Sociology and how people think changing the combat system will make an MMO fun? LAFF!

Impacatus

I think the main issue is player skills need to be involved somehow, rather than it being strictly stat/level based.  Jamming a sword into someone should hurt, whether they're level one or fifty.  Even if twitch based is technically unfeasible for whatever reason, they can always put in more strategic elemants to combat.

AgtSmith

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


This does not take into consideration personal opinion which is heavily one-sided.
A player who ONLY prefers FPS style combat, or a player who ONLY prefers real-time turn-based combat, will be affected completely differently based on the feel of the combat. These players are in the minority though, as most players would enjoy any combat system AS LONG AS it is fun and has the right feel.
This kind of thing goes into "genre taste" more than it does combat taste. Players who enjoy FPS games would enjoy a MMORPG that has FPS (Which would be more like a MMOFPS with RPG elements) and a RTS player would prefer an MMORTS with RPG elements, or an MMORPG with RTS style combat.
What I am speaking of is the AVERAGE gamer, who doesn't have an exact preference, or whose preference is not heavily one-sided, who can enjoy any TYPE of combat (real-time turnbased, third person, first person shooter, etc.)

I think what you are missing, what is lacking from yoru consideration - is that it isn't the process of combat people are sick of, it is the determinate.  Clicking and button mashing is how all computer games work because keyboards and mice are the input devices - this will not likely change.  What is old hat, what people are sick of - is MMO combat systems where what you have and what you are determines 80% of the outcomes.  Turn based itself isn't even the real issue it is just the whole idea that what gear, what level, what skills/class you are matter more in traditional MMO combat than what you do during the fight.  This is what people are sick of, not the input method, per se'.

Torak

 

Originally posted by vajuras


 
Originally posted by Torak


This is all true to a point. The combat is important. No question that there needs to be some inovation BUT combat alone does not make it an RPG. (as in MMORPG) In fact (and my point was) combat in regards to an RPG is irrelevant. Its not the primary focus of a good RPG. It is a game mechanic, thats it.
Combat is simply one small aspect of an RPG among many. MMOs totally rely on combat. (the same combat mechanic at that) Most new games even tie crafting into combat levels.
In the end, killing 10 rats is still killing 10 rats no matter how you are doing it, the core of it is hollow.

 

killing 10 rats is much faster when I can aim my own freakin weapon. Ever noticed this scenario as a newbie in like every freakin MMORPG:

vajuras sees a rat

vajuras swings

vajuras misses

vajuras misses

rat bites vajuras

vajuras misses

vajuras hits

rat bites

 

next thing you know it took like 2 minutes to just kill a simple rat. Now add in aim/dodge like Oblivion and see what happens:

vajuras sees rat

vajuras swings

rat takes damage

rat misses (because vajuras dodges)

vajuras swings

rat is dead

 

Dice rolls- its from pen and paper days. where only way to do combat in PnP & MUDs was dice rolls. now we have computer graphics. time to move on

 I want for my "player skill" to count. My player skill does not count if a dice is rolling determining whether I hit or not. it is time the newbs that dont know how to play no longer hit max level period. if you cant dodge a simple bolt on your own then just maybe you need to stop botting

 

You still are missing my point...

 

You can have the best, uber, super, deluxe combat system with extra cheese BUT you are still killing 10 rats

Like Sovrath and others have pointed out, the combat mechanics was never a reason for me leaving a game either. They are all basically the same.

(I know that botting comment wasn't directed at me....)

nomadian

---

After the tutorial you would go out into the world, do pvp, quest, gain wealth and -> get more experience with your skills/spells <-. You would go out and look for trainers that will help you to flesh out your spells. The trainers would want money/services in return for their help. You gain modifications from the trainers that modify your basic spells. A possible speed mod for a fireball would be: 100% flying speed, -50% dmg.

Agree with your thinking here, and basically maybe as an example it would be WoW where you'd only advance by your talents, not by improved spells over and over and over again.

To some degree I agree with the OP regarding the nature of the combat issues. I feel the main drawback regarding combat in MMO's isn't so much whether it is fast paced or slow paced, but the incredibly repetitive nature of battles. Usually, you go out hunting, find a mob, and utilize the exact same tactic over and over and over and over on it. The only variance coming in the case if you miss a few more times than normal or it crits you or so forth. Otherwise, whether it's fast paced or slow paced, the repetition is the same. I'm waiting on a game that utilizes enemies with adaptive AI, that change their tactics as you use yours, causing you to constantly shift your own playstyle

---

See the repetitive nature of battles is in part why people are longing after more player-skill kind of actions for instance; like aiming an arrow, or having to position where your heal is going to land instead of having to click. These basically increase the variety of situations and thereby make it more interesting.

Admittedly, the question that quite rightly needs to be asked is will player-skilled combat ebb off towards dullness as well? A good question is in any game against any computer opponent does it ever stay continually interesting? to the extent of interesting as PvP? (PvP where you can play the same map over and over again without really getting bored because of all the possibilities that can occur)

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I do know my opinion is PvP is probably a big factor in removing the enemy of repetitiveness and more pvp-based levelling should probably exist. Much like Dota. The question remains though whether player-skilled combat against computer opposition can as well?

vajuras

 

Originally posted by Torak


 
Originally posted by vajuras


 
Originally posted by Torak


This is all true to a point. The combat is important. No question that there needs to be some inovation BUT combat alone does not make it an RPG. (as in MMORPG) In fact (and my point was) combat in regards to an RPG is irrelevant. Its not the primary focus of a good RPG. It is a game mechanic, thats it.
Combat is simply one small aspect of an RPG among many. MMOs totally rely on combat. (the same combat mechanic at that) Most new games even tie crafting into combat levels.
In the end, killing 10 rats is still killing 10 rats no matter how you are doing it, the core of it is hollow.

