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.
I’m not going to judge you for your preferences though.
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.
Is everything east of Germany, Russia? No.
I’ve already given feedback on the combat system. I’ll give more feedback on the combat system.
Just like other players give their feedback.
I told you the purpose of this thread.
Is Snipe, a Snipe? No it’s a weird flavor text for an ability you can’t snipe with.
You’re free to message me on discord anytime you want.
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.
I'd call TERA true action but that's not really the point. They didn't have GtAoEs, though. Since you had to play in reticule mode and couldn't use the mouse in combat they functionally couldn't.
Instead they had a couple TAoEs (targeted AoEs) where you'd use their lock on functionality to lock onto a target and it would then place a 4-5m AoE at that location. But most of the AoEs were fixed location such as a 4-5m circle AoE centered 10m in front of you, or same circle fixed location at your feet. Sorc and Priest both had the AoEs fixed 10m in front of you for a few. Sorc, Priest, and Archer all had the AoEs at your feet (traps as well as the one heal). They had some other creative AoEs of other types, too.
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.
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
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!
/endrant
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you’re trying to automatically invalidate your point by using an emotionally based point to counter one based in logic.
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.
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.
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'.
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!
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.
sure, agreed. so thought and decision. where is action combat mentioned? see you got to the answer by yourself.
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
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
Sure ok.
In my experience you have to think of them as different things though.
So Civ4 is 'complex' not 'simple', but it's not 'deep' because it's 'complex'.
AC6 Chapter 1 Boss is 'hard', but it's simple and shallow.
Predecessor is 'deep' but it isn't hard or complex once you are playing the character that matches your instincts/talents.
But I guess I don't like to view these things in a vacuum, so if you're a Theoretical Classist, this 'conversation' is never gonna end. Good luck.
your subjective experience doesnt matter. same as mine, it doesnt.
these are objective things im talking about.
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. 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. 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.
we call it the genius player experience in game design when you give the player 6 options at a given time, for example.
Are there games with post-release-pre-effect actions? So, like, you release a projectile but then you have several actions you can take to change the effect of the projectile, on top of its base effect.
I feel like that would be the "depth" of tab, but in an action style.
Smth like the BDO's directional design, just not only before the skill's release but also after.
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.
Action Combat has more than one button. It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game. Again this is your misunderstanding of how a Strategist actually thinks, not to much your overall lack of understanding strategy, tactics, psychology, and data.
It's not as simple as "point and shoot."
Action has every "meaningful action", that a tab game does and requires the player to fulfill that action they are capable and it has a greater difficulty. That completely changes the way you play the game and requires more in terms of strategic and tactical thinking: geometry, geography, trajectory, awareness, are way more important and punishing in an action game.
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.
Making decisions in addition processes like aiming, is more complex.
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.
It's what you do in high strategy games like chess, it's why it's deterministic. A Strategist always narrows down the decisions to the best one. That's why previously I said Chess is completely deterministic, because there aren't many decisions to make.
If you have 100 decisions and only 3 are good ones. Then you only have 3 decisions to choose from.
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc
tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).
actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc
tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).
actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.
I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.
Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc
tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).
actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.
I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.
Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.
ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development
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.
It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc
tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).
actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.
I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.
Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.
ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development
If you were a game designer, you wouldn't have to shift the goal posts and you would have been able to articulate your points in explicit detail from the start. Nor would have you engaged in fallacious behavior.
Your inability to articulate your points doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Nor is the part where you have actively demonstrated that you do not understand basic statistics, psychology, strategy, tactics, or game theory. You have to reasonably explain and defend your extraordinary claims, not me.
So after all of that, what is it that you could possibly have that I could consider a moment to learn from? That you cannot even the follow your own arguments? You've proven yourself incapable of argumentative logic?
You have yet to present a teachable moment. You're able to regurgitate information, from a quick engine search. Don't worry though, I can say I will put more time than I already have in the last few years into game development and the combat systems for the specific purpose of presenting viable data and feedback.
Something you seem to be unable to do at the moment.
Try Archer! You’ll experience the bloom on the reticle and the arrow physics. Also, combos are very important.
I'm sure that its archer is great and all, but I don't really care about that class. Me playing it wouldn't really give me any knew revelations about this discussion, because I've played archers in other action games already.
