Mag7spy wrote: » 1. Key featured are not being removed, else please name them. Just because you don't dodge as much does not mean it is being removed. 2. Tab target combat at its core, target enemy, press skill and do piano playing. Action combat is a lot more invested and you have a lot more control of your character in a much more fun way why would a player want to use tab that likes and has the action element. 3. You are assuming a action player wants to be dodging everywhere and doing crazy things none stop like devil may cry. Why are we assuming what action players like, its clear they simply like the control of their character and not in a way that is tab target and feels clunky to them. The point that was said action combat can't do what tab does. I said that is not true, you can control your character and do a large scale raid playing as action over tab with all the mechanic. The actual next step of this if someone disagreed should be look at this raid from this game with these mechs and here is the reasons why I don't think it is possible.
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one.
Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right?
PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too.
Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me?
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me? Dude. Being at the front isnt a death sentence the tanks right there, not dead if you want to heal him.... What games have you been playing? I dont imagine a wizard in a cloak is barreling into hell fire to fondle his dwarf tank. If you are a front line healer you are probably spec'd into some survival stats.....
iccer wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » 1. Key featured are not being removed, else please name them. Just because you don't dodge as much does not mean it is being removed. 2. Tab target combat at its core, target enemy, press skill and do piano playing. Action combat is a lot more invested and you have a lot more control of your character in a much more fun way why would a player want to use tab that likes and has the action element. 3. You are assuming a action player wants to be dodging everywhere and doing crazy things none stop like devil may cry. Why are we assuming what action players like, its clear they simply like the control of their character and not in a way that is tab target and feels clunky to them. The point that was said action combat can't do what tab does. I said that is not true, you can control your character and do a large scale raid playing as action over tab with all the mechanic. The actual next step of this if someone disagreed should be look at this raid from this game with these mechs and here is the reasons why I don't think it is possible. 1. I'd say having to dodge constantly, instead of absorbing and mitigating damage through different abilities (tab-target) is removing key features. I don't wanna go and read through the whole argument, but my point is if if action-combat was so great, why would you need to remove any features from it during raids? 2. And that's the reason I prefer tab-targeting over action combat. It's more fun to me, not because of the combat itself, but because of what it enables. Theorycrafting, making tons of different builds that use different abilities and passives, relaxing gameplay without needing to be on the edge constantly, having different unique ability combinations and interactions, being able to mitigate damage by popping a shield or by a certain mechanic (Allods Online Paladin Barrier for example - dmg is stored in a barrier before reducing your hp, you use skills to reduce damage in those barriers) etc. etc. Not all of these are tied to tab-targeting or even combat itself necessarily, yet I haven't experienced those things in action games the same way I've experienced them in tab-targeting games. I still don't think you completely grasp this point, because I keep repeating it over and over again. Just because action combat is more fun to you, doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. And I'll even agree that it can be a lot of fun, but again, I view MMORPGs in a certain way, and action-combat in a lot of cases doesn't fit in that view. 3. Because it's usually the most optimal way to play, you want to actively dodge stuff and exploit the combat system to maximum, you want to use every tool you've been given.https://youtu.be/bwlcVJ5W608 I simply haven't experienced this level of customization in an action-combat MMORPG, there simply isn't this much stuff centered around your build, abilities, passives, gear, etc. You aren't relying on your passives and combos that boost your shields and resistances to tank stuff, instead you are relying on actively dodging or blocking, and in most cases tanking doesn't even exist in those games (BDO doesn't have tanks/tanking afaik). And I am basing my arguments mostly against BDO, as it is praised as having "the best" combat.
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.
Solvryn wrote: » Is this thread helpful or comical? Hmm.
Otr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? You have to carefully put the healing potion to his mouth and let him drink gradually, not too fast to spill and waste the fluid but not to slow as he is taking damage actively. If your secondary archetype is rogue, you can also backstab him with the healing potion for 3x healing damage.
Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me? Dude. Being at the front isnt a death sentence the tanks right there, not dead if you want to heal him.... What games have you been playing? I dont imagine a wizard in a cloak is barreling into hell fire to fondle his dwarf tank. If you are a front line healer you are probably spec'd into some survival stats..... Ok yeah nvm. I can only conclude that you don't actually play enough Action Games for this to make sense. Maybe Action MMOs since they tend to be easier. I would also assume you don't raid either just from this response, and you did specifically mention playing ESO and not even needing any mana management. If the 'raids' contain 'no mana management' and 'dashing up to the tank at the wrong time' is NOT a death sentence or at least a massive MP cost that would have been optimal to avoid by not being hit, that's not Raid level content to me. I try really hard to not just assume that people that make these arguments are super casual and only play easy games, but this is increasingly the only conclusion I can come to. I'll aim for that top 8%, and you can backline it and hope that Intrepid's design for top end raids lets this just work.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises. Who said those are the only encounters? Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety. Well, I don't want that. I want my Action Abilities to be important in more encounters. I don't want to have to respec to Tab abilities to be effective on hard encounters and I don't want to just be standing there using none of the strengths of my Action Abilities because they're borderline useless in easier Tab encounters. If your response is 'well don't do that' then I as the "Action Combat Raider" now don't have a raiding scene. I would very much like one. I'm not arguing for how the encounters should be. All i'm doing is arguing against the idea that action encounters can't be as varied as tab ones, which noanni has claimed. Surely you have played ONE of the more recent difficult group Action games enough to understand why one would claim that, though? I'm not even saying you have to agree, just give some example other than 'this can just be made easier' or something. Doesn't even have to be an MMO, since, after all, they usually aren't. If we are talking 'mechanical variance that can't just be cheesed by a monolith of a single class avoiding a main mechanic', you absolutely will lose variance in terms of a raiding scene because raids are tuned to be hard and doing a raid suboptimally (more than 10% below tuning) is increasing your failure chance by a LOT. "Can I hit the Dragon in the head with my Magic Hammer when the Dragon also requires me to dodge to reduce damage?" is the 'challenge' when using an Action Skill (let's assume the last stream showed an Action skill). There are two ways in general to design this, either you NEED to hit the dragon in the head as part of the encounter or risk wiping, or if the skill was Tab, hitting the dragon in the head is either not possible, or not a thing that involves physically orienting your character correctly in the case where the dragon spins, moves, turns, for any reason. If the Tank is keeping the dragon completely still, Action and Tab are almost the same now, right? Which means either Action gets a bonus to SOMETHING (Accuracy, effect, damage, whatever) becoming optimal, or it gets little or no bonus (Tab is now better for those few moments where the thing does spin). Yes, you CAN make a bunch of varied encounters in Hybrid, but 'well in this one you need to hit the Dragon in the head and in this other one you don't NEED to hit it' does not cover 'variety' to me.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises. Who said those are the only encounters? Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety. Well, I don't want that. I want my Action Abilities to be important in more encounters. I don't want to have to respec to Tab abilities to be effective on hard encounters and I don't want to just be standing there using none of the strengths of my Action Abilities because they're borderline useless in easier Tab encounters. If your response is 'well don't do that' then I as the "Action Combat Raider" now don't have a raiding scene. I would very much like one. I'm not arguing for how the encounters should be. All i'm doing is arguing against the idea that action encounters can't be as varied as tab ones, which noanni has claimed.
Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises. Who said those are the only encounters? Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety. Well, I don't want that. I want my Action Abilities to be important in more encounters. I don't want to have to respec to Tab abilities to be effective on hard encounters and I don't want to just be standing there using none of the strengths of my Action Abilities because they're borderline useless in easier Tab encounters. If your response is 'well don't do that' then I as the "Action Combat Raider" now don't have a raiding scene. I would very much like one.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises. Who said those are the only encounters? Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise.
mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of?
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me? Dude. Being at the front isnt a death sentence the tanks right there, not dead if you want to heal him.... What games have you been playing? I dont imagine a wizard in a cloak is barreling into hell fire to fondle his dwarf tank. If you are a front line healer you are probably spec'd into some survival stats..... Ok yeah nvm. I can only conclude that you don't actually play enough Action Games for this to make sense. Maybe Action MMOs since they tend to be easier. I would also assume you don't raid either just from this response, and you did specifically mention playing ESO and not even needing any mana management. If the 'raids' contain 'no mana management' and 'dashing up to the tank at the wrong time' is NOT a death sentence or at least a massive MP cost that would have been optimal to avoid by not being hit, that's not Raid level content to me. I try really hard to not just assume that people that make these arguments are super casual and only play easy games, but this is increasingly the only conclusion I can come to. I'll aim for that top 8%, and you can backline it and hope that Intrepid's design for top end raids lets this just work. Here is whats great about this. If i am a casual, and your little figure of me in your head is correct, then what intrepid's designs for that top 8% bullshit doesnt matter at all to me, as you will be slaving away doing it for me. Ashes isnt every other MMO. The end game isnt everything in ashes. I dont plan on rushing to max level, and trying to be competitive out the gate, because i dont care for that. I want the whole experience of ashes to be enjoyable. Not just the 5 top level raids. I would RATHER everything else in the game be better, than the top level raids. Id rather have something interesting to do for months, instead of 6 raids to grind forever. If you are really here, arguing for action combat just to experience top level raids and nothing else in ashes, i dont think you know much about the world yet.
mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Azherae wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » At the end of the day, you are trying to say something can not be done and all it takes for you to be wrong is for someone to do it. Do you really think that in the future, there will never be an action game with the same amount of raid variety as you find in the tab games you are thinking of? Indeed, all it takes is one developer to successfully do it and I would be proven wrong. I wouldn't have made this argument if I thought it was possible without compromise. You could have any tab encounter in an action game. Yes, you could claim it's bad that it doesn't leverage any of the action elements but that doesn't change the fact this is possible. You would have the same encounter variety in the game. Well now, we have a philosophical argument here. If you have an action combat system, and you remove all action elements, do you still have an action combat system? To me, the answer is no. Further to that, if you have to compromise your combat system in order to have content variety, you have some fairly major issues. This also comes under the point I made about not having to have such compromises. Who said those are the only encounters? Just because it has the large variety of tab encounters doesn't mean it can't have other encounters that use more action elements of the system, creating even more variety. Well, I don't want that. I want my Action Abilities to be important in more encounters. I don't want to have to respec to Tab abilities to be effective on hard encounters and I don't want to just be standing there using none of the strengths of my Action Abilities because they're borderline useless in easier Tab encounters. If your response is 'well don't do that' then I as the "Action Combat Raider" now don't have a raiding scene. I would very much like one. I'm not arguing for how the encounters should be. All i'm doing is arguing against the idea that action encounters can't be as varied as tab ones, which noanni has claimed. Surely you have played ONE of the more recent difficult group Action games enough to understand why one would claim that, though? I'm not even saying you have to agree, just give some example other than 'this can just be made easier' or something. Doesn't even have to be an MMO, since, after all, they usually aren't. If we are talking 'mechanical variance that can't just be cheesed by a monolith of a single class avoiding a main mechanic', you absolutely will lose variance in terms of a raiding scene because raids are tuned to be hard and doing a raid suboptimally (more than 10% below tuning) is increasing your failure chance by a LOT. "Can I hit the Dragon in the head with my Magic Hammer when the Dragon also requires me to dodge to reduce damage?" is the 'challenge' when using an Action Skill (let's assume the last stream showed an Action skill). There are two ways in general to design this, either you NEED to hit the dragon in the head as part of the encounter or risk wiping, or if the skill was Tab, hitting the dragon in the head is either not possible, or not a thing that involves physically orienting your character correctly in the case where the dragon spins, moves, turns, for any reason. If the Tank is keeping the dragon completely still, Action and Tab are almost the same now, right? Which means either Action gets a bonus to SOMETHING (Accuracy, effect, damage, whatever) becoming optimal, or it gets little or no bonus (Tab is now better for those few moments where the thing does spin). Yes, you CAN make a bunch of varied encounters in Hybrid, but 'well in this one you need to hit the Dragon in the head and in this other one you don't NEED to hit it' does not cover 'variety' to me. As a designer, you have to understand why claiming something is impossible because of what another game did is illogical. If you don't want a class cheesing a mechanic then don't let them cheese the mechanic... Maybe you could give an example of what you are thinking about because that comment confused me. In the rest of your post, I don't understand the point you are trying to argue besides the balance of tab and action abilities in ashes, which i don't think is relevant. Not only am i just talking about action combat in general but in ashes, i don't think fights will be designed differently based on preferred combat style. What are you trying to get at?
Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me? Dude. Being at the front isnt a death sentence the tanks right there, not dead if you want to heal him.... What games have you been playing? I dont imagine a wizard in a cloak is barreling into hell fire to fondle his dwarf tank. If you are a front line healer you are probably spec'd into some survival stats..... Ok yeah nvm. I can only conclude that you don't actually play enough Action Games for this to make sense. Maybe Action MMOs since they tend to be easier. I would also assume you don't raid either just from this response, and you did specifically mention playing ESO and not even needing any mana management. If the 'raids' contain 'no mana management' and 'dashing up to the tank at the wrong time' is NOT a death sentence or at least a massive MP cost that would have been optimal to avoid by not being hit, that's not Raid level content to me. I try really hard to not just assume that people that make these arguments are super casual and only play easy games, but this is increasingly the only conclusion I can come to. I'll aim for that top 8%, and you can backline it and hope that Intrepid's design for top end raids lets this just work. Here is whats great about this. If i am a casual, and your little figure of me in your head is correct, then what intrepid's designs for that top 8% bullshit doesnt matter at all to me, as you will be slaving away doing it for me. Ashes isnt every other MMO. The end game isnt everything in ashes. I dont plan on rushing to max level, and trying to be competitive out the gate, because i dont care for that. I want the whole experience of ashes to be enjoyable. Not just the 5 top level raids. I would RATHER everything else in the game be better, than the top level raids. Id rather have something interesting to do for months, instead of 6 raids to grind forever. If you are really here, arguing for action combat just to experience top level raids and nothing else in ashes, i dont think you know much about the world yet. I honestly agree with you but I don't have the same goals as you. I would hope for everyone to have a chance to experience everything in such a great game and enjoy it. I dunno if it is hard to believe, but I care a LOT about other people, people I don't know, and people who might not know what there is out there to enjoy. If Ashes makes no top-end content, and it's all just politics, PvP, and World Bosses, at the top, I'll take it. If Ashes makes a game where only I and others like me can do it and you and everyone like you who (for example) hates Action Combat healing gets relegated to 'well there's lots of other things to enjoy', then I will both 'be among the best Raiders' and also be upset that they were not able to deliver something that you (or someone who is similar to you but actually cares) could enjoy. But it is true that if the majority opinion is just 'Yeah I don't care this seems too hard to be fun anyway' then I'll just ignore it like I do in the genre of game I play more now. If you aren't trying to be competitive, if you don't care about the top level raids, and somehow still concluded from this that I 'want Action Combat above all else', then there's nothing to say.
Mag7spy wrote: » Not going to do a giant post just do a long story short. If the comment was I haven't seen that in action yet but I hope or would like to see complex mechanics with action style game, it be a different convo. It is because it was said Its impossible to ever do action combat on high end raid. Action combat isn't just dodging, and you can have dodge mechanics in a raid. I liek tons of stats in my mmo as well and something i also find is lacking in action mmorpgs and there is no reason they can't include it. Unsure where this random information came from removing mechanics because it is action based, don't believe a single person has said that in the thread.
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » PenguinPaladin wrote: » So i think an argument for hybrid being literally the only way forward is the right answer. I find action combat support as boring as tab targeted dps.... i like having to directly select, or aim my heals, i dont like hitting the heal button and poof, those who need healing have it. I think its very brain dead. Now, am i saying no action combat heals should exist? No. If someone wants to play a more melee focused support role and have a few auto targeted heals to nearby allies. Sure. Just balance the fact that one person is selecting optimal targets with the fact that one person is just pressing a button. And the same can be said for action combat roles... its not that no tab target skills should exist. It all just needs to find a balance. I honestly thing with a hybrid system, the devs can somewhat not care about how tab or action skills match up with every encounter. To each their own. Some players favoring one over the other will obviously favor fighting against certain things too. Let me ask the obvious question then. If I have a healing skill that requires me to dash perfectly up to the Tank and be literally right next to them, like 'I am practically using melee to heal my own tank', and be facing forward to do so, is it cool if it heals twice as much health as a backliner? I'm doing something physically harder to TIME and SPACE correctly if the encounter is serious, and I must coordinate more effectively with not only the Tank but anyone else who might be about to throw off the spacing. Bigger risk, bigger reward, right? Sure? Within balance. "Dash up perfectly" doesnt sound hard, if you dont have walking down i could try and look up a guide for you... I dont know about twice as much, thats why im saying within balancing, but yes i would assume a very low range heal would heal a good amount compaired to a long range one. How utterly obnoxious... The entire point of BACKLINE is that you can't be HIT, isn't it? Dashing up perfectly is about 'not dashing when there is the possibility that you will take damage or have to cancel the healing to survive'. What games do you guys even