 

killing 10 rats is much faster when I can aim my own freakin weapon. Ever noticed this scenario as a newbie in like every freakin MMORPG:

vajuras sees a rat

vajuras swings

vajuras misses

vajuras misses

rat bites vajuras

vajuras misses

vajuras hits

rat bites

 

next thing you know it took like 2 minutes to just kill a simple rat. Now add in aim/dodge like Oblivion and see what happens:

vajuras sees rat

vajuras swings

rat takes damage

rat misses (because vajuras dodges)

vajuras swings

rat is dead

 

Dice rolls- its from pen and paper days. where only way to do combat in PnP & MUDs was dice rolls. now we have computer graphics. time to move on

 I want for my "player skill" to count. My player skill does not count if a dice is rolling determining whether I hit or not. it is time the newbs that dont know how to play no longer hit max level period. if you cant dodge a simple bolt on your own then just maybe you need to stop botting

 

You still are missing my point...

 

You can have the best, uber, super, deluxe combat system with extra cheese BUT you are still killing 10 rats

Like Sovrath and others have pointed out, the combat mechanics was never a reason for me leaving a game either. They are all basically the same.

(I know that botting comment wasn't directed at me....)

 

yeah I wasnt trying to be offensive. personally I have more fun killing rats in Oblivion but I loathe to do it in an mmorpg. I leave mmorpgs within 1 hour when I see this same formula but I understand others have different tastes

edit- to be clear my comment wasnt directed at you heh that would be awful I dont wanna get banned

Entreri28

Isn't this the way it is with every mechanic?  If it is implemented well it can be fun.  Pretty basic concept there.

Torak

Originally posted by vajuras


 

 

yeah I wasnt trying to be offensive. personally I have more fun killing rats in Oblivion but I loathe to do it in an mmorpg. I leave mmorpgs within 1 hour when I see this same formula but I understand others have different tastes

edit- to be clear my comment wasnt directed at you heh that would be awful I dont wanna get banned

Nah, I wouldn't report for something like that, I would invite you to a BF2 session and shoot you a few times...all in good fun of course lol

I agree on Obilvion, I like the chopping and the right mouse button block also. Spellcasting was a little clumsy though. I don't see why an MMO doesn't try an Oblivion style system, its much cleaner to use, more engaging and more fun....then they could focus on making a worthwhile MMO world to add to the combat system.

tunabun

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


All I hear from the newly released MMO's and from people's MMO ideas is to "do away with the old style of button mashing combat" and introduce A NEW STYLE OF COMBAT!!!! OoOOoOOo!!!
Because some people despise the point and click combat mechanic.
Tabula Rasa, AoC, and several others are switching to another type of combat.

People have all these crazy ideas about how much they hate the old combat, but love their own ideas, which are just as dull or exciting.
Isn't this the exact same thing you claim with your new and supposedly innovative "design concepts", adding a NEW level to socialization and content.
You are made of stainless steel and spend a lot of time on a stove filled with boiling water, what are you?
I am able to take an abstract look on my opinion of how combat works, without my own twisted perception tainting the opinion.
Lol, I'll prove how absolutely asinine this comment is later.  You are far from an "abstractor" and even further from looking at the world through untwisted perception tainted opinions.
People say the "old style" is boring, but IMO it's not. Not only is it not boring, but it's not any different than any other style. The REASON people think it's "bad" or "old" or negative in some way, is because they are tired of the same-ol MMO, and associate the combat system with the MMO. The problem isn't the combat system though, it's everything else about the MMO which features 1-10, and sometimes even shift+1-10 and ctrl+1-10, 30 abilities plus the "Q autoattack and wait".
Actually, it can be everything and anything, what it's not is what you think it is.  The point you should be arguing is that anything INCLUDING combat can be negative or positive depending on the way it's implemented and why.  Rather, you are stating what it isn't, which of course you cannot do, at least not in what you are claiming it isn't.  Combat is indeed a HUGE issue and to some people, in need of a great change.
People will say that the "Press Q" (autoattack) and then press 1-5 on occassion is boring, lame, and dull. They do this by looking deep into it, disecting it, and looking at what it really is like. This results in them feeling it's dull because all you are doing is "1..................1.......................1........................2.............................1".
Actually the majority of those who dislike the P&C mechanic come to this conclusion, not from deep analytical thought, but from the simple fact that it isn't fun for them.  To them it's slow, and leaves them feeling as though they aren't responsible for a win or loss, but simply their characters stats, and thusly blame the system that is in mass use.
The simple fact is that people deceive themselves into thinking any other "fast-paced" combat is better, more complex, or positive. 
Who are you to claim self deceit, practically this entire thread is you claiming no bias and analytical abstract thought with little to no evidence to support such claims, inversely showing how bias and run of the mill your thinking actually is.
If you do the same thing to ANY system, it ALSO becomes incredibly dull, boring, and lame. That's because EVERYTHING in theory sounds boring.
If everything in theory when looked at from its base, sounded boring like you so claim, it's doubtful anyone, anywhere, especially on a site like this, could sit and ecstatically post their thoughts on a subject, and even less likely get a positive response, as ANY system would ALSO appear incredibly dull, boring and lame.
 
For example...
All a First Person Shooter combat is running around..........left click............left click...............hold left click..................left click................left click.................
Rather large exaggeration on the simplicity of WASD combat.  Intricate mouse movement, hand eye coordination, real time micro tactics and strategy, and of course reaction time. 
All a third person combat is............left click.............left click.................1................left click...........left click...........right click................left click.............
All I have to say here is, Play "GunZ Online", lol.
 
All systems are like this when torn to pieces and looked at in theory.