At this point I'm sure we won't get anywhere. You just want shooter mechanics in Ashes and I just want some action abilities that can be blocked. Our interests cross paths, but you're just much more of stickler for semantics of said mechanics and for very particular features that I have no interest in.
We'll see what Intrepid decide to do with their rangers. Initial plan was always to fall back on full tab, if hybrid doesn't work out, so I wouldn't be surprised that they change course down the line if they hear a ton of negative feedback about the action part of the game.
Well, I at least hope they will, because otherwise we'd be looking at yet another 5 years of "subjects to change" and "we're still deciding what to do".
I don’t think any tab version of this game will be superior to what they started in Apoc. Apoc is one of the things that gave me confidence that they’d make great combat.
I don’t see that same level of combat in the tab system.
You’re being a bit hyperbolic with shooter mechanics, as the games I’ve posted above and shooters aren’t the same.
Im a stickler for concise wording because that’s the best way to temper reasonable expectations.
i think it fine aslong as key skills are skill shots of some kinda, like heavy hitting skills or hard CC for example.
Going to heavy into skill shot territory thing will cause the game to die due to skill cap being to high for majority of players (what i beleive was a cause of darkfall failing) if you just make key/impactful skills being skill shots then i think your in a good position to have skill matter but not be determining factor to a degree, anything thing pulls player to somone or stun/knockdown or super heavy hitting skills should be a skill shot or require some time to set up.
honostly think for range combat crowfall had probaly the best feeling/skill level for overall that game had many issues elsewhere however but combat wasnt realy one appart from AoE having target caps which made zerg combat crap but the small scale combat in that game was amazing..
The combat was all action combat however the hit boxes were generous, you can still out play somone but it wasnt at darkfall levels where 1 person could just kill 30 noobies without breaking a sweat.
Comments
I’m not going to judge you for your preferences though.
Is everything east of Germany, Russia? No.
I’ve already given feedback on the combat system. I’ll give more feedback on the combat system.
Just like other players give their feedback.
I told you the purpose of this thread.
Is Snipe, a Snipe? No it’s a weird flavor text for an ability you can’t snipe with.
You’re free to message me on discord anytime you want.
I'd call TERA true action but that's not really the point. They didn't have GtAoEs, though. Since you had to play in reticule mode and couldn't use the mouse in combat they functionally couldn't.
Instead they had a couple TAoEs (targeted AoEs) where you'd use their lock on functionality to lock onto a target and it would then place a 4-5m AoE at that location. But most of the AoEs were fixed location such as a 4-5m circle AoE centered 10m in front of you, or same circle fixed location at your feet. Sorc and Priest both had the AoEs fixed 10m in front of you for a few. Sorc, Priest, and Archer all had the AoEs at your feet (traps as well as the one heal). They had some other creative AoEs of other types, too.
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!
/endrant
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.
Role Playing Game =\= Roll Playing Game
Role Playing Game = Role Playing Game
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.
So you’re trying to automatically invalidate your point by using an emotionally based point to counter one based in logic.
That’s not how argumentative logic works.
Logic =/= Emotions
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.
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'.
sure, agreed. so thought and decision. where is action combat mentioned? see you got to the answer by yourself.
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
Sure ok.
In my experience you have to think of them as different things though.
So Civ4 is 'complex' not 'simple', but it's not 'deep' because it's 'complex'.
AC6 Chapter 1 Boss is 'hard', but it's simple and shallow.
Predecessor is 'deep' but it isn't hard or complex once you are playing the character that matches your instincts/talents.
But I guess I don't like to view these things in a vacuum, so if you're a Theoretical Classist, this 'conversation' is never gonna end. Good luck.
these are objective things im talking about.
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. 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. 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.
we call it the genius player experience in game design when you give the player 6 options at a given time, for example.
I feel like that would be the "depth" of tab, but in an action style.
Smth like the BDO's directional design, just not only before the skill's release but also after.
Which require you to have the facts.
Action Combat has more than one button. It has more decisions to make than a tab or strategy game. Again this is your misunderstanding of how a Strategist actually thinks, not to much your overall lack of understanding strategy, tactics, psychology, and data.
It's not as simple as "point and shoot."
Action has every "meaningful action", that a tab game does and requires the player to fulfill that action they are capable and it has a greater difficulty. That completely changes the way you play the game and requires more in terms of strategic and tactical thinking: geometry, geography, trajectory, awareness, are way more important and punishing in an action game.
