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

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

< Filthy Non-PvP Casuals > is another solid guild name.

Again, I don't think there is a definite answer between Tab or Action leading to a good game. I think it's a false choice. We have a long history in the mmo genre showing that well implemented combat is crucial to success, and poorly implemented combat being a detractor (and in some cases a critical defect).

Not sure if I can think of a game with crappy combat that survived the test of time (let's say three years).

So let's not get all tribal about this conversation and focus on what elements of action combat and what elements of tab combat would be most beneficial for Intrepid to implement best for Ashes to be awesome.

I'll note (mostly for others who might not be reading through my long posts) that I'm not opposed to ANYTHING Intrepid wants to do except the whole 'no innate incentives for actually learning PvP mindsets' bit, which isn't even assured.

That said.

In order for Action Combat to be understandable to the majority, it must be slow.

If it is slow, it is barely meaningfully different from most 'Tab Target' combat except if you design it a specific way. I therefore see no difference either.

If one wants the game to be faster, it's a rush for people like me, and an unending slog for some people I know. They try, believe me, but it just does NOT work out for them. Therefore, if Ashes aims for 'slow and simple' as a way to 'cap' the skill ceiling for the absolute maniacs out there that see things in literal Frames Per Second and onscreen distances by the quadpixel, I will not get that rush, but I will think that the overall outcome was better.

Everyone's definition of 'awesome' will be different. But we can get a reasonable lower bound for 'playable'.

Anything pushing the limits of human reaction time (not aim) is effectively a Fighting Game (capitalized for Genre reference), and anything below that isn't 'Action enough' for some people, but that level, where it 'isn't Action enough' is the point where the industry mostly already knows what to do, so we don't even need to discuss it. Convergent evolution alone should handle it.

"Everything is just Breath Of The Wild with extra steps."

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

Pvp-centric mmos, which I'm assuming to mean mmos with a higher pvp focus, are capable of doing just fine. Black Desert Online, Archeage, Lineage, others I'm sure I'm missing. We're talking player counts in the millions between all these games. Tens of millions potentially, when you add them all up. Some of those games have massive problems themselves, and yet have still been successful.

Well, your assumption is wrong.
Higher PvP focus than what?

Azherae

@Nikr, all clear, data absorbed and catalogued. Into the pile it goes!

I don't have anything additional to say, relative to that line, so I'mma get back out of the way and let NishUK and whoever else discuss stuff.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

Well, your assumption is wrong.
Higher PvP focus than what?

Sorry, higher than average, higher than the pve focus, in as much as that is measurable. Take your pick. Generally just games with a very pronounced pvp emphasis is what I meant.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

Sorry, higher than average, higher than the pve focus, in as much as that is measurable. Take your pick. Generally just games with a very pronounced pvp emphasis is what I meant.

I mean...you list BDO as PvP-centric. I played BDO for a couple of weeks. Never encountered PvP.
Lineage II seems to be PvX, rather than PvP-centric. A PvP-centric game would not have a Karma system.
So clearly, we don't have the same concept of PvP-centric MMORPG.

Tyranthraxus

NiKr wrote: »

....I've heard that SWG had some good pvp and had an amazing crafting/gear system, if Intrepid manages to combine that system with L2's balancing - I feel like we might have one of the best gear systems in mmos. But obviously they'll have to prove that, so only the time will tell.

It was pleasing to hear that some of the designers were - in fact - part of the SWG team, including the former lead designer for Ashes, Jeffrey Bard. In addition to an amazingly in-depth and long-term-based crafting system, EVERY item in Star Wars: Galaxies had some kind of a use. Even the junk loot from trash mobs could be Reverse Engineered into sub-components for things like +Stat modifications.

SWG's PvP was quite the subjective experience. Group PvP tended to operate around specific POI's, such as the bombed-out ruins of the former NPC city of Restuss for PvP reward-tokens, there were PvP-only player bases, and later GCW City Sieges, featuring a 30-minute build-phase, followed by a 30-minute battle-phase. Hitting the Defensive main objective would give you a warning, then open you up to PvP, and the sieges offered their own rewards. Balance was an issue in 1v1, as only certain professions could match eachother - such as Jedi and Bounty Hunter.

But group PvP?

It was just a factor of sheer numbers - and you could always tell when the numbers were even/un-even, as this happened in giant swarms of players. The only area wherein personal skill really shone through was Space PvP, and I haven't seen a space combat flight sim to match it.

Tried Lineage 2 within the last couple of months. Can't speak to L2's PvP, as I couldn't stand the click-to-move interface, after only a couple of hours of playing.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

So clearly, we don't have the same concept of PvP-centric MMORPG.

Yeah I don't have a firm grasp of what pvp-centric even means.

Centric - in or at the center; central.

