NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » My point is that they are probably targeting 'the youth' but they have to target them differently, possibly 'later', possibly 'as a subsection of something else'. It's hard to build a community for an MMO by 'starting with a glut of combat content', I feel. Yeah, that's quite likely. Maybe going for hybrid is for that exact reason. They saw that a ton of tab games added action abilities to appeal to newer audiences and decided to build their own system in such a way that it's way easier to add those kinds of things in the future. Starting the game by targeting the people who will definitely throw some money at it (older folk) and then appealing to younger players to save the game from falling off a cliff definitely seems like the best way to go.
Azherae wrote: » My point is that they are probably targeting 'the youth' but they have to target them differently, possibly 'later', possibly 'as a subsection of something else'. It's hard to build a community for an MMO by 'starting with a glut of combat content', I feel.
NiKr wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Well aware of the points above, and what proof is there that people below 40 are not interested in all those traits? Because if those are the points to paly ashes and you are saying its designed for people 40+ then there has to be a reason why someone would not be interested in playing the game if they are below 40 for those reasons. Else the target audience as far as age does not hold up to that argument. Again, this sub-discussion was about TA and not just "whoever's interested". This research from 2004 supposes an average age of ~26 for mmo players. Even if we assume that several million young teens got hooked onto WoW, they'll be at least 30 by the time Ashes comes out. And the chances are, a ton of them will be closer to or over 40. And there's even higher chances that the ones the most interested in Ashes would be over 40, because they would've had to be later in their teens to love pre-mid WoW mmos. And I don't think anyone's here saying that younger people can't be interested in Ashes. But the point is, they're not the Target Audience. And the fact that Intrepid went for hybrid (with full tab as backup) combat is only more proof that they're not targeting all the young people who prefer full action and want to show off their twitch skills.
Mag7spy wrote: » Well aware of the points above, and what proof is there that people below 40 are not interested in all those traits? Because if those are the points to paly ashes and you are saying its designed for people 40+ then there has to be a reason why someone would not be interested in playing the game if they are below 40 for those reasons. Else the target audience as far as age does not hold up to that argument.
Otr wrote: » I thought he was trying to use a direct healing spell but could not select the target player I would not use an area healing when one player is so close to death.
Mag7spy wrote: » https://financesonline.com/video-game-demographic-statistics/
Mag7spy wrote: » The only reason I would even somewhat agree is if combat was akin to Pantheon very slow, not flashy at all, boring looking, etc. AoC doesn't give me that vibe.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » The only reason I would even somewhat agree is if combat was akin to Pantheon very slow, not flashy at all, boring looking, etc. AoC doesn't give me that vibe. From what I can see so far, Ashes combat *PLAYS* slower than EQ2's combat. There are simply fewer actions needed, but those fewer actions each do more (ie, movement as well as attack). Sure, Ashes looks better/faster, but it plays slower - from what we have seen.
iccer wrote: » I've never seen someone so hellbent on arguing with everyone, even when they're wrong. Not only that, but then changing the subject and arguing an imaginary point or bringing up some old arguments. Let's wait a few more months to see how the rest of it will look like, then we'll get back onto it. Right now there's no point arguing about anything really. It's just one person trying to argue and change people's minds and opinions on certain combat systems and how they feel to play... Again, just how someone might prefer vanilla ice-cream, someone else might prefer chocolate ice-cream. One isn't better than another, if chocolate tastes better than vanilla to me, then I'll prefer having chocolate over vanilla, and vice-versa. Now I might prefer chocolate, but sometimes it might not taste great, and vanilla might taste much better, depending on the quality and how well it was made.
Mag7spy wrote: » You are so diluted
Mag7spy wrote: » Its funny i could just say the same as other people if you don't like action combat the door is there. Instead I'm trying to bring up actual points with examples.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You are so diluted I'm diluted? Mag7spy wrote: » Its funny i could just say the same as other people if you don't like action combat the door is there. Instead I'm trying to bring up actual points with examples. No, you've spent most of this thread basically making shit up. You keep providing what you think are examples, but all they are is short clips of how a game looks, not how it plays. It's almost like you would rather watch a cut scene than play a game, you are so focused on how things look.
