That is not tab. Yes, they have assist aiming and camera direction but the retain their core action elements. If tab was the key, they wouldn't need those.
Now I'm nowhere near proper Souls nerds and have never played MH, but even from the 50h of Elden Ring that I played - that shit is so fucking tab target that I don't even know what to say. You can literally target an enemy and strafe around it. If that's not tab, I don't know what is. Yes, you can hit air when you want to, but that's probably the actioniest part of that combat, which isn't saying much.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
Both these games have a 'tab target' option similar to how it works in Legend of Zelda games. People may not always use it, but it is not quite fair to say they 'use aiming' without clarifying more detail on what that 'aiming' is.
That is not tab. Yes, they have assist aiming but the retain their core action elements. If tab was the key, they wouldn't need those.
I can only say that if you perceive that using a Ranged Weapon in Monster Hunter games with lock-on to not be the equivalent of Tab Target in the context of this conversation, then whether or not you are correct about it has nothing to do with the conversation happening.
I think i'm saying that the game is still action combat. They don't abandon any of the other action elements. If tab was truely what people enjoyed then why waste time on those other elements? Lastly, a major use of that feature is to help with camera control, not necessarily aiming which is not a component of tab mechanics.
My conversation was directed at Noanni's comment so not sure how you can say it's not relevant.
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
Both these games have a 'tab target' option similar to how it works in Legend of Zelda games. People may not always use it, but it is not quite fair to say they 'use aiming' without clarifying more detail on what that 'aiming' is.
That is not tab. Yes, they have assist aiming but the retain their core action elements. If tab was the key, they wouldn't need those.
I can only say that if you perceive that using a Ranged Weapon in Monster Hunter games with lock-on to not be the equivalent of Tab Target in the context of this conversation, then whether or not you are correct about it has nothing to do with the conversation happening.
I think i'm saying that the game is still action combat. They don't abandon any of the other action elements. If tab was truely what people enjoyed then why waste time on those other elements?
My conversation was directed at Noanni's comment so not sure how you can say it's not relevant.
I will leave it to Noaani to clarify whether or not your comment is relevant given the clarification. I saw you ask 'why don't popular games use Tab Target', and clarified that they have something that I perceived to be equivalent to what Noaani has tried to explain is 'Tab Target'.
But it is true that all gauging of relevance is up to the target of your point so I apologize for speaking on behalf of Noaani in this case and will disengage.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
Both these games have a 'tab target' option similar to how it works in Legend of Zelda games. People may not always use it, but it is not quite fair to say they 'use aiming' without clarifying more detail on what that 'aiming' is.
That is not tab. Yes, they have assist aiming but the retain their core action elements. If tab was the key, they wouldn't need those.
I can only say that if you perceive that using a Ranged Weapon in Monster Hunter games with lock-on to not be the equivalent of Tab Target in the context of this conversation, then whether or not you are correct about it has nothing to do with the conversation happening.
I think i'm saying that the game is still action combat. They don't abandon any of the other action elements. If tab was truely what people enjoyed then why waste time on those other elements?
My conversation was directed at Noanni's comment so not sure how you can say it's not relevant.
I will leave it to Noaani to clarify whether or not your comment is relevant given the clarification. I saw you ask 'why don't popular games use Tab Target', and clarified that they have something that I perceived to be equivalent to what Noaani has tried to explain is 'Tab Target'.
But it is true that all gauging of relevance is up to the target of your point so I apologize for speaking on behalf of Noaani in this case and will disengage.
Ok, i'll direct this at you. How does that make those games a tab game?
It doesn't, you could maybe claim hybrid but you still are lacking the guaranteed hit of a tab system. Do tab players really consider that tab targetting?
Thing is you can have all of those features and be able to dodge abilities together. In fact BDO actually has that to an extent with some abilities. Stat changing abilities are not limited to tab target. PvP view point can be different but when you are fighting a mob that you know what it does its easy to predict when you need to do things.
At which point then would you have too many things to physically do in the game? From what I remember of BDO, it's a combo system where you gotta press keys in a proper order or in a proper combination at the same time. And iirc a lot of abilities take directionality into account, so you're using up your movement presses to use a skill (correct me if I'm wrong here).
