Tab target is just sad

It looked similar to the old ranger video I saw years ago. People play WoW for its nostalgia not for its combat and ashes will not have any nostalgia to benefit from.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Azherae

Sathrago wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

.

Aerlana wrote: »

Would also say that BNS is an average quality game at most, excellent gameplay feeling well, and working well for PvP but also PvE encounter (even if they were quite easy). The gameplay was maybe the only the good thing amongst major topic for a MMORPG quality...

And also... maybe i did misunderstood sathrago, but i feel he points out that from the "action combat" fan nobody used BNS as example, while still defending the action gameplay for AoC.

Personally, i would totally go on this as example if, suddenly, IS decide to go "action combat style" (would be strange, and risky decision... if not suicidal). But also i am one totally satisfied with current situation ^^'

Right but if a lot of the community went 'well we don't want fighting game level combat don't bring up such games in conversation' and BNS literally has a combo counter.... That's why it doesn't get brought up.

I was not suggesting blade and soul or advocating for action combat. I was only pointing out that it was really weird no one brought it up. The game is not a "fighter" it's action combat. They have combo popups for flair but the actual combos are just what anyone would do when multiple abilities synergize. The combat is still skill shots and combo moves like any other action combat game. The one difference perhaps being that if you know how to play your character and run into someone who doesn't, the person that doesn't also doesn't get to play the game. So CC, dodging, counters and landing abilities is much more important than in other games, but that doesn't make it not an action combat game.

That's what makes it a fighting game.

The term obviously has no 'real' meaning in that sense, right? I'm not gonna argue 'all games that contain fighting are fighting games'.

That means there must be a definition of 'fighting game' that goes beyond 'a game where people fight', and some subset of Action Games are 'fighting games', because almost all Fighters are 'Action Games'.

By the definitions that are generally accepted for 'Fighting Game', BNS is one. You just described one that is unfortunately almost fundamental to the genre definition. Even the definition of Combo is as expected.

"Your first strike put your opponent in a state where it was not possible to recover in a way that allows them to avoid the next strike." - basic definition of a Combo in the form required for fighters, which is exactly how it works in BNS.

Either way I guess your response is moreso a 'proof indicator' than anything else. We don't bring up BNS because 'people don't want fighting games' in their MMOs, some people may not understand 'which is which' but they're pretty set on their perception of what they do and don't want, so it isn't really possible to advance the conversation.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rewrites people's points to mean something they didnt say and then argues against that rewrite they did.

Then goes and complains when others rewrite their points and argue against those rewrites.

Do you understand what it is you are always doing yet?

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rewrites people's points to mean something they didnt say and then argues against that rewrite they did.

Then goes and complains when others rewrite their points and argue against those rewrites.

Do you understand what it is you are always doing yet?

Because you misread half my point and inject exaggerated reference or assumptions. That is on you.

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rewrites people's points to mean something they didnt say and then argues against that rewrite they did.

Then goes and complains when others rewrite their points and argue against those rewrites.

Do you understand what it is you are always doing yet?

Because you misread half my point and inject exaggerated reference or assumptions. That is on you.

No, because I did it on purpose to show you what you always do.

beretta7

Aerlana wrote: »

Personally, i would totally go on this as example if, suddenly, IS decide to go "action combat style" (would be strange, and risky decision... if not suicidal). But also i am one totally satisfied with current situation ^^'

Insert personal opinion and saying going against it will be suicidal. That is so "game forum" mentality.

Considering some of the first gameplay in the very first game play testing was 100% FPS and it still didn't slow the momentum of this game. Yeah you are wrong.

I think no matter if they go full tab or full action or full fps there will be a massive following in this game. Which is the best direction for this game is truly up for debate. IMO which would be best for profitability? Who really knows...I think focusing on tab target would likely be the worst decision...just a guess. Why you say? It's simple...there are countless other tab target games on the market including the biggest ever they are competing with. Also, I think combat is for the most part moving on from tab and I think that happened a decade or more ago. If you focus on more action or fps I think you are opening yourself up to a slightly larger audience and also a much more faithful one. More faithful mostly or only because there just isn't as much GOOD competition out there. Just my two cents!!!

CROW3

beretta7 wrote: »

Who really knows...I think focusing on tab target would likely be the worst decision...just a guess. Why you say? It's simple...there are countless other tab target games on the market including the biggest ever they are competing with. Also, I think combat is for the most part moving on from tab and I think that happened a decade or more ago.

That’s an interesting analysis you’re basing your opinion on. So tab-games are a monolith with no other differentiating features, and the largest revenue generating mmos in the market moved from tab to action 10+ years ago?

You sure about those facts? 🤔

wrms

beretta7 wrote: »

Aerlana wrote: »

Personally, i would totally go on this as example if, suddenly, IS decide to go "action combat style" (would be strange, and risky decision... if not suicidal). But also i am one totally satisfied with current situation ^^'

Insert personal opinion and saying going against it will be suicidal. That is so "game forum" mentality.

Considering some of the first gameplay in the very first game play testing was 100% FPS and it still didn't slow the momentum of this game. Yeah you are wrong.