Making decisions in addition processes like aiming, is more complex.
It's what you do in high strategy games like chess, it's why it's deterministic. A Strategist always narrows down the decisions to the best one. That's why previously I said Chess is completely deterministic, because there aren't many decisions to make.
If you have 100 decisions and only 3 are good ones. Then you only have 3 decisions to choose from.
Through experience and victories, the Strategist will note which Strategies worked and why.
no. this depends how design the game. again, you can have a strategy game that is more complex than an action game and you can have an action game that is more complex than a strategy game. Usually strategy games are more complex tho.
Logistics is the backbone of Warfare, you cannot fight a war without it, but its not combat.
Diplomacy is the backbone of a healthy civilization, you cannot have one without it, but it is not combat.
You used a Strategy game as an example of combat depth.
So I just removed the components of Civilization that aren't apart of the actual fighting.
This comes back to the original point of the thread, being concise.
com·bat
NOUN
[ˈkämˌbat]
fighting between armed forces:
Combat =/ Warfare, Warfare includes Logistics and Diplomacy.
Are you comparing the depth of the combat system of Civilization to TERAs combat?
Because if you are, that requires a certain amount of knowledge and mastery off of both games.
And if you are, you gotta back that one up homie because that's a massive claim.
i can understand why u dont understand. ill probably give some examples tomorrow since its gonna be a long post and ill sleep soon. depth has to do with meaningful choices at every "turn". if the game civilization has 10 meaningful choices at every turn, and tera or any action game has 6 meaningful choices at every time you can take an action, then civ is more depth. how is that so hard to understand? its not about mehanical skills. its about number of meaningful actions. its something that you can count. 1, 2, 3 etc
tomorrow ill tell you about l2 buff system (old versions at least) and illustrate how a tab targeted game can be more complex and deep than an action game (of course this depends on the class you play).
actually, now that i say that this question for you just popped in my head. in tab or action games, how come you have some classes that are more complex/deep/harder than others? not all playable characters or builds have the same difficulty yet the game is the same. so explain that to me? so if you play 2 different classes in an action game, why is one of those much easier to learn and play than another game. same game, different classes, different levels of difficulty. explain it to me, please. maybe you will finally get the answer by yourself.
Aren't we all sinners?
dont copy me thats my face T_T
thats what we do here ;3 but it isnt semantics rn hahaha
I think you've ran out of field, there is no other place for you to shift the posts.
Nor have you proven your points. As amusing as it is, you should probably stop.
ok noaani 2.0 if you dont wanna learn thats your problem. now, go design and build some games then come back and stop watching tiktoks on game development
If you were a game designer, you wouldn't have to shift the goal posts and you would have been able to articulate your points in explicit detail from the start. Nor would have you engaged in fallacious behavior.
Your inability to articulate your points doesn't constitute a failure on my part. Nor is the part where you have actively demonstrated that you do not understand basic statistics, psychology, strategy, tactics, or game theory. You have to reasonably explain and defend your extraordinary claims, not me.
So after all of that, what is it that you could possibly have that I could consider a moment to learn from? That you cannot even the follow your own arguments? You've proven yourself incapable of argumentative logic?
You have yet to present a teachable moment. You're able to regurgitate information, from a quick engine search. Don't worry though, I can say I will put more time than I already have in the last few years into game development and the combat systems for the specific purpose of presenting viable data and feedback.
Something you seem to be unable to do at the moment.
i think it fine aslong as key skills are skill shots of some kinda, like heavy hitting skills or hard CC for example.
Going to heavy into skill shot territory thing will cause the game to die due to skill cap being to high for majority of players (what i beleive was a cause of darkfall failing) if you just make key/impactful skills being skill shots then i think your in a good position to have skill matter but not be determining factor to a degree, anything thing pulls player to somone or stun/knockdown or super heavy hitting skills should be a skill shot or require some time to set up.
honostly think for range combat crowfall had probaly the best feeling/skill level for overall that game had many issues elsewhere however but combat wasnt realy one appart from AoE having target caps which made zerg combat crap but the small scale combat in that game was amazing..
The combat was all action combat however the hit boxes were generous, you can still out play somone but it wasnt at darkfall levels where 1 person could just kill 30 noobies without breaking a sweat.