So how exactly would you have a deeper variety of skills, on top of dodgy fast movement, w/o overwhelming the player with a piano-like gameplay. Hell, I played a piano build in L2 and even that was right at the edge of what I'd consider a breaking point of "too much shit to do". I can't even imagine having 20 abilities on top of constant fast-paced movement and proper targeting.
Yup directions input can effect skills in bdo but you can break it down in remove direction influence and having things set as keys to replace that. Bdo also didn't use 0-9 very much besides a few skills so that would also be available to use. BDO is very fast and action oriented to an extreme as skills have very small cooldowns.
This is why I say action doesn't have a roof you can make it as high or as low as you want as it gives more tools on what to do and think about. Slowing the pace of the combat down, having some abilities are more buffs, higher cooldowns would allow things to be at a reasonable pace. Be it being able to dodge into using your buff skill to evade actions when another is hitting you. Teleport iframe is already akin to action combat and something some tab target games would have, mages using the skill to transfer dmg to mana, and anything else akin to things done with stats and ability procs can be done in action and have that layer of movement based on how much the devs want to have int heir game.
It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times.
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
The need to aim is not what makes a game action or tab.
If that were the case, every tab game would be at least action in part, because every action game I have played has had abilities that need to be aimed.
While we may use tab target as a term to refer to tab target combat, it is because that is an easy descriptor for it - not because that is the defining feature of it.
The aiming paradigm is NOT the defining factor between action and tab target games.
From the demo i saw posted recently i'm afraid it looks like diablo - nothing different from just clicking an enemy to attack them, then using an ability that does a certain aoe in front. Nothing different from if this was a tab target game. Stats on stats. Chop them up. Slice and dice until enemy crumbles.
Have you ever played a video game before? Whatever the rest of your post is asking for you' need to either A. take a time machine to pre 1800's or B. go larp in the park.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
The need to aim is not what makes a game action or tab.
If that were the case, every tab game would be at least action in part, because every action game I have played has had abilities that need to be aimed.
While we may use tab target as a term to refer to tab target combat, it is because that is an easy descriptor for it - not because that is the defining feature of it.
The aiming paradigm is NOT the defining factor between action and tab target games.
My issue is when we talk about tab vs action, we are talking about ability delivery system, nothing else.
This is my frustration with this conversation as you don't seem to care about delivery, you care about the other mechanics of the abilities and how they interact. As far as ability depth goes, i think what we want is similar and when i argue "against tab" i'm not trying to argue against those aspect of abilities.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times.
But I feel like that's Noaani's point. Tab games can have much deeper skill design w/o sacrificing on the speed/difficulty of the encounter, while in order for an action game to be playable with a big amount of skills you gotta slow it down in multiple ways, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of "action games are more skill-based because they require you to react to shit faster".
It's just 2 different skillsets. You either use your knowledge of the game's systems and mechanics to properly adapt to the situation or you use your physical ability to react super fast and press correct buttons even faster. The former can appeal to all ages and has a really low skill floor, while the latter appeals mainly to the younger audience (due to their physical abilities being at their peak) and has a much higher floor. And you can always speed up tab if you want to, but I'm not sure how many action combat likers would be ok with a slow ass combat in their game.
My issue is when we talk about tab vs action, we are talking about ability delivery system, nothing else.
No, we are not.
Edit; if this is what you believe, then you are having your own conversation that no one else is really taking part in.
As I said earlier, tab target is a term used to denote an entire combat system. Just because we are calling it a tab target combat system, that does not mean we are only talking about the delivery system - we are talking about the whole combat system, the combat system just happens to be named after its delivery method.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
Thing is you can have all of those features and be able to dodge abilities together. In fact BDO actually has that to an extent with some abilities. Stat changing abilities are not limited to tab target. PvP view point can be different but when you are fighting a mob that you know what it does its easy to predict when you need to do things.
At which point then would you have too many things to physically do in the game? From what I remember of BDO, it's a combo system where you gotta press keys in a proper order or in a proper combination at the same time. And iirc a lot of abilities take directionality into account, so you're using up your movement presses to use a skill (correct me if I'm wrong here).
