Dizz wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Dizz wrote: » I prefer what I saw in AoC ranger update video than other games like Conq Blade, Darkfall. I feel Intrepid did a great job on ranger and tab/action mode in that ranger update. Personally don't like I need aiming like FPS/TPS in a mmorpg. If I want that kind of skill celling and gameplay I will just play that knid of games such as Apex or Splatoon instead of playing mmorpgs. Tab as a combat system has nothing to offer anymore when you're a mastery chaser. I don’t like aiming without target system simply because I think action combat is not that complete like tab combat to put in mmorpgs, and it simply way harder to make good gameplay and agency for ranged archetypes. And according to wiki that action combat is far less dependent on RNG. If Intrepid still think it's a good idea. I don’t even know how to balance the risk vs reward between tab mode and action mode to make the combat feels good for both side of players in small scale fights and large scale fights. Still the hybrid combat Intrepid presented no matter what it should be called, I like it. The targeting system in action mode seems solved situations like when healer need to cast single target healing ability on someone was covered in a large group of people. It also looks like AC6's target system(I don’t know what you call it, I simply call it target system), different in detail but what Intrepid presented is good enough for me. To me now so called action combat lack too much to replicate the fun part about what human body able to do in reality into a virtual game, and doesn’t always feel having control to my character like my body in reality. Especially when playing a mmorpg like AoC as a ranger. For example I able to run forwards and shoot arrows backwards at the same time. It’s easy to replicate and balance in tab combat and feel good. In my experience it’s not easy to replicate in action combat but still doable however the experience the feeling and respond is not good as tab combat. Because in reality the bow hand does the aiming about 80~90% then eyes, and action combat doesn’t offer the agency for me to able to control my character like how I control and use my body. A further example in reality I can shoot turning arrows to hit target behind object. It’s easy to replicate in tab combat and using RNG to easily to represent the shot hit or miss. I don’t think it’s easy or even I doubt it’s able to replicate this in action combat that need aiming.
Solvryn wrote: » Dizz wrote: » I prefer what I saw in AoC ranger update video than other games like Conq Blade, Darkfall. I feel Intrepid did a great job on ranger and tab/action mode in that ranger update. Personally don't like I need aiming like FPS/TPS in a mmorpg. If I want that kind of skill celling and gameplay I will just play that knid of games such as Apex or Splatoon instead of playing mmorpgs. Tab as a combat system has nothing to offer anymore when you're a mastery chaser.
Dizz wrote: » I prefer what I saw in AoC ranger update video than other games like Conq Blade, Darkfall. I feel Intrepid did a great job on ranger and tab/action mode in that ranger update. Personally don't like I need aiming like FPS/TPS in a mmorpg. If I want that kind of skill celling and gameplay I will just play that knid of games such as Apex or Splatoon instead of playing mmorpgs.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Two things I can see it is tab. They also said it’s tab. Back to sleep. Yes, it's a hybrid system, so obviously it'll have a tab component as well. But they literally shoot arrows w/o a target. Is that not the action part of the HYBRID system? If you want just an action system and not a hybrid system - just say so. But you keep saying that you dislike their hybrid system, yet you can't explain how/why/what you dislike and how it could be made better. That is bad feedback.
Solvryn wrote: » Two things I can see it is tab. They also said it’s tab. Back to sleep.
Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat. and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it. It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions. Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument. And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system. p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system. It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games. Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre. TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs. That’s why I wasn’t ragging on GTAoEs level of difficulty to pull off. And I don’t believe tab has more combat depth than action, because there’s less mechanically in tab. But if it brings you joy, great.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat. and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it. It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions. Still waiting on that juxtaposition btw. Cause those videos provided no context for your argument. And again, if there are no hybrid mmos out there - tell us what you envision them to be. How, in your opinion, should Intrepid combine shooter mechanics with a tab system. p.s. yes, I would prefer a full tab, simply because I believe it's easier to build a deeper combat system with that, instead of trying to push shooter mechanics into said system.