play, seriously, are you just trying to troll me? Dude. Being at the front isnt a death sentence the tanks right there, not dead if you want to heal him.... What games have you been playing? I dont imagine a wizard in a cloak is barreling into hell fire to fondle his dwarf tank. If you are a front line healer you are probably spec'd into some survival stats..... Ok yeah nvm. I can only conclude that you don't actually play enough Action Games for this to make sense. Maybe Action MMOs since they tend to be easier. I would also assume you don't raid either just from this response, and you did specifically mention playing ESO and not even needing any mana management. If the 'raids' contain 'no mana management' and 'dashing up to the tank at the wrong time' is NOT a death sentence or at least a massive MP cost that would have been optimal to avoid by not being hit, that's not Raid level content to me. I try really hard to not just assume that people that make these arguments are super casual and only play easy games, but this is increasingly the only conclusion I can come to. I'll aim for that top 8%, and you can backline it and hope that Intrepid's design for top end raids lets this just work. Here is whats great about this. If i am a casual, and your little figure of me in your head is correct, then what intrepid's designs for that top 8% bullshit doesnt matter at all to me, as you will be slaving away doing it for me. Ashes isnt every other MMO. The end game isnt everything in ashes. I dont plan on rushing to max level, and trying to be competitive out the gate, because i dont care for that. I want the whole experience of ashes to be enjoyable. Not just the 5 top level raids. I would RATHER everything else in the game be better, than the top level raids. Id rather have something interesting to do for months, instead of 6 raids to grind forever. If you are really here, arguing for action combat just to experience top level raids and nothing else in ashes, i dont think you know much about the world yet. I honestly agree with you but I don't have the same goals as you. I would hope for everyone to have a chance to experience everything in such a great game and enjoy it. I dunno if it is hard to believe, but I care a LOT about other people, people I don't know, and people who might not know what there is out there to enjoy. If Ashes makes no top-end content, and it's all just politics, PvP, and World Bosses, at the top, I'll take it. If Ashes makes a game where only I and others like me can do it and you and everyone like you who (for example) hates Action Combat healing gets relegated to 'well there's lots of other things to enjoy', then I will both 'be among the best Raiders' and also be upset that they were not able to deliver something that you (or someone who is similar to you but actually cares) could enjoy. But it is true that if the majority opinion is just 'Yeah I don't care this seems too hard to be fun anyway' then I'll just ignore it like I do in the genre of game I play more now. If you aren't trying to be competitive, if you don't care about the top level raids, and somehow still concluded from this that I 'want Action Combat above all else', then there's nothing to say. I dont know if we've had the same conversation somehow.... I think hybrid is best. Because it gives the most options to players, and i think it allows everyone to tailer their experience to what they want of the game. Ive given a few reasons why. You ask, should my melee range heals be better than you because im the best player, and i can walk "perfectly" im being snarky again because you seem to have this weird attitude. I agree, within reason. You take a hostile stance, and blame me not understanding on the fact that i must be a casual. I point out that the overall game is more important than the top level content that will only be played by oh so many great and powerful gamers like yourself. And you say there is nothing left to discuss, without ever puting forth a counter argument or opinion. I mean yeah, its like trying to talk to a badger, who is just so proud that he knows how to hold a controller.... Again being snarky because i just dont know what the hell your problem is
Azherae wrote: » Actually now that I've gone back and reread your posts and noted that many of them were edited to soften them after I responded to their original form, I ask two things. 1. Are you the type that generally reacts quickly and then expands on it later? 2. Given that it happened THIS time, was there a specific reason why I was supposed to take your responses more 'nicely/whole' than they were in their original forms? I'm absolutely good with ditching any animosity and updating my model of you to be 'respond to you slower once you've had time to decide if you actually want to add to a post'.
Mag7spy wrote: » Some people aren't built the same. Same people years ago would have thought it was impossible to be sending rockets to other planets and such. Not all designers are the same at the end of the day, some don't have that desire to push the limits of their own designs and create something new. One of the reasons why the mmo genre has been stagnating. Rather then tackle challenges its easier to copy what someone else did that was popular.
PenguinPaladin wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Actually now that I've gone back and reread your posts and noted that many of them were edited to soften them after I responded to their original form, I ask two things. 1. Are you the type that generally reacts quickly and then expands on it later? 2. Given that it happened THIS time, was there a specific reason why I was supposed to take your responses more 'nicely/whole' than they were in their original forms? I'm absolutely good with ditching any animosity and updating my model of you to be 'respond to you slower once you've had time to decide if you actually want to add to a post'. Im type #1 all day every day.... i have dyslexia so when i complete a thought, i post it, and immediately edit it and reread it for mistakes, and almost always continue further