So how exactly would you have a deeper variety of skills, on top of dodgy fast movement, w/o overwhelming the player with a piano-like gameplay. Hell, I played a piano build in L2 and even that was right at the edge of what I'd consider a breaking point of "too much shit to do". I can't even imagine having 20 abilities on top of constant fast-paced movement and proper targeting.
Bear in mind that it is entirely possible that the person you are talking to considers the 'Piano-like gameplay' to be the entire point. To be the 'skill'.
I consider this to be a gradient, there is no 'Tab or Action' once you get to where Intrepid has. Just a scale of how much physical twitch skill you need to have, and how unpredictable your enemies are.
If a person thinks that 'you should have to have high twitch skill' and ALSO for whatever reason believes 'CPU enemies are always predictable', their assumptions will be skewed.
Intrepid has not defined an 'intended APM' for the game, at this time, but when I say it is 'faster than BDO', I say this as a person who plays the 'fastest' (or maybe second fastest now? depends on your perception of how to play Sorceress) class in that game.
I expect to have to do even more in Ashes JUST based on what I saw from those daggers, and I expect that to be 'as a healer', as long as I am also stabbing and slashing things. APM in a World Boss fight on my Kuno is only 130-ish at the high-activity times and drops to 40-70 when the boss is not as active.
If tab combat was as interesting as you claim then rpgs outside of MMOs would use it. They don't. They all use some kind of system that requires aiming. Elden ring and Monster hunter could be considered some of the most popular pve games on the market and use aiming.
The need to aim is not what makes a game action or tab.
If that were the case, every tab game would be at least action in part, because every action game I have played has had abilities that need to be aimed.
While we may use tab target as a term to refer to tab target combat, it is because that is an easy descriptor for it - not because that is the defining feature of it.
The aiming paradigm is NOT the defining factor between action and tab target games.
If you need to aim in tab target (ie aoe effect drop on a area) that is action oriented and I'd agree takes a degree of skill. Though that can vary because its also what can your opponents do to get out of it and the easy of targeting the area. Dota being a moba is hybrid between target and action.
Elden ring is action based, it has targeting and that is 100% fine and a way to help people manage in games without worry about free aim on everything. I can see the connection to that on tab target but with tab target your attack though has a projectile, that is only effect it still is hitting the target. And math will decide if it misses or not, not the objects in the world and your aim.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
As I said earlier, tab target is a term used to denote an entire combat system. Just because we are calling it a tab target combat system, that does not mean we are only talking about the delivery system - we are talking about the whole combat system, the combat system just happens to be named after its delivery method.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have.
A simple google search shows that eye hand coordination is handled by the cerebellum and critical thinking is handled by frontal lobe. What does your paper say?
If you need to aim in tab target (ie aoe effect drop on a area) that is action oriented and I'd agree takes a degree of skill.
The class I talked about earlier where I needed to assess each cast before making it, and change up my priority on the fly, it also had several abilities that required placing.
However, it also had it's biggest ability being a short rage (melee range, on a caster) cone shaped AoE that could hit up to 3 targets. So, not only were you assessing and reassessing the abilities, buffs and procs that you had going on, but you also had to keep in mind when you would use this larger ability. The class needed to stay at range for the bulk of most fights (top end at least), and had no abilities at all that could be used while moving, so getting in close to use literally the biggest single target ability we had - but having it potentially hit three mobs - took some real thinking ahead to be effective.
There was no point in using it if it means you couldn't cast while moving up to the mob and then back, but you also didn't want to not use it - especially if the chance of hitting multiple mobs was there.
There was a lot going through your head with that class - if you wanted to play at the top end.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I haven't played it yet, so I'm not drawing any sort of line yet. But steven asked for feedback about if we are going in a positive direction, and I'm just gonna say that every action combat korean type mmo I've ever played I have absolutely hated. I am tab target 100%, I think action combat only works from an overhead 3rd person perspective like diablo or league of legends or lost ark.
For every garbage Korean Action MMO, there's just as many if not more shitty tab-target WoW knock-offs. I honestly don't know how Ashes looks 'Korean', maybe broaden your MMO knowledge outside of Diablo, League and Lost Ark?
