasy' one I play is old. If Devs have stayed stale with it, I'm really sorry to hear that, but I don't care enough about the 'crusty inbetweens'. I have seven great games to play and I just wanna rotate out a slot to 'replace it with' something modern of at least reasonably equal quality.

But I'm not gonna talk about 'How good Seris or Corvus as healers' or 'How much fun it is to play healer/debuffer in space battles in Elite Dangerous' because that's just gonna summon Dygz unnecessarily. If Intrepid cares, I'm sure they know where to find my data posts.

So uh... yeah... I'll care when you and Dygz and whoever else get past the 'Action vs Tab', 'Trinity vs Innovation' or whatever stage of discussion, if that ever happens (depending on who you engage, it usually doesn't).

Good luck though, no sarc.

NishUK

@Noaani please don't confuse systems with theme and gameplay.

I am not suggesting that systems mold with very popular genre's, only steal ideas that lead to elevating it.

BDO made 20+ skills incredibly accessible by utilizing direction input like the fighting game Tekken (that has 50+ moves on average for every character), it's user convience bliss in comparison to holding shift/alt whatever and working mouse button 1-12 etc.
You could implement that in tab target game like Archage in some measure and it's a logic improvement to a proposed hybrid system that will involve elements of action controlling, and it's not at all saying that a fighting game in any of its entirety belongs in a 3d open world.

If a Healer class in an mmo has a lantern and chain (let's just say Thresh), and strengthen's and heals allies via souls and there's a more "ruthless" gameplay style, along with lore and conflict from the holy side of life, adding character to the more traditional type of healing we see in typical mmos and thereby making being a healer/support more desirable, that is infact an evolution, nothing short of it.

Anyway, I hope you have something more constructive than a flat out "incompatibility" view anyway.

Child Item