In fact, the "Q" then "1......2........3........4......5" has the possiblity to be MORE complex, MORE fast-paced, and MORE exciting than any other combat system. This is because it uses more than just ONE click. Take a stereotypical FPS with no pistol, and no grenades. All you have is the gun. Add pistol and you get 2, add grenades and you get 1, add second weapon you get 3, add two special items and you get 4 and 5. That is still not as complex as the classic "old" style MMO.
P&C combat IS merely POINTING and CLICKING, there is no valid argument when comparing these two combat mechanics.  P&C is BY FAR the least free combat system, with the least variables.  RTS, FPS, TPS, SIM, Tactical SIM, all have much more diverse abilities because they allow more freedom of movement and selection.  All systems have drawbacks, either technological or diversifiable, this does not mean one system can't be applied in a more positive fashion dependent on the situation.  It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the "traditional" 1,2,3,4 system with P&C movement is more "complex" as it is in fact designed NOT TO BE.  It's a "fixed system" built, not only because of latency issues but because it wasn't originally meant to be all about "combat" but rather social interaction and character development.  Thus the combat system generally took a back seat in development, which of course makes little sense, as the focus of this genre has slowly drifted towards combat centric gameplay.


With this twisted perspective that "the old is bad" and "the new will be more fun and exciting" is self-deception. Game developers are going to flaunt "their new, exciting combat system" as if it is anymore impressive than the old style. Game players will smirk like retards as they enjoy it.......for the first little bit. Then they will see that the reason MMO's are dull has absolutely NOTHING to do with the combat system, but the entire game itself.
I doubt many would disagree that the entire genre needs a revamp, but claiming that the combat system should be included in such a revamp, on YOUR say so alone, isn't going to convince anyone with any knowledge of this genre, design capabilities, or just plain common sense.  Your whole argument is based on name calling with NO proof or evidence, mere insults.
I've played games where the classic, "slow" :press Q and wai":, then "press 1-5 every now and then" is actually FAST-PACED, action-packed, and incredibly fun. I've also played games where it's slow-paced.

I've played games where the action-packed "fast" slam the left-click repeatedly, is slow-paced and very "dull". I've also played games where it's action-packed and fast-paced.
Name the games you have played with such a system which in fact was "FAST-PACED".  Cite your claims, don't just expect us to suspend good judgment and clear thought cause you are ranting.
My point is that the type of combat and the way it is handled is meaningless.
Asinine.
Whether it's real-time turn-based like Everquest, "action packed" like a Shooter, or "fast-paced RPG" like Oblivion or a third person adventure, the actual pace of the combat, the "action", and the fun are all decided in other ways.
FOR YOU.  Stop claiming you understand what "fun" is.  Fun is different for every person on this planet, proven by the fact that some people murder ad nauseum and eat brains with an ice cream scoop.  You don't define fun, you build to allow it to occur by building a rich world and robust tool systems to allow the players to "find" it.


All of these can be fun, and all can be boring. They can be fast-paced, or slow-paced. The actual fun of it is determined by two things: One's perception, and one's taste and patience
This statement, although TOTALLY inverse to your previous statement is true.  You seem lost in your own arrogance and impatience, take a step back and think about what you are saying and maybe more quality comments like this one will emerge.
People think changing the fighting system from real-time turn-based to third-person adventure is going to make the MMO fun? I laugh at this, but also pity everyone who deceives themselves into thinking that actually matters, and pity those who cannot enjoy themselves in a "Q......1.......2.......3" when it DOES feel fast-paced and action-packed, solely because of their twisted perception.... Very sad.
Sad doesn't begin to describe your point of perception.  You call others out for finding something fun, and then say they can't be having fun because it's not what you find fun?  Seriously, are you this blatantly flawed in your cognitive faculties?
To me, I love the combat no matter what, based on if it's fun or not. I love all the systems and don't care for any one in particular, because they are really all the same when it comes down to their theory.
"To me".  Are we beginning to see a pattern.  You make a lot of I, Me, Them, Their statements.  Seeing the "twisted" bias perception yet, or are you going to hold fast to your simplistic views and continue to claim them as open minded?

 

 

In this response I will simply translate.

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


Anyone who has played tabula rasa or Diablo 2 can attest to this.
"Anyone who doesn't agree has obviously never played them."
The "action-packed" fps style fast-paced combat in Tabula Rasa is a click-fest. It basically is like Diablo 2, where you click each time to attack, resulting in constant-clicking. IMO this sucks, but can still be fun if done right.
"I didn't like them, so they sucked, which of course goes against my supposed premise of not liking or disliking a system.  Also, they would cease to suck once I was allowed to implement them, I have no verifiable proof to this, nor could I even intellectually critique the system so I meaninglessly stated they blow hard chunks."
DDO did a similar combat system, which I liked. Tabala Rasa, I didn't. Other's taste may be the opposite, liking Tabala Rasa's, but not DDO's. This is a prime example of how the way the combat system is handled is irrelevant to the fun and feel of the combat and game.
"When I like something and someone else likes something else it proves that the system is irrelevant to mess with, thus, move on to the areas of the game I actually enjoy more and want to change." *pats self on back*
I seriously wonder what is wrong with people's mental sight when they think changing the combat system to a click-fest or a third person adventure click-fest will save the MMO from being boring.
"Again, I reiterate, People are Morons when they can't see the way I see."
Like I said, anyone who has played some of the more action-packed classic-MMO's can attest that even the basic "autoattack, and "1.............2.................3.............1......2............3" can be just as fast-paced and exciting as any other combat system.
"Again, if you don't agree, you either didn't play the games I'm talking about or a complete and utter imbecile."
Take DAoC's PvP for example, or EQ2/Vanguard's combat system. It's the "classic" real-time turn-based, but can be very action-packed, ESPECIALLY in PvP.
"Take DAoC, it's the "classic" non existent mechanic of "real-time turn-based", I mean sure I mix genre's and gameplay mechanics, but I really DO know what the hell I'm talking about."
"BELIEVE IT!"

 

 

Back to normal rebuttals.