I don't want to aim my ability's honestly, If I use a sword and get animation locked, and at the same time I'm required to dodge some kind of skill shot. I'm not gonna be happy. If I miss a spell as a spell caster because my mouse was 4 pixels off, same thing. Tab targeting let's me focus on what I think matters.
I didn't see any animation locking in the combat footage recently going around, did I miss something? And if you miss a spell because you missed... you won't be happy? Really giving off a, "aim assist isn't an advantage!" vibe. If you can't maintain sight on your target, you shouldn't hit them, it's pretty simple. Anyway, I'm sure you can find yourself a WoW knock-off that'll please you, enjoy.
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at.
Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
EDIT: Why do you make comments like you do in you edit? Do you think people read that and automatically agree with it or something? Just makes you sound mean.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at.
Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing.
You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure.
I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required.
If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data.
I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at.
Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing.
You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure.
I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required.
If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data.
I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient.
My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim. I think this premise is silly and would be proven false because the part of your brain that parses the abilities "depth" and the part that aims is different.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
Please, show me what you have
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at.
Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing.
You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure.
I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required.
If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data.
I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient.
My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim. I think this premise is silly and would be proven false because the part of your brain that parses the abilities "depth" and the part that aims is different.
I will leave clarification of Noaani's argument to Noaani, I will note that my response was based on an overassumption due to having played the same types of games. You've played BDO I believe, so I offer this:
"The part of my mind that is deciding what ability to use based on spacing is not the same as the part that is actually aiming the ability (but is connected to the part that is attempting to change spacing so that the aim is valid."
"The part of my mind that is deciding what ability to use based on spacing is also the part that is making the decisions about other factors in the fight."
It seems to me that your point is that you would like Noaani to use a term other than 'aiming' when making this 'argument', and I can agree that the concept of 'aiming' (and only aiming) being an additional strain on most players is not likely to be correct.
There is nothing action can't do compared to tab that is false you can design things to be however you want in a game.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
Point one - Yes action does ask more from a player correct.
Point two - Yes you can create too much going on for players on both systems and make it as complex as you want. Tab target being relied upon mechanics in the game.
~~~~~~~
The 75% and 25% number is not true, as you can adjusted the action oriented aspects as much as you want.
1. First dodging should be second hand, you can compare that to using an ability at the same time in tab target. The part that would take more out oft he player is knowing where to go after and fi another dodge is needed.
2. Design balance can adjust and lower the amount needed from a player. Instead of attacking you focus on dodge during a certain part of a phase. So the phase is having the player dodge as it is a mech and worrying about their position. It simply is adds more variety to the gameplay that adjust the gameplay loop.
3. Though the player has more to focus on in action between using their skills and dodging but you can't fully say that makes less design choices. It actually adds more design choices for that 75% that is actually not being fully utilized in tab target used in tab target.
4. Tab target using 75 or any amount of player focus or action combat. Now we need to look in why would the player have that kind of focus in tab target. More than likely it is going to be relating to a mechanic every time that the player needs to do (if you have a different type of an example id be happy to hear it though and explain). If a player needs to do something during a certain mechanic it is no different in action. Like I have been saying from the start action is a extra layer that can create more dynamic difficulty. You simply reduce or remove a reason for a player to dodge so they can focus on the mechanic. Or you can can use the players ability to dodge in the mechanic. Being another tool allows for more diversity and types of design challenges that can be created for the player.
5. Extreme complex mechanics that require a large amount of focus to complete them. If there is a case where you need 90% to focus on a mechanic that is what people will do, the focus on dmg, movement, dodging will be reduced and people will do what they need to do the mech to beat the raid.
To focus in on this exact point
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players.
I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content
I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible.
My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim.
Again, for the actual third time THIS PAGE, this is not my argument.
It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times.
But I feel like that's Noaani's point. Tab games can have much deeper skill design w/o sacrificing on the speed/difficulty of the encounter, while in order for an action game to be playable with a big amount of skills you gotta slow it down in multiple ways, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of "action games are more skill-based because they require you to react to shit faster".