Solvryn wrote: » And with that said, that's what actually is with some of the posters here, right? Not wanting to call tab enhanced, tab enhanced because they don't want action combat. and I have no problem treating them exactly how I see them for it. It's a lot easier to respect the people who outwardly say they don't want a hybrid and want pure tab then people who try to hide their intentions.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games. I'm doing just fine in action games, I just don't want shooters in my mmos, otherwise I'd just play mmo shooters. Though I did play Planetside and like it quite a bit as well. Solvryn wrote: » Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre. TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs. I tried TERA. I did not grab me, but I'll probably try it again later on just to get a better feel for it. I also tried it w/o ground indicators for enemy abilities, so it was needlessly more difficult than it should've been
Solvryn wrote: » It’s your preference, I’m not going to on rag you for things that bring you joy, but with a little bit of cheerio training and aimlabs, you too can do well in action games.
Solvryn wrote: » Perfect time to tell you that the closest thing to a hybrid in my opinion is TERA simply because I’ve sat down and compared a lot of mechanics on my spare time. No, I don’t actually think a true hybrid exists on any scale. When we actually study mechanics of varies titles across the genre. TERA wasn’t complete free aim, it has mouse over abilities that had were attached to a targeting system and I think it had GTAoEs.
Solvryn wrote: » RPGs are still RPGs with 100% player workload. That’s not relevant to a combat system. Most MMORPGs enthusiasts like myself understand this.
Dygz wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » RPGs are still RPGs with 100% player workload. That’s not relevant to a combat system. Most MMORPGs enthusiasts like myself understand this. Uh. No. Because a key aspect of an RPG is that your character can be built to have skills that are signifcantly better than your own personal skills/attributes. My character's Charisma and Diplomacy should be able to be "heroic" level. My character's Dex and Strength should be able to be "heroic" level. Even if my personal "twitch motor skills" are terrible, I should be able to build a character with demi-god level Dex. My personal aim could be abysmal, but I should be able to build a character with demi-god level accuracy for aiming. My character should be able to have a high enough Wisdom that it will Spot things I might miss with my own personal eyesight. If a game is 100% player skill, that is not an RPG.
Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » not even fundamentally. T__T ok define combat depth T_T or what elements make combat deep. tip: they have nothing to do with the game being action or tab “Combat depth has nothing to do with combat systems.” Is just what you effectively said. When we start out with jargon like combat “depth”, instead of how the games coded in 3D space it already doesn’t give me the confidence that you’re able to have the discussion. Aiming adds more mechanics to the game and opens the game up to more interact points of data. It also allows the devs to create new skills they otherwise can’t in a tab target system. What I think you’re trying to get it and this is a stretch that tab has more complex forms of data, which isn’t true.
Depraved wrote: » not even fundamentally. T__T ok define combat depth T_T or what elements make combat deep. tip: they have nothing to do with the game being action or tab
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » not even fundamentally. T__T ok define combat depth T_T or what elements make combat deep. tip: they have nothing to do with the game being action or tab “Combat depth has nothing to do with combat systems.” Is just what you effectively said. When we start out with jargon like combat “depth”, instead of how the games coded in 3D space it already doesn’t give me the confidence that you’re able to have the discussion. Aiming adds more mechanics to the game and opens the game up to more interact points of data. It also allows the devs to create new skills they otherwise can’t in a tab target system. What I think you’re trying to get it and this is a stretch that tab has more complex forms of data, which isn’t true. combat depth has nothing to do with the game being tab or action. you can have deep or shallow tab or action games. again, what is combat depth? i dont even know why you keep bringing 3d space. you can have combat depth in a 2d game as well, even more than on a 3d game. That depends on how you make the game. that tells me you dont know what combat depth is... the game civilization has more depth than lets say call of duty or tera and im pretty sure you dont know why since you are only focusing on the mechanical skills, not on what really makes a system deep. edit: you got complexity wrong as well.
Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well.
Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well. I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions. Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games. You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat. Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data. Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell. A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell. Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data. It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you. You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts. Damn dude, just damn.
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well. I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions. Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games. You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat. Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data. Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell. A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell. Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data. It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you. You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts. Damn dude, just damn. which champion is more complex, which one is more deep and which one is harder to master, lee sin or syndra. lee sin has 1 skill shot, syndra has 3. go. again, you are mistaking mechanical skills with complexity and depth. civilization requires 0 mechanical skills and is more complex than any action mmorpg you have ever played.
Leiloni wrote: » TERA didn't have ground indicators for enemy abilities on launch. I don't know when they were introduced but must have been many years later. They're ugly and entirely unnecessary for that game. Enemy animations show you exactly where they will hit, as does experience. More games should go that route and do away with ugly red effects on the ground. Animations exist for a reason!
Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well. I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions. Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games. You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat. Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data. Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell. A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell. Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data. It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you. You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts. Damn dude, just damn. which champion is more complex, which one is more deep and which one is harder to master, lee sin or syndra. lee sin has 1 skill shot, syndra has 3. go. again, you are mistaking mechanical skills with complexity and depth. civilization requires 0 mechanical skills and is more complex than any action mmorpg you have ever played. I don’t play League. Complexity is abstract thought and depth is meaningful decisions in game decision. There’s no mistake.
Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well. I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions. Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games. You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat. Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data. Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell. A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell. Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data. It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you. You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts. Damn dude, just damn. which champion is more complex, which one is more deep and which one is harder to master, lee sin or syndra. lee sin has 1 skill shot, syndra has 3. go. again, you are mistaking mechanical skills with complexity and depth. civilization requires 0 mechanical skills and is more complex than any action mmorpg you have ever played. This argument is a result of a specific skillset-focused player type who aren't blessed with a certain type of auto-reactions, having to build up a skill to make up for that lack of... let's say 'natural talent'. People with natural talent at certain autoreactions in games (possibly RL too but let's not start really troublesome arguments) don't view 'a requirement for those reactions' as complexity, whereas people who have to build up the skill to rival the talent, do. Therefore there will always be arguments between people who have the 'aiming' talent who desire more depth, and people who don't, who want their skill and effort at learning to aim, to be valued. To the first, it isn't challenging, it's automatic. Lee Sin vs Syndra complexity is based on your talents, moreso than anything about the champion or 'skillshots'.
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » what the hell. you are literally turning into noaani, slowly but surely. you can say whatever you want but you still cant say what makes a game complex or deep xD yet you keep trying to talk about those things. oh well. I’m talking about about algorithms and data, you are talking about meaningful decisions. Combat depth in game design literally refers to meaningful decisions in video games. You’re giving me the impression you’re spitballing things you heard because it sounded neat. Data complexity can increase combat complexity, literally. So does introducing different types of data. Taking something as the Frostbolt in WoW and requiring a player to now aim it, increases the complexity of the spell. A player, having Frostbolt aimed at them now has additional data they need to interpret, like the trajectory of the spell. Your eyeball measures the speed, shape, size, color, trajectory all of that is data. It’s not going to read you Shakespeare or ponder Fermis Paradox as it makes its way towards you. You know what a high skill combat system will result in? The more abstract concepts. Damn dude, just damn. which champion is more complex, which one is more deep and which one is harder to master, lee sin or syndra. lee sin has 1 skill shot, syndra has 3. go. again, you are mistaking mechanical skills with complexity and depth. civilization requires 0 mechanical skills and is more complex than any action mmorpg you have ever played. This argument is a result of a specific skillset-focused player type who aren't blessed with a certain type of auto-reactions, having to build up a skill to make up for that lack of... let's say 'natural talent'. People with natural talent at certain autoreactions in games (possibly RL too but let's not start really troublesome arguments) don't view 'a requirement for those reactions' as complexity, whereas people who have to build up the skill to rival the talent, do. Therefore there will always be arguments between people who have the 'aiming' talent who desire more depth, and people who don't, who want their skill and effort at learning to aim, to be valued. To the first, it isn't challenging, it's automatic. Lee Sin vs Syndra complexity is based on your talents, moreso than anything about the champion or 'skillshots'. no, these are based on the amount of meaningful options you have at any given time. this is somethign that can be objectively measured. 1,2,3,4,5, 6, etc options. this has nothing to do with players ability or natural talent. talent and or practice is what makes you master your character. for example, mastering lee sin takes longer and is harder than mastering garen. but you can design something simple or complex, easy or hard, deep or shallow. its more theoretical than actual player skills
Depraved wrote: » your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt. these are objective things im talking about.
Depraved wrote: » Having to choose between 6 different meaningful actions or more every turn in a strategy or a tab targetted has more depth than aiming and clicking or pressing one button.
Depraved wrote: » learning what those actions do is also complex. aiming might require more motor skills, hand-eye coordination, etc, and yeah some people are better at it for sure, but also some people are better decision makers than others.
Depraved wrote: » from the game point of view, having 1 or 2 meaningful options at a given time is neither complex nor depth, doesnt matter if you are playing an action combat or a tab-targetted game. the game genre is irrelevant.
Depraved wrote: » we call it the genius player experience in game design when you give the player 6 options at a given time, for example.