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


This does not take into consideration personal opinion which is heavily one-sided.
You mean to tell me personal opinion may tend to sway in the direction of ones own personal taste, you don't say? 
A player who ONLY prefers FPS style combat, or a player who ONLY prefers real-time turn-based combat, will be affected completely differently based on the feel of the combat. These players are in the minority though, as most players would enjoy any combat system AS LONG AS it is fun and has the right feel.
Right, these players are in the minority, I mean, you are "stating" it so it must be fact.  This seems strange to me as there are complete genres and series' based on one style of gameplay, why not just "change it up" if it is really so unimportant to the majority?  Lastly, could you please define "fun and has the right feel", I mean, you seem to know, help an amateur out would ya?
This kind of thing goes into "genre taste" more than it does combat taste. Players who enjoy FPS games would enjoy a MMORPG that has FPS (Which would be more like a MMOFPS with RPG elements) and a RTS player would prefer an MMORTS with RPG elements, or an MMORPG with RTS style combat.
Ok, this is really amazing, you separate Genre and Combat?  RTS = Genre, and RTS = Combat style.  RTS, FPS, and Tactical Sims are genre's BECAUSE of their combat systems, you don't realize this?  I will agree that an RTS and FPS player would desire such a system in an MMORPG, as the RPG element is what is supposed to separate it apart, but how does this in anyway support your claim that the combat system DOESN'T matter, as this, in a quite convincing way, shows that it indeed does, as swaying to one side of the combat spectrum would lose a huge portion of the gamer base.
What I am speaking of is the AVERAGE gamer, who doesn't have an exact preference, or whose preference is not heavily one-sided, who can enjoy any TYPE of combat (real-time turnbased, third person, first person shooter, etc.)
Who said the AVERAGE gamer has no preference? Oh, you again.  I'm pretty sure most people out their prefer something over something else, to state otherwise is pretty uncommon knowledge.  To be perfectly balanced in what entertains you is not human nature, we all have our preferences and biases, you show this en mass throughout this article.
=========================================================
There are several ways to handle combat, as we've seen in an MMO.



Turn-based FPS: Neocron 2

Birds eye view, autoattack, special abilities:  UO

Third Person Action w/ Abilities: Tabula Rasa, DDO

Real-time FPS: Oblivion, Dark Messiah of MM.

Autoattack + Special Abilities/Spells: EQ, DAoC, WoW --------> Even CoX.
I guess your "Turn-Based FPS" means WASD movement with cooldown on abilities and skills?  The thing with using new terminology is if you don't quite define it your reader can misunderstand and disagree based on false inferences.  If you define the cooldown of skills and abilities as enough reason to define the combat as "Turn-BAsed" could you not do the same to anything with any amount of delay?  See, as the mass majority of weapons, skills, and abilities in every game have a delay of some sort one could claim this Turn Based definition, as "cooldown" is merely a longer period of delay.  Thus making Super Mario Bros. a "Turn-Based Action Adventure" game, as Mario has a delay on his jumps, fireballs, and turns.
I will choose to stick to the generally defined terms.


That's right, City of Heroes/Villains has the exact same system as EQ, DAoC, WoW, Vanguard, and LOTR. Can you believe that? This is what I mean when I say how the FEEL and actual gameplay of the game is more important than the actual combat system used.
What point are you making, CoH has less, more and equal subs to the games you list.  It having the same combat mechanics means what?, not that I even agree totally with that, but for arguments sake lets say it does.  How does this prove anything?  Stating that combat alone being changed would somehow "fix" the genre is just as ignorant as stating it won't affect anything.  It definitely won't be the end all mechanic saver, but nothing will be.  The genre's "issue" is the lackluster product on all levels.  Because it has the ability to incorporate so much the entire game tends to become a bunch of watered down mechanics when they should each be equally robust.  The problem is not one thing but every ONE thing, they are all important and to state otherwise, in my opinion, shows little knowledge of "real" design.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz

Originally posted by nomadian


sorry but I think that is a load of rubbish, combat in a mmo is dull. I find combat in a fps about 20 x more exciting than that in a mmo.

 

Originally posted by Apraxis


Play Mount&Blade. The point is, a lot of people want a more interactive combat system, they want aiming, they want, that their skills influence their character and the combat. But well.. play Mount&Blade(or even Fable to some extent) to see the difference.. and it could be even better than those two examples.. with dodging like UT and so on. And of course, not everyone will like it more than the old system.

You don't have to tell me to play a game, I've played nearly every game in existence, with every type of combat system.

...  I was a gaming addict for 10 years plus, at which point I played on nearly every console available, when I went online in the early 90's I played every computer game I could get my hands on, and in these later years I have played many, many free Internet games, but I would never brush off someones point by stating I don't need to play a game cause I've supposedly played everything.  You have probably played less than 5% of all the games created in your lifetime, for you to state otherwise shows not only your misguided arrogance, but that you truly don't know how large the directory of games made is.  Mount and blade is a PERFECT example of what "some" people want in a MMORPG combat system.

My point is that the old system is just as interactive as the others. When you break it down, there is little difference.

This is absolutely imbecilic as the "interactivity" of a P&C based system is comprised of a single selection of place, target, and ability while WASD gives and X,Y and some times Z axis for place, a non selection for target, although some rare skills sometimes allow it.  The abilities can be the same in either Movement/Combat format, but the obviousness of difference between these two systems is really inarguable.

The only difference is when you have physics-based attacks, such as actually aiming the bow, and the arrow only hits if they are in the way (and they can dodge or move out of the way). But that makes the game into a FPS with RPG elements.

This doesn't "make the game" into anything, the game is the game, if it is predominately MMORPG and has twitch based FPS combat, it doesn't mean it's an FPS with RPG elements.  A Shooter with weapon, level, or ability gains would fit your description and auto designate such a title, "physics-based" attacks as you call them, do not.