It's just 2 different skillsets. You either use your knowledge of the game's systems and mechanics to properly adapt to the situation or you use your physical ability to react super fast and press correct buttons even faster. The former can appeal to all ages and has a really low skill floor, while the latter appeals mainly to the younger audience (due to their physical abilities being at their peak) and has a much higher floor. And you can always speed up tab if you want to, but I'm not sure how many action combat likers would be ok with a slow ass combat in their game.
I kind of go into this in my point point but very short form you can't look at it as overall action with pve encounters. Think of it as an additional tool they can use to varying degrees in their content. Not all content needs to have mechanics that rely as heavy on dodging for phases and attacks and such. They can have the combat not be as focus and more about getting your dmg and solving the puzzle, they can have parts where you dodge or use more of the mobility granted.
Its all simply more tools that they can use, which means more types of content, its not really a separated thing between design and a players use of mobility in action based.
I tried to look for a good video, but every other video has them clicking skills with their mouse and being overall shit at targeting and stuff. Really wish I made some videos back when I was still playing.
Here's a vid that at least shows the speed of casting and roughly 85% of the skills on the bar that I used. This is a more magey build of this class, while I went for phys+mage which added a few more skills to the cycle. And on the rewatch of this vid, I think the part where the dude manually clicks skills it's just someone else playing, because the layout is completely different, so that other player might not be used to the skill bar yet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIxubnfGF-s
On top of all the skill usage I'd be constantly spamming space to eat some health bottles, so that would bump the apm, but not really meaningfully.
I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players.
I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content
I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible.
Now you are understanding my point.
As I have been saying for actually longer than you have been on these forums, action is probably better all around for solo, for small group and for PvP. Especially in PvP, it actually creates more variety than tab target creates in PvP.
However, when it comes to top end, when we are talking about having an actual raiding scene that requires many encounters over a period of time, encounters that need to be materially different from each other mechanics wise, action combat simply can not hold a candle to tab.
I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players.
I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content
I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible.
Now you are understanding my point.
As I have been saying for actually longer than you have been on these forums, action is probably better all around for solo, for small group and for PvP. Especially in PvP, it actually creates more variety than tab target creates in PvP.
However, when it comes to top end, when we are talking about having an actual raiding scene that requires many encounters over a period of time, encounters that need to be materially different from each other mechanics wise, action combat simply can not hold a candle to tab.
What are you saying, im saying action combat can do all of those encounters?
Comments
I think i'm saying that the game is still action combat. They don't abandon any of the other action elements. If tab was truely what people enjoyed then why waste time on those other elements? Lastly, a major use of that feature is to help with camera control, not necessarily aiming which is not a component of tab mechanics.
My conversation was directed at Noanni's comment so not sure how you can say it's not relevant.
I will leave it to Noaani to clarify whether or not your comment is relevant given the clarification. I saw you ask 'why don't popular games use Tab Target', and clarified that they have something that I perceived to be equivalent to what Noaani has tried to explain is 'Tab Target'.
But it is true that all gauging of relevance is up to the target of your point so I apologize for speaking on behalf of Noaani in this case and will disengage.
Ok, i'll direct this at you. How does that make those games a tab game?
It doesn't, you could maybe claim hybrid but you still are lacking the guaranteed hit of a tab system. Do tab players really consider that tab targetting?
Yup directions input can effect skills in bdo but you can break it down in remove direction influence and having things set as keys to replace that. Bdo also didn't use 0-9 very much besides a few skills so that would also be available to use. BDO is very fast and action oriented to an extreme as skills have very small cooldowns.
This is why I say action doesn't have a roof you can make it as high or as low as you want as it gives more tools on what to do and think about. Slowing the pace of the combat down, having some abilities are more buffs, higher cooldowns would allow things to be at a reasonable pace. Be it being able to dodge into using your buff skill to evade actions when another is hitting you. Teleport iframe is already akin to action combat and something some tab target games would have, mages using the skill to transfer dmg to mana, and anything else akin to things done with stats and ability procs can be done in action and have that layer of movement based on how much the devs want to have int heir game.
It all comes down to balancing and the experience you want players to do and the learning curve you want is implement well. So not making things unreadable, balancing the speed of the combat so its something most people can play and enjoy, and having that flare of action that people can rely on to dodge some moves with skills, and having some element of aim being a factor at times.