Mag7spy wrote: » You are very diluted
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » You are very diluted Diluted like how you make a gin and tonic, or diluted as in homeopathy? Either I am really confused, or your intelligence is showing. You bring "examples" of how things look, when I have made it very clear that I am talking about how a game plays. You have not provided one example of how a game plays - and it is very unlikely you would be able to do so (which - by the way - is why I have not asked you for any examples). The reason I have not given any examples is the same - there are likely no videos at all out there of a tab target game that actually shows how the game plays - they only show how it looks. Since I am not talking about how the game looks, such examples are pointless in this discussion.
Solvryn wrote: » Is this thread helpful or comical? Hmm.
Mag7spy wrote: » Its hard to have a logical or intelligent discussion when I'm working based on what you are thinking in your head with complete bias.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Its hard to have a logical or intelligent discussion when I'm working based on what you are thinking in your head with complete bias. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that doesn't know the difference between diluted and deluded. I didn't bother addressing NWO because the game has literally one raid encounter, and the developers saw how bad raiding was and basically abandoned it. I mean, if you want to talk about that game, sure - it is a perfect example of why even a mild action combat game isn't overly well suited to large scale, top end raid content. Much like FFXIV, many players refer to content with fewer than 10 people as "raid" content in NWO - and if you note, I have been saying this whole thread that I am talking about large scale raid content of 40 players - since that is the stated raid size for Ashes. The thing is, I have been involved in threads in this topic in regards to this game since 2018. You haven't bought any new argument or point to the discussion at all - yet you fail to listen to reason or logic. I've had much smarter people, that are much more well spoken, attempt to convince me that action can indeed work in large scale raids, and all of them have left either agreeing with me that it doesn't work, or at the very least with an understanding that there is no current reason to assume it would work. You don't. You aren't listening to logic, all you want to talk about is how action combat looks better than tab - and you are twisting and contorting arguments in all sorts of directions in order to not admit that you are wrong.
Mag7spy wrote: » Bring actual mechanics and talk about them so we can have a proper discussion and ill have something to lsiten to
Mag7spy wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Is this thread helpful or comical? Hmm. Has not really felt helpful I feel like there could have been good discussions and actual issues raised and points challenges like 15 pages ago. But its mostly head cannon debates since they won't give examples of tab target raid elements that they think can't be done in action combat.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Bring actual mechanics and talk about them so we can have a proper discussion and ill have something to lsiten to I mean, we already did. So, a core aspect of action combat is movement. I assume you agree with this because why wouldn't you? When you are talking large scale raid content with 40 people on one target, you can't move the target - which means the tank can't move. Immediately, this does not bode well for action combat - the tank can't dodge. Even without that, explain to me how - in a game with player collision - you can have 15+ melee DPS all jumping around a single target without making that target comically large. So, we haven't even got in to a discussion on actual mechanics, and already action combat is having to make compromises - compromises that tab target does not need to make. Then you get in to the fact that action combat does indeed require more mental action (even if not actual key presses) from the player, and you have yourself a situation where mobs need to be limited in their design to account for players needing to allocate more of their focus to that combat system. By the time you account for all the compromises you have to make with action combat in relation to top end raid encounters, you are left with such a bad combat system that it just isn't worth making the sacrifices. There is a reason there are many action games out there that have attempted raid content (NWO, BDO, Tera, Wildstar et al), and yet none of them has been able to do it successfully. Your entire argument here is basically you saying that you think that you know something that all of the educated, experienced people that made the above games don't know. Essentially, you are arguing from a position of arrogance. My argument is - as much as anything - an observation of games and their content. It is based on seeing developers attempt to get action combat working on large scale raids and finding that it is not as successful as they want - and so abandoning the idea. Now, I'm still a little confused. You keep saying you have provided all these examples. I've seen a few examples of what action combat looks like in small scale combat, but have you provided a link to much in the way of action combat being used in a large scale (40+ people) raid against a single target? I mean, even if I were to ignore the fact that your "examples" are all just in regards to how things look, I fail to see how anything other than examples from 40+ person combat are even relevant in a discussion that is about action combat in situations where 40+ people are taking on one encounter.