So what does that mean? Pvp is at the center, or the central part of the game? What's your definition of it? And what games are pvp centric?

Ludullu

Tyranthraxus wrote: »

Tried Lineage 2 within the last couple of months. Can't speak to L2's PvP, as I couldn't stand the click-to-move interface, after only a couple of hours of playing.

Yeah, it's definitely a hard thing to get used to if you've never played with/liked it. Though to me it always meant speed of actions, because my left hand was always on the skills and at the ready instead of just movement.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

Lineage II seems to be PvX, rather than PvP-centric. A PvP-centric game would not have a Karma system.

L2 was definitely leaning more towards pvp than pve in its pvx mix. The pve itself didn't have any real mechanics, while it constantly had pvp for itself. And pvp side had ffa pvp guild wars, castle sieges, fortress sieges (in later updates), a second kind of castle sieges, arena pvp that had a huuuuge influence on open world pvp, and of course pvp for the right to pve. Yes, you had karma do dissuade people from just murdering each other, but social standing was a much greater deterrent than karma ever was. And due to L2's mechanics, a lot of people just made PK alts if they really needed to kill someone, which were usually either bots or some low lvl players that stood in the way of that person's other alt that was meant for low lvl farming. Although that kind of interaction happened way more often on higher rated private servers than official ones.

All in all, I'd definitely say L2 was pvp-centric, even if most of the pvp happened around mobs. And Steven's trying to bring Ashes closer to the middle of the PvX spectrum, with all the super difficult bosses and artisan professions.

Dygz

Okeydoke wrote: »

So what does that mean? Pvp is at the center, or the central part of the game? What's your definition of it? And what games are pvp centric?

PvP-centric is when the devs design the game primarily around PvP first, with some PvE elements and where it's practically impossible to avoid being forced to PvP when you don't want to PvP.

Shadowbane's tag line was "Play to Crush".
New World is not an MMORPG, but the devs made it clear that their primary design was focused on PvP. By Beta, they made it so that you have to opt-in to PvP. Since, it's easy to play New World while completely avoiding PvP, it's no longer PvP-centric.
If there is a Karma system, the game is probably not PvP-centric. If you can play the game and only rarely get ganked - which is what Steven describes - that is probably a PvX game. So, Lineage II seems to be more PvX than PvP-centric.
Wiki's can be edited, so, I'd still have to look through some other sources, but the wiki mentions PvE combat first and then says, "Players can also fight other players through a PvP system."

CROW3

Mortal Online 2 is a PvP-centric MMO.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

PvP-centric is when the devs design the game primarily around PvP first, with some PvE elements and where it's practically impossible to avoid being forced to PvP when you don't want to PvP.

You've just described L2.

Dygz wrote: »

If there is a Karma system, the game is probably not PvP-centric. If you can play the game and only rarely get ganked - which is what Steven describes - that is probably a PvX game. So, Lineage II seems to be more PvX than PvP-centric.

Steven's system is definitely closer to PvX, but L2 really wasn't. You won't be able to farm w/o fighting other people (well, in the og version that is. now it's probably an instance fest with no pvp). Even if you stayed at low lvls just gathering mats (which only came from kiling mobs and only by a special class), you'd still have to fight for them. And even if there's no more newbies on the server, the hardcore players most likely made low lvl alts that will also have better gear than you so you won't even win in pvp against them.

I've been on both sides of that interaction and I know for sure that L2 is way closer to being pvp-centric than most mmos (maybe outside of Shadowbane, as you mentioned).

CROW3

I didn’t play L2, but it sounds like a kinder version of MO2. Basically, if you had any pve goal (crafting, exploration, building, etc) it always involved going through at least one person.

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

I didn’t play L2, but it sounds like a kinder version of MO2. Basically, if you had any pve goal (crafting, exploration, building, etc) it always involved going through at least one person.

Pretty much. And the higher you went, the harder those people fought over those things.

Okeydoke

Dygz wrote: »

PvP-centric is when the devs design the game primarily around PvP first, with some PvE elements and where it's practically impossible to avoid being forced to PvP when you don't want to PvP.

Yeah I agree Shadowbane was pvp centric, New World was not. Those two are pretty black and white. Shadowbane had a completely unrestricted, full loot system, New World was opt-in, zero loot. Polar opposites.

Lineage II and Ashes are in a more grey area. I'd probably just call them pvx. I can see why some people would call them pvp centric or focused though, and some do. That's because for some people, pvp that you can't opt out of and partial loot loss = pvp game. And there aint any arguing or changing their mind about it either.

At the end of the day it depends on how often it happens. What the definition of "rare" is.

Noaani

Okeydoke wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

PvP-centric MMORPGs rarely have enough players to last long.

God damnit Dygz.