The need to aim is not what makes a game action or tab.
If that were the case, every tab game would be at least action in part, because every action game I have played has had abilities that need to be aimed.
While we may use tab target as a term to refer to tab target combat, it is because that is an easy descriptor for it - not because that is the defining feature of it.
The aiming paradigm is NOT the defining factor between action and tab target games.
Have you ever played a video game before? Whatever the rest of your post is asking for you' need to either A. take a time machine to pre 1800's or B. go larp in the park.
My issue is when we talk about tab vs action, we are talking about ability delivery system, nothing else.
This is my frustration with this conversation as you don't seem to care about delivery, you care about the other mechanics of the abilities and how they interact. As far as ability depth goes, i think what we want is similar and when i argue "against tab" i'm not trying to argue against those aspect of abilities.
Sure there is. You just need to think about it for even a fraction of a second.
Two points that I want to clear up before I get right in to it. The first is that action combat systems ask more of players than tab target combat systems. I assume you agree with this.
The second point is that developers can create content in either tab or action combat that simply has too much going on for players to be able to cope with. While you may not have seen an example of this, I am sure you can see how it could be true. We should also state that regardless of the combat system, what a player can handle in total is assumed to be the same over both combat systems.
So, with that said, it should already be obvious to you how tab target outright allows for more variety than action, but I will continue.
Lets imagine you are a developer, and you are designing an encounter. You want the encounter to be right on the cusp of what players can handle, when taken in contest with the combat system of the game.
Now, since we know that action combat asks more of players, we can say that it is taking up 75% of what players can handle. This leaves you with 25% of what a player can handle to include in your encounter.
However, if you were in a tab target game, where the combat system is only asking 25% of what a player can handle, that gives you 75% of what a player can handle to use up on your encounter. This gives you literally every option that an action combat game has, plus many, many more.
Now, you can argue the numbers if you like, they are arbitrary. What is key here is the premise outlined above.
If you assume developers can create content that has too much going on for players to be able to handle, and you agree that action combat as a system asks more of players than tab target combat, then you logically have to agree that this leaves more room for encounter design in a tab target game.
There is literally no other logical conclusion to make here - but feel free to try.
It's just 2 different skillsets. You either use your knowledge of the game's systems and mechanics to properly adapt to the situation or you use your physical ability to react super fast and press correct buttons even faster. The former can appeal to all ages and has a really low skill floor, while the latter appeals mainly to the younger audience (due to their physical abilities being at their peak) and has a much higher floor. And you can always speed up tab if you want to, but I'm not sure how many action combat likers would be ok with a slow ass combat in their game.
Edit; if this is what you believe, then you are having your own conversation that no one else is really taking part in.
As I said earlier, tab target is a term used to denote an entire combat system. Just because we are calling it a tab target combat system, that does not mean we are only talking about the delivery system - we are talking about the whole combat system, the combat system just happens to be named after its delivery method.
This isn't correct, aiming uses a different part of your brain. It does not ask more of the player in the way you think.
Bear in mind that it is entirely possible that the person you are talking to considers the 'Piano-like gameplay' to be the entire point. To be the 'skill'.
I consider this to be a gradient, there is no 'Tab or Action' once you get to where Intrepid has. Just a scale of how much physical twitch skill you need to have, and how unpredictable your enemies are.
If a person thinks that 'you should have to have high twitch skill' and ALSO for whatever reason believes 'CPU enemies are always predictable', their assumptions will be skewed.
Intrepid has not defined an 'intended APM' for the game, at this time, but when I say it is 'faster than BDO', I say this as a person who plays the 'fastest' (or maybe second fastest now? depends on your perception of how to play Sorceress) class in that game.
I expect to have to do even more in Ashes JUST based on what I saw from those daggers, and I expect that to be 'as a healer', as long as I am also stabbing and slashing things. APM in a World Boss fight on my Kuno is only 130-ish at the high-activity times and drops to 40-70 when the boss is not as active.
What is it like for the 'Piano Build' of L2?