What you are saying is that people want an MMOFPS, with rpg elements. I do not think the majority want that, but that the majority would be okay with that and enjoy it, just like they would enjoy any other style.

Ok, firstly and again, what do you know about the majority, back it up with valid research or climb down from Mt. Sinai Moses.  Secondly, if that "minority" likes FPS, why would they, as you put it, "enjoy any other style", we have determined what they enjoy, why do you keep assuming, with no evidence, that they will enjoy any system of combat in place?

As for those who find combat in an MMO dull and boring, please read my third post. Primarily this:

"This does not take into consideration personal opinion which is heavily one-sided.

A player who ONLY prefers FPS style combat, or a player who ONLY prefers real-time turn-based combat, will be affected completely differently based on the feel of the combat. These players are in the minority though, as most players would enjoy any combat system AS LONG AS it is fun and has the right feel."

If everyone else agreed with you that MMO's have dull and boring combat, with FPS being 20x more fun, then WoW would not be more popular than Counter-Strike

No one is disagreeing that some people enjoy P&C combat, the argument is just that there are other, at the very least, equally popular styles, which should be incorporated into the newer games coming out, giving everyone the ability to play in their preferred style.

Also, following your logic, that of the popularity of a single title, MMORPG's should merely be massively multiplayer "gotta catch them all" fests. 

It sounds like you two don't want an MMORPG, but a FPS.

Team Fortress 2 is coming out soon.

It sounds more and more like your bias against this form of mechanic is emerging.  Hard to explain it away when it's pointed out like this huh?

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz
What I am saying is that you only THINK this because of the WAY MMO's use the current system.
Please compare two MMO's that use the same system, but see how different they are played.

WoW vs City of Heroes/Villains.
If you've played CoX, you can see the MAJOR differences of having the same system, but a completely different style.
Saying that one combat system has greater potential than another is rather shortsighted. The amount of power in the ability to expand and improve an idea is greater than any one person can assume.
It is no way "shortsighted", in fact it is much more valid than your argument, as saying one mechanic matters or makes a difference is much more easily validated than saying that one mechanic is the ONLY one which doesn't.  If you were saying everything matters, you'd be right, which is my stance, but as you are simply bashing one area because your personal and rather limited view tells you it means nothing, you lose the debate and really have no recourse other than to state "it wasn't what I meant" as a last ditch defense.
In some real-time turn based MMO's, you cannot have a bot macro, even with the smartest AI possible. If you think so, you've obviously never been in some system's PvP.
I have a feeling some programmers might disagree here.
Of course, I won't have to say anything a few years after the Age of Conan - type MMO's release, when players begin to say "I'm tired of the old and boring third person action combat. When will they give us something new and exciting? This is so dull and boring."
Thats a definite possibility, but it still in no way legitimizes you argument that it doesn't matter or make any justifiable difference.  What you are stating here is a mere proof that people can get bored of anything if it saturates the market.
The cycle will repeat itself as MMO's copy each other's combat system, only for players to get "bored" with ALL of them, which proves my point exactly that the exact system has nothing to do with anything. People will tend to think negative of things they are bored with, and positive of things yet to come. But when these things come, the people will eventually get bored with them and move on to the next fad, all while not understanding why their MMO isn't as fun as it could be, because afterall "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS REALLY EXCITING!!!!!!!!!!!!".
It in no way proves your point, you are using fallacious logic.  The proof of your point would be that all games could use the exact same combat system and have the other game elements vary and still be popular.  I think you honestly know this is a ludicrous thought and games would have died long ago had the developers chosen the exact same movement and combat mechanics.  Boredom of something is not proof that the item ISN'T more or less fun than another item.  Also, the cyclical nature of the Universe is in no way evidence that you are right, merely that all things become tiresome as we are learning creatures who thirst to grow.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


I am NOT excited about Tabula Rasa, Age of Conan, Warhammer, or any other soon-to-be MMO. Regardless if they have WoW-combat or Age of Conan's third person adventure or fps-style, the game is still going to FEEL like a WoW clone, I guarantee. I'm sure Age of Conan's combat is going to be just as exciting as Everquest 1 when they ask you to kill 10 rats....but this time....YOU KILL 10 BY LEFT CLICKING 10 TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My vision is clear and I can enjoy fun again, all thanks to this simplistic left-clicking!!! ACTION PACKAGERY!!!!!!! OH NOES, warhammer doesn't have FPS style BANG BAGN! OH NOES!
This again is a valid argument, although childishly argued.  Combat alone will not "fix" the genre, everything has importance and must be tweaked and changed from the ground up.  Had you just stuck to this, and not been so biased in your argument there would be no reason to disagree.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz
Apparently everyone wants that.   I am NOT saying that they shouldn't evolve the current combat. That's not at all what I'm saying. Quite the opposite, it WILL evolve and become better and better, which is WHY people shouldn't throw it away.
That's definably different from what you have been saying, read your comments carefully, that is not what you have been stating.  I agree that old systems don't HAVE to be tossed, although they very well may be if they don't fit into my design philosophy and vision.
IMO, I loved the DDO way. It was a mixture of real-time turn-based classic-MMO, but with manual-dodging, manual-blocking, and manual-attacking. It was quite an impressive system, and much evolved, but still turn-based and "x20 slower than a FPS"    
It's obvious you dislike FPS and want to steer clear of it, but not everyone feels that way.  As a designer one must truly understand that ones wants and desires aren't what you are aspiring to build for, but rather each individual players.  This IS the reason there aren't very many quality designers in the industry.  Individual-centric design is the key.
The job isn't on the developer to completely change their already-release game, but for the player to learn how to bring life back into that which becomes dull. ALL things become dull, boring, or a loss in passion. It is the responsibility of the human being to keep all things alive, from the important things of marriage and family, to the small things of enjoying a game. That doesn't mean developers shouldn't change things around in their games, but it also doesn't mean they should. Developers should ALWAYS improve upon the game, whether it's enhancing a current combat system, or making a new one. Of all my points, the one I want to emphasize the most is that people and developers think changing the combat system will make the games fun, when they will remain just as hollow and dull as before.
The developers release the game, they designed it and thusly are responsible if it is an un-fun hollow game.  It is NOT the players responsibility to enhance anything, their responsibility is merely to gain enjoyment and entertainment for the MONEY they spent on the title.  Marriage and Family are in no way comparative to consumerism and getting what you pay for, absolutely nonsensical example.
What is a new and exciting combat system today will become a MUNDANE and boring combat system tomorrow. Eventually, it'll become DULL if people begin spreading by influence that it is dull. It is all about the player's MINDSET. You hear it's dull, you read it's dull, you are surrounded by "It's dull", and what was originaly a few newbies' opinion now becomes the standard norm.
Where did you get your sociology degree?  A rather interesting thought, that people would put aside their own SELFISH desires for enjoyment to follow the norm, and even pay for the pleasure.  While that might be arguable within the political or economic structure, I can in no way agree with this when it comes to entertainment.  Although if it were true then designing wouldn't matter at all, as convincing a large portion of the player base that ones game is enjoyable would be all that's needed as the domino effect would take place after, causing a hugely successful game. 
 You hear all these player's ideas of how to make the "greatest and newest" MMO, and all you have is the exact same flawwed game design, but with a different combat system and different theme. The result will only be the exact same boring gameplay as before. Being able to have "exciting, fast-paced, action-oriented" combat won't solve the problems, because it isn't the problem.
You are that player, don't you realize, with the exact same flawed game design theory!?  You wouldn't be that player if you could just release your bias, which you have shown in nearly every statement made.

