The demonology rotation is not an example of depth. It's an example of rote design, which is the opposite of depth.
The fact that you could beat most of the mobs using that rotation and only that rotation is not depth, it's lack of depth. The fact that you could beat the same mobs using that rotation, or half that rotation or just by using 2 buttons in that rotation shows an extreme lack of depth. It shows the choices are not significant and do not alter the outcome (it may alter how much dmg you do but how much dmg you do does not alter the outcome or affect any other choices in the game, the mob is still dead).
No Axe, you have proved that wow doesn't have depth.
And of course wow's other issues are extremely shallow again compared to other games. Shallow crafting, shallow (non existant) world events, nothing that impacts your character's decisions in the future, nothing that impacts other characters (good or bad). Most mobs are dead regardless of your choices for those activities. No activity you do really impacts anything else you do, therefore none of the decisions are significant, therefore shallow.
No Wow is not deep at all.
It is a good responsive simple and fun game. Thats it. It's like checkers and tic tac toe. Fun but not deep.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The demonology rotation is not an example of depth. It's an example of rote design, which is the opposite of depth.
The fact that you could beat most of the mobs using that rotation and only that rotation is not depth, it's lack of depth. The fact that you could beat the same mobs using that rotation, or half that rotation or just by using 2 buttons in that rotation shows an extreme lack of depth. It shows the choices are not significant and do not alter the outcome (it may alter how much dmg you do but how much dmg you do does not alter the outcome or affect any other choices in the game, the mob is still dead).
No Axe, you have proved that wow doesn't have depth.
And of course wow's other issues are extremely shallow again compared to other games. Shallow crafting, shallow (non existant) world events, nothing that impacts your character's decisions in the future, nothing that impacts other characters (good or bad). Most mobs are dead regardless of your choices for those activities. No activity you do really impacts anything else you do, therefore none of the decisions are significant, therefore shallow.
No Wow is not deep at all.
It is a good responsive simple and fun game. Thats it. It's like checkers and tic tac toe. Fun but not deep.
Until evidence exists which shows superior depth, this is the high bar.
Don't kid yourself that other games lack rotations. Every game has conditional rotations. There is always one perfect path through every situation. The more difficult and nuanced it is to describe those rotations, the deeper the game.
Claiming the choices aren't significant is nonsense.
Describing the choices doesn't make them less significant:
You're standing on a subway platform. A train approaches.
Choice #1: Don't step off.
I have not somehow deprived that choice of consequence by telling you the optimal path of how to survive your encounter in the subway station.
If you think a player using a 2-button rotation advances through trivial mobs at a faster rate than a player who has knowledge of their character's full capabilities, you're wrong. If you think "surviving one mob" is the only meaningful measure of success, you're settling for mediocrity at which point why are you even interested in a discussion about optimization (if survival is your bar for success then you're not going to care about the meaningful, real nuance that exists).
Depth isn't about long-term consequences. Depth is about whether decisions are hard to master.
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin
Chess isn't shallow because you can use a 2-piece offensive to beat newbies. No, Chess is deep because after expert players have practiced and studied it for years it continues to offer a set of difficult decisions. Judging Chess' depth based on beating a bunch of newbies who offer no challenge isn't exactly a reasonable attitude -- and yet that's what you seem to be implying by fixating on that ~7% of WOW's gameplay experience that you're talking about.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Your evidence doesn't show superior depth it shows extreme simplicity. The choices offered are insignificant they do not affect the outcome. The mob is still dead whether you cost a b or c.
Advanving faster is not the issuevand os determined more by the players engagement at the time. The mob is still dead regardless of your rotation. Your choices did not affect the outcome. Thar is shallow design.
Chess has depth because you have a multitude of strategies and decisions that affect future decisions. You made a wrong move you lose a piece which makes future decisions more important and risky. wow doesn't do that. Regardless of which rotation or choosing not to use a rotation most mobs still die your decisions therefore affect nothing further. Shallow.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Depth is not about whether decisions are hard to master. Depth is about the number of significant decisions and how those decisions relate to and affect other decisions. Yes this also mean future decisions.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Your evidence doesn't show superior depth it shows extreme simplicity. The choices offered are insignificant they do not affect the outcome. The mob is still dead whether you cost a b or c.
Advanving faster is not the issuevand os determined more by the players engagement at the time. The mob is still dead regardless of your rotation. Your choices did not affect the outcome. Thar is shallow design.
Chess has depth because you have a multitude of strategies and decisions that affect future decisions. You made a wrong move you lose a piece which makes future decisions more important and risky. wow doesn't do that. Regardless of which rotation or choosing not to use a rotation most mobs still die your decisions therefore affect nothing further. Shallow.