If you need to aim in tab target (ie aoe effect drop on a area) that is action oriented and I'd agree takes a degree of skill. Though that can vary because its also what can your opponents do to get out of it and the easy of targeting the area. Dota being a moba is hybrid between target and action.
Elden ring is action based, it has targeting and that is 100% fine and a way to help people manage in games without worry about free aim on everything. I can see the connection to that on tab target but with tab target your attack though has a projectile, that is only effect it still is hitting the target. And math will decide if it misses or not, not the objects in the world and your aim.
This is also untrue, should I bring neurological studies or do you have your own?
We can compare papers!
We are not talking about just aiming.
Please, show me what you have.
A simple google search shows that eye hand coordination is handled by the cerebellum and critical thinking is handled by frontal lobe. What does your paper say?
However, it also had it's biggest ability being a short rage (melee range, on a caster) cone shaped AoE that could hit up to 3 targets. So, not only were you assessing and reassessing the abilities, buffs and procs that you had going on, but you also had to keep in mind when you would use this larger ability. The class needed to stay at range for the bulk of most fights (top end at least), and had no abilities at all that could be used while moving, so getting in close to use literally the biggest single target ability we had - but having it potentially hit three mobs - took some real thinking ahead to be effective.
There was no point in using it if it means you couldn't cast while moving up to the mob and then back, but you also didn't want to not use it - especially if the chance of hitting multiple mobs was there.
There was a lot going through your head with that class - if you wanted to play at the top end.
Ok well before I go dredging those up, let me verify that we have the same definition of a specific thing, since sometimes yours don't match mine.
1. "Pointing at a stationary Object and pressing a button." - Visual Cortex heavy, the decision making is premeditative, you know what you intend to do before you press the button. Can we agree that in any situation where you might need to change your Tab Target, this is the same as Tab Target?
2. "Tracking the location of a moving object and pressing a button." - Still visual cortex heavy, decision making still premeditative. This is the one I presume you are talking about, where the Visual Cortex is doing work separate from the rest of the decision making.
3. "Tracking the spacing or location of a moving object and using the information to determine which button to press." - No longer primarily Visual Cortex, intermingled decision making results in other activations with either a mind that 'overshoots' and allows the VC to take priority and potentially take the wrong action, or 'hesitates' and may override VC decision making even when it would have been correct.
When you say 'Aiming is using a different part of the mind, are we discussing #2 and only #2?
EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were serious, but your 'simple Google search' tells me that I should expect to be 'proven wrong' by the vast depths of your understanding of neurology. I'm out, continue to believe whatever.
I didn't see any animation locking in the combat footage recently going around, did I miss something? And if you miss a spell because you missed... you won't be happy? Really giving off a, "aim assist isn't an advantage!" vibe. If you can't maintain sight on your target, you shouldn't hit them, it's pretty simple. Anyway, I'm sure you can find yourself a WoW knock-off that'll please you, enjoy.
I think you proved me right since you prove the aiming is done by the visual cortex and the decision to press a button is handled by a different part of the brain. 3 is the one you should be looking at.
Ok, what part of your brain would you say that the abilities in a tab game leverages?
EDIT: Why do you make comments like you do in you edit? Do you think people read that and automatically agree with it or something? Just makes you sound mean.
Thank you for clarifying, we are not talking about the same thing.
You are talking about an FPS, where the thing being calculated is the trajectory of bullets of approximately uniform speed (relative to the use at range, i.e. you wouldn't use a mortar-shell style shot at the same range as your rifle). Some classes in games work like this, so sure.
I am talking about an Action MMO, MOBA, etc, situation, where the ability options you have would require you to make decisions about not just where to aim, but where to be. In the case of a high-mobility Tab Target game with any range limitations on abilities, those decisions are still required.
If you are deciding spacing and trying to aim at the same time, your VC no longer has primary control of your aiming and it must be done 'manually' by the same part of your mind that is doing the rest of the tracking of input data.
I don't think you believe that Tab Target games are literally just 'I can stand anywhere I want and hit my ability and it will reach my target'. If you believe this, the original target of your conversation will probably be the one to address it, and I do not wish to waste your time further, a definition is sufficient.