 

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz

Originally posted by Gameloading


Just because some games are unable to implant twitch based in MMO's properly does not make the whole concept boring.

There are plenty here who beg to differ. 

Who or whom agrees or differs is in no way connected to whether you shouldn't design for it, unless you can somehow scientifically prove that only the most minute portion of players would in fact enjoy said implementation.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


I have a friend who is constantly thinking negative about random specific genres, and it always differs from time to time. One day he'll talk negative about FPS, the next RTS, the next MMO's. What he doesn't realize (and what I try to tell him) is that it's not the genres that are the problems, but the individual games. He has a mindset that "if the game has this, it sucks" without looking at the actual core.
Some people detest certain genres and they will not ever find them enjoyable.  Just because you may be able to enjoy many games in many genres does not mean the "average" person is the same and merely has a "warped" perception, it is simply theirs.
But the average gamer does have the problem of this mindset. "If the game is like this, it sucks." or "If the game has this, it is going to be awesome." without even trying the core of the game or researching the core.

They fail to think about the core of the game. People get SO WRAPPED UP in specific features, new features, and hype, that they forget to see if the game is going to be fun.
It sounds to me like your experience is based off of teen comments and thought processes.  Perhaps as you broaden your horizons, meeting much older people who can articulate why they dislike a certain genre or like another, you will finally realize that it IS the preference of each individual AS WELL AS the game itself.
Like I said, I'm NOT excited about AoC, Warhammer, or any other new MMO releases. I am completely confident they will be hollow and not fun. Regardless of all the new features and themes, if it's not fun, I won't play it.
To you.  That's fine. Others will certainly disagree and provably enjoy it. 
Do you know if there's an MMORPG has said purpose, dynamic choice, and a dynamic world that is releasing within the next year?
Nope, which is why I'm designing, the genre has a lot of issues that need tackling.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz
I never said the combat system shouldn't evolve, enhance, or transform. Quite the opposite.
Actually no, the crux of your argument has been that they don't need to in anyway as they are unimportant in the larger schematic.
I have several posts after my first three, which might help you understand what I'm trying to say.
It's quite obvious what you are saying, the problem is you think you are stating unbias "facts" when you are predominately stating bias opinion.
I do not understand how I am not articulating myself well enough. My posts are needlessly long and filled with information. I blame the readers who I know do not read all of my posts because they are "too long".
Well, you can't use that sorry excuse with me, as I rip your posts apart sentence by sentence.
It isn't my fault people are lazy and don't read carefully. It is my fault I am not a better writer, but I really don't know how to write shorter posts with better structure. I've tried many times, but cannot shorten my replies enough without feeling like I exclude important information.
It may not be your fault if people don't read but the quality and structure of your writing along with your fallacious logic is solely your burden to bare.
This is primarily because I'm used to explaining ideas or arguing with people who are too stupid to understand what I'm saying (Or who are purposefully giving me a hard time because they dislike me.) and so I naturally assume everyone is an idiot (which often they are, especially in arguments, no one ever listens to each other), which is WHY I have to include as much information as possible, which results in long posts.
Well, I'm far from stupid, which is of course subjective, as I'm sure you consider yourself intelligent while I do not.  It's humorous you would break people into only two groups, the "stupids" and the "don't like me's".  There is definitely a chance some are both intelligent enough to understand your points, can argue them easily and care little about liking or disliking you as they are merely arguing your stance and points.
The irony is that people rather get confused (they suck then! lol) or they skim over it, missing key sentences, which results in my entire post being long in vain. Very ironic.
Again, this definitely isn't the case here and shouldn't be with many posters at this site.  I can only see younger, less knowledgeable people getting confused by what you write and missing anything.  Those of us who have a long history and wealth of experience don't have issues with this "level" of postage, trust me.
In fact, I am so jaded by the cruelty and hate of the average Internet Forum Community that I re-read all my posts, sometimes more than twice, so I can make sure I didn't mispell a single word. People do not respect someone who has typos, and even worse the average internet poster is hate-filled to anyone who does not have flawless grammar. I make sure to cross all the T's and dot all the i's. With me doing that and providing so much information in such long posts, I do not understand how I could be the one at fault for not articulating well enough. If you could explain to me, I'd appreciate it. If you just missed some of my posts, then nevermind.
I will gladly point out your grammatical flaws and spelling errors, but I'd rather stick to your fallacious logic and bias views.
"reread", not "re-read".
But oh well, in the end I get to call them an idiot and get to walk away feeling smart, even if they aren't and I'm not. 