I think no matter if they go full tab or full action or full fps there will be a massive following in this game. Which is the best direction for this game is truly up for debate. IMO which would be best for profitability? Who really knows...I think focusing on tab target would likely be the worst decision...just a guess. Why you say? It's simple...there are countless other tab target games on the market including the biggest ever they are competing with. Also, I think combat is for the most part moving on from tab and I think that happened a decade or more ago. If you focus on more action or fps I think you are opening yourself up to a slightly larger audience and also a much more faithful one. More faithful mostly or only because there just isn't as much GOOD competition out there. Just my two cents!!!

I think it's easy to flip this argument around the other way as well. Yes there are a lot of tab target games out there, and based on the populations of those games vs populations of action combat mmos, there is arguably a bigger audience for a tab targeting game. MMO players have been largely fed up with the state of the existing games for some time now, which is a big reason behind the hype for AoC, we are all hoping this is the game that finally gets it right, and would happily abandon the old games if it does.

Alternatively, while there are some massively popular action or fps games that are not MMOs, there is no guarantee that an action combat MMO would capture all or a significant portion of those audiences.

Don't get me wrong, I really like action combat, but I think it's silly to suggest that the system they are aiming for is a terrible decision that won't have any loyal players. If its balanced well, this hybrid combat can still be a lot of fun and require skill to master.

Aerlana

beretta7 wrote: »

Insert personal opinion and saying going against it will be suicidal. That is so "game forum" mentality.

Insert personal opinion and saying going against it will be suicidal. That is so "game forum" mentality.
[/quote]

I never denied to be my opinion, my point of view...

So are all messages considering that the games needs action gameplay to be a success.
I expressed myself why (in my opinion) tab targetting, action or... as in ashes of creation, hybrid is not a problem. all of them can be really excellent while in player's hand, all of them can push skill needed quite high.

And i already did a statement (again on my opinion) about "action being future" with other example from other genre, but lets do it again.
FF evolution swaped to different variant of turnbase to action system. evolution ? because the games want to live in their years ? What about bravely default that is totally a "old FF" with jobs, turnbase, and even the storytelling is "FF-style"
Could also point in FPS that CS and Doom are totally different gameplay, and both are excellent. Smite change deeply the character control of moba, and still a really good game.

Action is not "future" juste "another kind of gameplay" and the one which is the current "fashion" .

Only one thing is a problem around the character controll : good feelings when in player's hand. and it can be done lot of ways on each genre.

The 2 poll shared here show it well : some people prefer tab, other prefer action (slightly more action BUT really close) but over 80% of people will play a game even if it is not their favoured gameplay in it. And i am one of those, action or tab ... both are fine, i can perfectly play both (and can't even clearly say the one i would prefer)

And again, this is my opinions, and why i think this. i am not claiming i am the truth...

and to finish, i will say why i think swiching gameplay from hybrid to action would be highly risky :
When you work for months and years on a way and get a good result, and suddenly do a 180° it is always risky decision, you lose hours and hours of works, (so investment) you can't get back doing it.

Mag7spy

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rewrites people's points to mean something they didnt say and then argues against that rewrite they did.

Then goes and complains when others rewrite their points and argue against those rewrites.

Do you understand what it is you are always doing yet?

Because you misread half my point and inject exaggerated reference or assumptions. That is on you.

No, because I did it on purpose to show you what you always do.

No you do this 24/7

Noaani

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Rewrites people's points to mean something they didnt say and then argues against that rewrite they did.

Then goes and complains when others rewrite their points and argue against those rewrites.

Do you understand what it is you are always doing yet?

Because you misread half my point and inject exaggerated reference or assumptions. That is on you.

No, because I did it on purpose to show you what you always do.

No you do this 24/7

No I dont, I ask for clarification more than anything when in discussions, specifically in order to prevent this from happening.

If someone is either unable or unwilling to offer up those clarifications though, I cant be held to account if there is a misunderstanding - asking for clarification is me doing my part to avoid such things.

Alacrite

Aerlana wrote: »

and to finish, i will say why i think swiching gameplay from hybrid to action would be highly risky :
When you work for months and years on a way and get a good result, and suddenly do a 180° it is always risky decision, you lose hours and hours of works, (so investment) you can't get back doing it.

The ranged mechanic is already projectile based. You could blind shoot an arrow and if someone walks into it, they will get hit. So I wouldn't call it a 180. A couple tweaks and they could do something like make an arrow damage someone beyond the attack range with damage drop. For the lil zoomers, they could have an option to turn off soft-lock, but it'd never be optimal.

Their hybrid system is actually hybrid. The action elements are there so it won't be a lost in investment me thinks

Uboon

Well, 50% of players have below average action-combat ranged targeting skill, and they will appreciate tab targeting to be competitive against the other 50%, who would feel happier killing the subaverage with their better skills. So a system that supports both is the only system that has a chance of pleasing more than 50%, albeit perhaps only slightly. So IMO AoC have got the right system to satisfy the most players.

Somewhat controversially, speaking as a lower skilled player, losing the top 10% of 'skill only' superb players will make my gameplay more enjoyable. But that would be a shame. So perhaps there should be a bonus for hits using action targeting, that usually requires more player skill. Like 5% extra damage because you were able 'to land the shot perfectly where it hurts'.

Child Item