Mag7spy wrote: » If we are comparing BDO you had plenty of skills to get through people where body blocking was not a issue. Nor do raids need to be 40 people face tanking a single target, plenty of interesting ways to do it if you don't have as large a target. I've already mentioned tank doesn't need to dodge all the time it depends on how the encounter is designed.
Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to.
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.
Mag7spy wrote: » Bring actual mechanics and talk about them so we can have a proper discussion and ill have something to lsiten to
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » If we are comparing BDO you had plenty of skills to get through people where body blocking was not a issue. Nor do raids need to be 40 people face tanking a single target, plenty of interesting ways to do it if you don't have as large a target. I've already mentioned tank doesn't need to dodge all the time it depends on how the encounter is designed. See, what you are doing is saying "action combat can be fine on raids, if you make the following compromises". The thing you are missing is that I am saying "action combat on top end raids requires compromises that tab does not require". Every time you say "action can do it, you just need to make these compromises", you are actually making my point for me - not expanding your own point. You ask me to bring up examples, but why? You are already talking about examples of the limits of action combat - you just don't seem to realize it.
mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to. Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills 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. Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve. In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way. As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss. I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues. Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to. Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills 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. Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve. In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way. As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss. I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues. Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe. The argument is that the game failed to make meaningful raid content. If NWO, BDO, Tera and Wildstar successfully made meaningful raid content... (which you know by now is defined by Noaani as 'able to support a raiding scene one might actually aim to join or hear about')Where is it?
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to. Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills 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. Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve. In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way. As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss. I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues. Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe. The argument is that the game failed to make meaningful raid content. If NWO, BDO, Tera and Wildstar successfully made meaningful raid content... (which you know by now is defined by Noaani as 'able to support a raiding scene one might actually aim to join or hear about')Where is it? Wildstar 40 man raids (probably best proof):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JGdWZng8k&t=206s Tera 30 man raid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LU4mAsR2v0&t=371s Those other games didn't focus on PvE raid content but i could post a video of people zerging down content.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to. Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills 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. Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve. In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way. As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss. I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues. Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe. The argument is that the game failed to make meaningful raid content. If NWO, BDO, Tera and Wildstar successfully made meaningful raid content... (which you know by now is defined by Noaani as 'able to support a raiding scene one might actually aim to join or hear about')Where is it? Wildstar 40 man raids (probably best proof):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JGdWZng8k&t=206s Tera 30 man raid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LU4mAsR2v0&t=371s Those other games didn't focus on PvE raid content but i could post a video of people zerging down content. I believe you may have misunderstood what I was asking for. I am not claiming to know much about WildStar, and I played TERA too late for it to be good. I am aware of (from cursory checks) only 6 '40 man raid bosses' in WildStar, I'm sure there are more. You can tell me how many. TERA, I only know 8. There are certainly more. You can tell me how many.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I expect most people will want to switch between Tab Target and Action Combat to some small degree. Which is why the dev expectation is that each playstyle will go 80/20. Because they want to; not because they need to. Maybe i'm a small group because i don't. It's odd to me that i'll have some skills 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. Movement doesn't need to be an aspect of every encounter. It can be a big part of pvp but play less of a role in pve. In action games that have tanking, it's not uncommon for a tank to use an active block. There is also the Iframe aspect of dodging which a dodge tank can use to dodge skills without actually moving out of the way. As Mag said, BDO had collision and it's not an issue. If necessary, you can let the hit box be larger then the collision box so melee can stand behind each other and still be able to hit the boss. I think those games stand as proof that it's possible and show how much more engaging it can be. MMOs, and games in general, fail for many reasons. If you have proof they failed because of their multiplayer content then please share but from my experience, there were other issues. Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe. The argument is that the game failed to make meaningful raid content. If NWO, BDO, Tera and Wildstar successfully made meaningful raid content... (which you know by now is defined by Noaani as 'able to support a raiding scene one might actually aim to join or hear about')Where is it? Wildstar 40 man raids (probably best proof):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JGdWZng8k&t=206s Tera 30 man raid:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LU4mAsR2v0&t=371s Those other games didn't focus on PvE raid content but i could post a video of people zerging down content. I believe you may have misunderstood what I was asking for. I am not claiming to know much about WildStar, and I played TERA too late for it to be good. I am aware of (from cursory checks) only 6 '40 man raid bosses' in WildStar, I'm sure there are more. You can tell me how many. TERA, I only know 8. There are certainly more. You can tell me how many. I apologize, i missed the raiding scene context in noanni's post. So your argument is that those games did not support a raiding scene therefore, there will never be an action game that is capable of supporting a 40 man raiding scene? If this is not, then please let me know what you are trying to argue here?
mcstackerson wrote: » Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe.
mcstackerson wrote: » I apologize, i missed the raiding scene context in noanni's post.
Mag7spy wrote: » Soooopo tired of head cannon just give some EQ examples on why action combat can't do encounters with the exact mechanic examples so we have something meaningful we can talk about besides conversation over "I think so its true".
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Your argument is the game failed and asserting the game failed because of the reason you want to believe. Where have I made this argument? --- Literally every thing you are saying needs to happen to make action combat work in a raid setting is a compromise that reduces the variation of encounters that are possible, and also strip out aspects of gameplay that players leading up to raids have been working with and enjoying. You don't spend 50 levels teaching players how to play a class with dodging, movement and all of those things, and then add in the aspirational content for the game and remove those things. Raid content should require every aspect of combat that players have at their disposal. If you are stripping entire aspects of combat away - such as dodging - then you are doing your subscribers a disservice. It also can't really be called the top end combat content of the game if it is not using every aspect of combat.
mcstackerson wrote: » you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter. No I haven't. I've even said in this thread that the best thing Ashes has going for it (from my perspective) is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids.
Noaani wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Soooopo tired of head cannon just give some EQ examples on why action combat can't do encounters with the exact mechanic examples so we have something meaningful we can talk about besides conversation over "I think so its true". The reason I am not going to bother with this is because your answer will be "make this compromise and it would be fine" - completely forgetting that my point is that those compromises are the issue. I am unsure why you are referring to logic and reason as "head cannon". Also, it is head canon, not cannon - unless you are suggesting that I am firing projectiles from my head.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter. No I haven't. I've even said in this thread that the best thing Ashes has going for it (from my perspective) is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids. Then what are you arguing?
Mag7spy wrote: » As well cross referencing your understanding of compromise and my own for mechanics.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » you have asserted those elements will take away from the encounter. No I haven't. I've even said in this thread that the best thing Ashes has going for it (from my perspective) is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids. Then what are you arguing? That action combat doesn't allow for the variety of top end raid encounters that tab target allows for. This isn't an argument that is specific to Ashes - it never has been. It is a comment/observation on action combat in general. As well as saying that the best thing Ashes has going for it is the possibility of requiring an element of action combat on raids, I have also said that if Ashes has raids that are good enough to attract people that are currently raiding in other games, people taking on those encounters will be using tab target as much as they possibly can, because it frees players up more to do anything the raid may ask them to do. Since players in Ashes have that choice though, the discussion simply can't apply to Ashes.