Plus I have a very fast internet! WOOT!
Well, if thats what you are aiming for.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz
Not really. Usually I make the first post... or three in this case, as I wanted to seperate them so it isn't one VERY long one, because I know people will NOT read a post that is too long...and then people do not understand (I swear I explained it clearly) and so I post replies to their ignorant comments or comments where I disagree, re-emphasizing my point in a vain attempt to try and see if they'll understand.
What is so difficult about making one long, organized post.  Triple posting while not a valid attackable object in this debate, is quite annoying and well, against common forum etiquette.  Keep it to one post, copy and paste to word if you can't keep it understandable.  Heck, start studying grammar and the art of writing if needs be.

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


My opinion is not biased, because I included everything in my posts. As smart as it sounds to do a "You're guilty too!", it's rather mundane and over-used as a witty comment.
Your opinion is biased, as I have pointed out time and time again.  You consistently use I statements and then proceed to give personal taste.  You are guilty too, the poster was right, you gave no evidence merely your opinion that you aren't biased. 
"overused" not "over-used"
First, I am thinking outside the box, stating that ALL systems can be fun for the average player, because the average player enjoys nearly ALL systems, and only cares if they're fun.
No, you definitely aren't thinking outside the box, you are parroting the common things being iterated on these forums by MANY people.  Again the average player enjoying nearly ALL systems is something you would have to prove, and as I have pointed out, bias is human nature, and the genre specific style of everything in entertainment is pretty indicative of that. 
Second, I included specific people's opinions as exceptions to my claim. I stated that some players will have one-sided tastes, such as preferring FPS-only styles, Turn-based only styles, etc.
Yes, you include others perspectives, but then instantly proceed to take away their worth by calling them "exceptions" without proof that they are indeed exceptions, merely your tacked on belief that they are.
The MAJORITY of players rather don't care about HOW it's done, as long as it's fun, or their personal preferences are not heavily one-sided, and so they will enjoy all styles, even if they'd enjoy one type more.
NO ONE cares how it's done if it was actually fun for them.  The thing is MANY people will not find what a designer has done fun because they don't find that particular style fun, no matter how it's done.  There are far too many things that go into the design of a game, ESPECIALLY an MMORPG game that fun is a very very difficult thing to accomplish for all players all the time.  To create such an all encompassing game some say would be impossible, not I, but some.
I also included a lot of other stuff, which has to do with other's opinions, not mine, as well as the general abstract thought of all combat systems and their potential and enjoyability.
Lot of stuff, you have been pretty much repetitive in your point and examples to support it.  I would say you have shown little, and proven less.
This isn't my opinion either, it's my theory. There IS a difference.
It is your opinion, it may also be "your" theory, but there is absolutely NO difference here.
My opinion is that I prefer twitch-based combat systems, or a system similar to DDO over real-time turn-bsaed, solely because I am a skilled player at said systems. But since my opinion is that ALL sysytems are fun, I am able to open my mind to the wide range of systems, without limiting myself based on my opinion, while at the same time having the knowledge that any system can become fun to most players, if done right. This is not my opinion, but common sense and a fact. Anything can be fun if it's done well enough, in the right circumstances, with the right people, etc. etc.
By your consistent bashing of twitch based combat I find this hard to believe, nevertheless this statement is much more open minded than the vast majority of your posts and if this were indeed your argument I would tend to agree, with the small assertion that all systems can be fun to SOMEONE, not EVERYONE.  This is your clear logical flaw.  Everyone has their preferences and thusly a myriad designs will make the majority happy, not that everyone can be happy with the same system as long as it is "implemented" properly.  This idea is absolutely naive.
Sorry, but your pseudo-intellect doesn't hold any ground. You failed at being witty and intelligent in your reply. I've seen your type countless times on forums and online games. The person who is out of the debate, seeing himself as having an intelligent insight that others do not see, giving  himself a pat on the back after stating "hypocrisy!" just like the hundred people before him who were blind to the picture as a whole.
Luckily there are those who actually succeed at being witty and intelligent in response easily devouring vacuous argumentation and pointing out what indeed the majority of posters seem to be missing.  You couldn't even be labeled a pseudointellectual as you fail to produce even a false sense of knowledge.  You are what I would call a delusio-intellectual, as you actually, in some amazing way, believe you "know".
Where is your proof, reason, and logic that my "opinion" is just as biased as everyone else's? This may seem like a smart thing to say because you feel it always applies universally, but you're wrong on that, it doesn't always apply.
Not wrong, only lacked proof, not that it was needed as it's more of a gut feeling that something is out of place.  Similar to a grammatical mistake, when reading, you can just feel it is there.  Now that it has all been quaintly and quantifiably pointed out you may proceed to apologize for these absurd claims.


Some people are able to take a third person view on an issue, completely void of their own opinion, opening their mind up to the bigger picture, future possibilities, and opinion of the collective to form a theory. Consider this next time you think you've got something to say.
Some people sure are.  Your allusion that you are one of these "select" persons is pretty humorous however. 
Consider this the next time you think you have a clue about anything.

 

 

 

Originally posted by RonnyRulz


Asheron's Call isn't as physics based as what I was meaning when I said they are looking for an FPS.

FPS games are completely physics intensive, and that's actually the entire design of the game.