Pvp-centric mmos, which I'm assuming to mean mmos with a higher pvp focus, are capable of doing just fine. Black Desert Online, Archeage, Lineage, others I'm sure I'm missing. We're talking player counts in the millions between all these games. Tens of millions potentially

I'm going to pull you up here.

BDO has a daily player login of about 150k.

Archeage is under 25k.

Lineage (assuming you mean L2) is under 20k if you are not including private servers.

As these games are all free to play to an extent, daily log in figures are really the only thing to go by. So we are talking closer to 200k players, as opposed to the millions or tens of millions you are thinking.

Also, those numbers are worldwide - and a high proportion of them are Korean. Ashes isnt likely to pull a many Korean players.

While each of these games attracted a million or more subs at some stage, none of them retained that many players for all that long, and only BDO has a population that would be able to support Ashes staying live.

mcstackerson

Noaani wrote: »

Okeydoke wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

PvP-centric MMORPGs rarely have enough players to last long.

God damnit Dygz.

Pvp-centric mmos, which I'm assuming to mean mmos with a higher pvp focus, are capable of doing just fine. Black Desert Online, Archeage, Lineage, others I'm sure I'm missing. We're talking player counts in the millions between all these games. Tens of millions potentially

While each of these games attracted a million or more subs at some stage, none of them retained that many players for all that long, and only BDO has a population that would be able to support Ashes staying live.

This has been the story for new MMOs for a while now, not just the ones you are cherry picking. There is also more to the games then this one aspect and I don't think you can say definitively this one thing is why their popularity is where it is.

On the other side of this conversation, BRs also weren't popular, then Pubg and fortnite came out and it became the most popular genre. It's almost like there is more to games then one aspect and it's the sum of a game's features that decide it's popularity.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

I've been on both sides of that interaction and I know for sure that L2 is way closer to being pvp-centric than most mmos (maybe outside of Shadowbane, as you mentioned).

It might be more PvP-centric than most MMORPGs, but it has a Karma system.

Which means forced PvP has penalties.
Steven indicates those penalties were strong enough to make ganking rare.
In a PvP-centric game, it should be opting out of PvP that gets heavily penalized.

The official site does not promote Lineage II as being PvP focused. They switch between saying “new PvP and PvE content” and “new PvE and new PvP content” so, the devs do not appear to be emphasizing PvP over PvE, neither by design nor by promotion.
With a PvP-centric game, the devs will emphasize that the game is PvP-centric.
And the design will not include safe zones or PvP penalty systems, like Karma/Corruption.

I think it doesn’t really depend on how rare rare is because the Karma/Corruption system either works to a decent degree or there is no point in having it.

So, again, I would say that Lineage II is not a PvP-centric MMORPG by design. It might be more PvP-centric than most MMORPGs, sure.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

So, again, I would say that Lineage II is not a PvP-centric MMORPG. It might be more PvP-centric than most MMORPGs, sure.

And I, a person who pvped for every single piece of content in that game for over 12 years, am telling you that there was pvp on every corner of that game and there was enough PKing for Steven to add a system where you prevent said PKing in genocidal quantities. And by the same logic of "they wouldn't do this if they weren't trying to make this kind of game", I'd assume Steven wouldn't have added an anti-genocidal feature to L2's karma system if said system had already prevented one-sided genocides. Which it didn't. Yes, they were rare because not everyone enjoys senselessly genociding people, but the possibility was still there, hence the removal of that possibility in Ashes.

Also, Steven decided to go from ffa pvp infinite guild wars that were based on kd ratios to something more objective based, I'd assume, due to L2's GWs being a huge gankfest (as you might've seen in a video I've posted in a recent thread). Now obviously Guilds in L2 were an "opt-in" situation, but considering that you couldn't really clear any meaningful content w/o a party/guild - I couldn't honestly call that pvp opt-in. Your guild could also not accept the war declaration from other guilds, but at that point your social status on the server would be in the shitter and you might get PKd more because of that (my own guilds have done so a few times and it has been done to me several times too).

And as the main point of this post, I'm sure you know that it's not always that the players play the game in exactly the way the devs intended. If anything, the opposite is usually the case. And as a proof to that, with almost every update from a certain point of L2's life, the pvp part of the game was dying more and more, which led to a lot of people leaving, exactly because L2 was always seen as a pvp-centric mmo and yet it was becoming just another failed wow-clone. Or at least that was the experience in my gaming bubble.

Dygz

The possibility doesn’t matter as much as how much it actually happens.
More PvP-centric than Ashes does not make Lineage II inherently PvP-centric by design.

The PvP part of Lineage II dying more and more supports my claim.
What you seem to be saying is that some PvPers perceived Lineage II to be PvP-centric. The dev updates did not support that because the devs don’t perceive the game to be PvP-centric.
And you freely admit that you are in a bubble with a heavily biased and narrow view.

Child Item