Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
MMOs need real-time combat
uncleFester
Member Posts: 38
I'm sitting here playing Batman Arkham City and thinking to myself, "Why can't MMOs be like this?" That game has so much depth in it's combat and gameplay, and it's still very simple to play. I know the MMO industry only plays follow the leader, but it's time for a new leader. The genre is beyond boring now, and something like this would bring it back to life.
Just throw away the turn-based, stand there trading hits until someone dies game design and implement a real game. Dodging/parrying attacks, aiming your gun/bow/sword/axe/spell/whatever should be done by the player, not a RNG. PvP would not just be who has the better gear, which really all PvP in modern games has come to.
I know this won't ever happen because no one has already created a popular MMO like this for other MMO designers to copy, but I can dream. 
Comments
like Robo say's......single player games aint an mmo.....keep playing your console m8.
They did already. It is called TERA. Only good thing about that game was the combat. Hopefully more games down the road fine tune it and make it the normal staple of gaming and tab targetting is a thing of the past.
I'd rather see both exist side by side, so that the fans of each can flame each other instead of the devs who won't cater to them.
While dodging/parrying etc may be nice at certain times, in certain games many don't want those.
I don't think I've played an MMO that had turn based combat.
MMOs dont need anything, but there is indeed room for one AAA MMO that is more twitched based.
But there are a few in development. The best seems to be Undead labs "Class 4" (Same lead dev as Diablo, WC3 and GW 1 & 2). Blizzards Titan is supposed to be a MMOFPS as well but we know very little about it. And there is always Planetside 2.
But I think C4 is the best choice to wait for even if PS2 actually is releasing soon. Then again it is up to personal preferances.
No, but OP means semi turned base systems.
The game mechanics really have a turn based pen and paper system behind it. This is most obvious in DDO where you can see the rolls but most MMOs have it in the background.
Many MMOs have given up to-hit rolls atleast. Can you remember which was the last one to used them?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
They don't need real time combat. You simply would like them to have it.
There is nothing wrong with turn based games. When implemented properly they provide a great deal of strategy.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So a TPS or FPS based fantasy themepark MMO, with all the trimmings?
Sure why not. More choices on the market isn't a bad thing. May not be everyones cup of tea but there's room for one anyway
I definitely agree. This would be interesting to see, I'm not really sure how you would go about aiming an Axe. It would definitely be different and would cater more towards the FPS fans.
This idea sort of reminds me of Borderlands and Fallout 3, lots of FPS with some RPG gear elements.
I played WoW up until WotLK, played RoM for 2 years and now Rift.
I am F2P player. I support games when I feel they deserve my money and I want the items enough.
I don't troll, and I don't take kindly to trolls.
Exactly. I say regardless if the game turns out to be a piece of shit, by at least changing the combat aspect to more twitch-based or user driven (standing still and hitting 1,2,3,4 isnt going to cut it anymore) it'd at least shed more light on the subject. For instance, anyone ever play Rune? Remember what AoC's combat was supposed to be? your mouse can change the turn of the swing and typesof attacks.
Even if the game doesn't tickle your fancy, then shove it and leave it be instead of telling devs "no we dont want/need this". Because whatever the hell is happening with combat NOW isn't enough. There's ample proof of that.
Planetside, darkfall, probably some others
Do what Diabo 3 does, or what Darksider 2 does. Both are action games and RPG. Or borderlands. Now that is a great action co-op RPG.
Some do. I think all combat models have thier place if done well. One of the big hurdles MMO's have to overcome for more action-based/real-time combat system is LATENCY. With a FPS game you've got a set (perdictable) number of players per map and a set size/number of dynamic objects the system has to account for on each map. So it's alot easier to handle resource management. Also if you are getting 500 MS latency to a particular FPS server one day, no big deal, you just chose another server to play your matches on that day.
Obviously these issues are not completely unaddressable by MMO's...as there are ones with more action based systems....but it's clearly something that adds a big set of technical complications which those MMO's who opt for such combat systems have to deal with. That translates into extra things to go wrong and extra resources that have to be spent on dealing with the issue.... which is one of the reasons, I think, many games are hesitant to take it on.
Some are doing it and some are getting closer, but it is an area that needs more focus and development.
The biggest problem in the MMO world is the reluctance of companies to go against the mainstream mold. So when a certain model does well, 100 games compete for that market instead of more mainstream AAA games going after the markets being ignored.
You also have the fans who think any company designing a game that doesn't target their audience is an attack on them and their way of gaming. Which is the reason why you see so many people say every game needs to be F2P or every game needs to be subscription. They can't think about companies designing products that aren't for them. The MMO world needs a LOT more variety than it has now to not only stay alive but to thrive.
So yes, make a game with all real time combat and also make another game with button pushing cooldowns. No reason they can't both exist.
Just instanced the zones.
Yeah, that one way Dev's deal with it...If I remember right Tabula Rasa went that route and I think that's a pretty standard methodology for Cryptic....but for alot of people it kinda takes the "Massive" part out of MMO.
You also have the added complication of having to deal with players who want to interact (same guild/alliance, freinds, etc) but are in different instances of the same zone. But yes, that's the simplest way to deal with that particular type of latency. Could potentialy even be usefull for geographic/network latency issues...if you have dispersed points of presence handling different instances of a zone...but you are complicating your archetecture going that route.
yes, it does take the massive part out. But the question is .. does the "massive" part really add much to the fun? I believe it is not hard to have zones support up to 100 or more players. At that size, you will see your screen fill with toons anyway. I don't see 200 players would make a huge difference to gameplay or the fun factor.
That is, 100 (or pick a number) is massive enough for fun. Anything more is diminishing returns.
If you want fair, play a 3 vs 3 arena. No one can gang up on you.
Secondly, if you get out maneuver in a battleground so 15 guys are on you, you deserve to die.