As described above, MMO's have latency problems with an over-use of physics, and so theirs are A LOT more simple.
I am all for manual dodging, blocking, and casting. But I do prefer my archery to be very precise, a.k.a. not dodgeable.
It wouldn't make sense for my Sharpshooting Archer with Elite Epic Accuracy to miss a target because they "dodged" the arrow. You can't dodge an arrow, they move way too fast. And with magic being magic, I don't understand why fireballs aren't like homing devices. Not to say you shouldn't be able to dodge arrows if you move a split second BEFORE they fire at you (which is purely luck) or be able to dive out of the way of a homing fireball (Airplanes and helicopters can dodge heat-seeking missiles), but that my player-skill in aiming shouldn't hinder my Character.
I'm not roleplaying my IRL self and my IRL accuracy and twitch reflexes. I'm ROLE PLAYING an epic level 100000 archer who can shoot an arrow at a pea and hit, or a mage with such powerful magic he has no reason to miss, unless of course I'm firing at an epic-powerful reflex agility player. Hmm, I guess then it would make sense.

Pretty much all the evidence needed to see you are simply another gamer wanting to make "their" game.  You aren't an open minded, abstract thinking, creative type, so please stop trying to fiend that you are.

 

 

 

 

Next time attempt to really understand your own point before stating it, try not to attack people for politely disagreeing with you, and actually put some effort into learning what design is and how to go about it.  Otherwise you will simply look bias, childish, ignorant and delusional, as I have unequivocally shown.

 

 

Liliane

Originally posted by tunabun 
Next time attempt to really understand your own point before stating it, try not to attack people for politely disagreeing with you, and actually put some effort into learning what design is and how to go about it.  Otherwise you will simply look bias, childish, ignorant and delusional, as I have unequivocally shown. 

Did You do any different?

Torak

Both of you...seek help. And I say that because I care.

No sooner did we all recover from that "wall of text critical hit" which sent us back to our start point with no save but then we all got an "IQ debuff" with weird cartoons.

 

 

Gameloading

Wow Tuna..thats not just a text wall crit, thats a text wall crit on top of a text wall crit..interesting read though.

Airspell

 Ronnyrules has my endorsement based on that well drawn comic   for what ? I dont know.....king of this topic :>

Gammit100

Originally posted by Aelfinn

Originally posted by Apraxis


Play Mount&Blade. The point is, a lot of people want a more interactive combat system, they want aiming, they want, that their skills influence their character and the combat. But well.. play Mount&Blade(or even Fable to some extent) to see the difference.. and it could be even better than those two examples.. with dodging like UT and so on. And of course, not everyone will like it more than the old system.
 
 

No kidding, I for one am sick to death of combat scenarios where each and every move I make might as well be done from a script, where a bot macro with the AI of a single bacteria could take over for me. Are the newer combat systems in the specific examples you mentioned any better in this regard? I tend to think the answer is hell yes, no doubt about it, but in any case... Maybe, maybe not in the end, but non autoattack combat definitely has a much greater potential.

Amen.  Most MMORPG combat IS boring as hell, and I personally welcome any new change with open arms.  This doesn't neccessarily mean that I'll enjoy the change, but I do welcome it.  Mount and Blade is gold, from what I hear.  Tabula Rasa is a step in the right direction, and Age of Conan sounds new and fresh.

Vhaln

MMORPGs try to appeal to a much wider audience than just RPGs.  I think that's why you get people asking for more action oriented combat.  OTOH, it's also why they dumb down the other aspects, like character development (which only appeals to RPG geeks, right?)  I think simple combat is fine, as long as you've got the other elements of RPG gameplay there.  If not, yeah, you need to make the combat more active. 

I hate the MMORPGs that have simple combat mechanics AND lacking choices in character development AND no sort of immersive or plausible  massively multiplayer storyline whatsoever.  Oh wait, that's practically all of them

Grunties

I play mmorpgs for the story, character development and social aspects. Combat is just the filler when I'm moving between them.

mutantmagnet

[quote]Originally posted by vajuras
um yeah right I dont care how you spin it dice rolls need to go. In a dodge/aim type game is it no suprise a newbie can actually fight off a veteran???
point-and-click bites. its a throwback from pen and paper days and these lame game devs still lack the imagination to get pass it
 [/b][/quote]

You don't get what he was driving at. A game can have dice rolls and still require the type of skill you are looking for. How? He explained it a few posts back where devs can throw in an ability that negates, deflects or absorbs an attack completely.

Looking at his idea I could build up on that idea and say you have a list of defensive abilities that work specifically to negate another ability. Failure to use those abilities correctly will default back to the dice roll tables for resists, blocks, parrys and misses.

Do you know what's great about this? It can still be affected by latency but for the most part it is less strainful on servers than the physics calculations fps games require for everything.

From your post it is obvious the devs aren't the only ones with limited imagination.*shrug*

---

Originally posted by AgentSmithI think what you are missing, what is lacking from yoru consideration - is that it isn't the process of combat people are sick of, it is the determinate.

---

The way he presented his arugement makes me believe he missed that point as well but the point of his theory still covers this arguement as well as I made note of in my response to vajuras.

Dbknn

Interesting thread. figured id hop in and say a couple things.

MMO-rpg's should imo never incorporate twitch style combat. these games arent built for that. what these games are built for is teamwork in combat. the entire game design is based around teamwork. if your tank isnt keeping mobs off the healer and your dps isnt single targetting you die.  no where in that scenario would your abillity to twitch cause anything different to happen.

 

these games need to rely less on the "Let me show how much better i am than the next guy by running around and solo killing people because i can aim better and i have faster reflexes"

 

these games are based on coordination and teamwork. every single combat scenario should reflect that. in pvp if you have a well organized and balanced team no one could ever possibly kill you unless they have a group of organized and balanced team() players as well.

remember MMO - massivle multiplayer. lets rely a little bit less on "what can i do" and a little more on forming groups (preferably small groups) and enjoy running around and fighting other small groups.

if you really enjoy twitch style and solo game play. there are games for this.  play those instead.