My comment is focused on Noanni's argument that a game that requires aiming can never have the same ability "depth" as a tab game because of the extra "brain power" needed to aim. I think this premise is silly and would be proven false because the part of your brain that parses the abilities "depth" and the part that aims is different.
I will leave clarification of Noaani's argument to Noaani, I will note that my response was based on an overassumption due to having played the same types of games. You've played BDO I believe, so I offer this:
"The part of my mind that is deciding what ability to use based on spacing is not the same as the part that is actually aiming the ability (but is connected to the part that is attempting to change spacing so that the aim is valid."
"The part of my mind that is deciding what ability to use based on spacing is also the part that is making the decisions about other factors in the fight."
It seems to me that your point is that you would like Noaani to use a term other than 'aiming' when making this 'argument', and I can agree that the concept of 'aiming' (and only aiming) being an additional strain on most players is not likely to be correct.
Point one - Yes action does ask more from a player correct.
Point two - Yes you can create too much going on for players on both systems and make it as complex as you want. Tab target being relied upon mechanics in the game.
~~~~~~~
The 75% and 25% number is not true, as you can adjusted the action oriented aspects as much as you want.
1. First dodging should be second hand, you can compare that to using an ability at the same time in tab target. The part that would take more out oft he player is knowing where to go after and fi another dodge is needed.
2. Design balance can adjust and lower the amount needed from a player. Instead of attacking you focus on dodge during a certain part of a phase. So the phase is having the player dodge as it is a mech and worrying about their position. It simply is adds more variety to the gameplay that adjust the gameplay loop.
3. Though the player has more to focus on in action between using their skills and dodging but you can't fully say that makes less design choices. It actually adds more design choices for that 75% that is actually not being fully utilized in tab target used in tab target.
4. Tab target using 75 or any amount of player focus or action combat. Now we need to look in why would the player have that kind of focus in tab target. More than likely it is going to be relating to a mechanic every time that the player needs to do (if you have a different type of an example id be happy to hear it though and explain). If a player needs to do something during a certain mechanic it is no different in action. Like I have been saying from the start action is a extra layer that can create more dynamic difficulty. You simply reduce or remove a reason for a player to dodge so they can focus on the mechanic. Or you can can use the players ability to dodge in the mechanic. Being another tool allows for more diversity and types of design challenges that can be created for the player.
5. Extreme complex mechanics that require a large amount of focus to complete them. If there is a case where you need 90% to focus on a mechanic that is what people will do, the focus on dmg, movement, dodging will be reduced and people will do what they need to do the mech to beat the raid.
To focus in on this exact point
I'd agree it leaves more room to create more difficult content for players.
I'd agree there would be more tools in hand for developers to use in creating more dynamic content
I'd agree it be designed with the players action and mobility in mind to not be overwhelming but using their tools to create more types of fun experience as possible.
I kind of go into this in my point point but very short form you can't look at it as overall action with pve encounters. Think of it as an additional tool they can use to varying degrees in their content. Not all content needs to have mechanics that rely as heavy on dodging for phases and attacks and such. They can have the combat not be as focus and more about getting your dmg and solving the puzzle, they can have parts where you dodge or use more of the mobility granted.
Its all simply more tools that they can use, which means more types of content, its not really a separated thing between design and a players use of mobility in action based.
Here's a vid that at least shows the speed of casting and roughly 85% of the skills on the bar that I used. This is a more magey build of this class, while I went for phys+mage which added a few more skills to the cycle. And on the rewatch of this vid, I think the part where the dude manually clicks skills it's just someone else playing, because the layout is completely different, so that other player might not be used to the skill bar yet.
On top of all the skill usage I'd be constantly spamming space to eat some health bottles, so that would bump the apm, but not really meaningfully.
Now you are understanding my point.
As I have been saying for actually longer than you have been on these forums, action is probably better all around for solo, for small group and for PvP. Especially in PvP, it actually creates more variety than tab target creates in PvP.
However, when it comes to top end, when we are talking about having an actual raiding scene that requires many encounters over a period of time, encounters that need to be materially different from each other mechanics wise, action combat simply can not hold a candle to tab.
What are you saying, im saying action combat can do all of those encounters?