At that point you might as well say ALL MMORPGs have shallow combat and WoW offers a pretty solid version of that shallow combat.
Although, I played TERA for a bit and I'd say the combat is very dynamic and therefor perhaps has more depth.
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Actually the chess comparison was an argument made by Axe first. Venge was pointing out how the analogy was flawed.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Actually the chess comparison was an argument made by Axe first. Venge was pointing out how the analogy was flawed.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
He wasn't using chess in the same context. He was explaining depth in his opinion using chess as an example. He was not saying WoW was as deep as chess. It would be nice if you would at least admit that.
Also, you once again dodge naming a specific game. At least he is forced to defend what he considers the game with the most combat depth wheras, from what I've seen thus far, you have not presented any game or PvE system in MMORPGs which has more depth. His job is much harder in that case. I believe that's why, at least in my eyes, you have not been an honest participant in the debate.
I find any game in which the activities interact meaningfully to be deeper. Eq the parties had to interact better with more defined roles and strategies for pulling and completing content. Istaria where points and effete they go combined with multicasting and the crafting all affect your character. ryzom the area And the mob affect the crafting which affects your stats. ..
Other parts of those games suck.
Wow is fun because it is simple. coh was fun because it was simple.
Remember depth does not mean fun.
I was pointing out chess was deep because the decisions mattered. They affected other actions. Wow decisions do not affect other decisions so it is not deep. by far the major of wows gameplay is like this. Isolated decisions with little to no affect on other aspects of gameplay and varying the responses in those same components of gameplay rarely means a different outcome.
I will concede to PvP being a completely different ballgame.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I find any game in which the activities interact meaningfully to be deeper. Eq the parties had to interact better with more defined roles and strategies for pulling and completing content. Istaria where points and effete they go combined with multicasting and the crafting all affect your character. ryzom the area And the mob affect the crafting which affects your stats. ..
Other parts of those games suck.
Wow is fun because it is simple. coh was fun because it was simple.
Remember depth does not mean fun.
I was pointing out chess was deep because the decisions mattered. They affected other actions. Wow decisions do not affect other decisions so it is not deep.
And I agree with you for the most part. Not about EQ depth, I thought that was one of the most shallow games I've ever played. Pulling was for simpletons imo. Combat was literally 2 buttons wide with some classes. Positioning didn't even matter in the early days of EQ.
And Axe was talking specifically about combat. I know that I view sandbox style MMORPGs to have incredible depth overall compared to any themepark that I've ever played. Axe always says how little depth EVE has for instance which I think he is insanely incorrect about. But when it comes to combat specifically, it would be nice if pulling wasn't the only thing that makes you think an opposing game has combat depth.
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Actually the chess comparison was an argument made by Axe first. Venge was pointing out how the analogy was flawed.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
He wasn't using chess in the same context. He was explaining depth in his opinion using chess as an example. He was not saying WoW was as deep as chess. It would be nice if you would at least admit that.
Also, you once again dodge naming a specific game. At least he is forced to defend what he considers the game with the most combat depth wheras, from what I've seen thus far, you have not presented any game or PvE system in MMORPGs which has more depth. His job is much harder in that case. I believe that's why, at least in my eyes, you have not been an honest participant in the debate.
Because multiple games were already named and if you were capable of scrolling up on just this page alone you'd see discussion on two of the MMOs mentioned as well as a couple other games. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were a cognitive human being.
As for the "chess not in the same context", that is itself you dodging of the fact that axe was the introductory argument of using said analogy, and pointing out the differentiating factors that affects one game's depth versus the other would be the exact point of bringing up another title to compare or contrast elements against.
And what's this "again" statement any ways? That comment you just responded to was the first dialogue between you and me, meaning there is no "again" for you to be referencing at the moment.
You can claim what you want, but anyone that's not blind can see that I mentioned four games BY NAME on page six alone, making what you just claimed complete bullshit. I've now already been vastly more honest than you, and everyone can see that plainly.
Perhaps you mistook my comment as coming from someone else?
You wanna try a proper response after you straighten up all those mistakes?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Actually the chess comparison was an argument made by Axe first. Venge was pointing out how the analogy was flawed.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
He wasn't using chess in the same context. He was explaining depth in his opinion using chess as an example. He was not saying WoW was as deep as chess. It would be nice if you would at least admit that.
Also, you once again dodge naming a specific game. At least he is forced to defend what he considers the game with the most combat depth wheras, from what I've seen thus far, you have not presented any game or PvE system in MMORPGs which has more depth. His job is much harder in that case. I believe that's why, at least in my eyes, you have not been an honest participant in the debate.
Because multiple games were already named and if you were capable of scrolling up on just this page alone you'd see discussion on two of the MMOs mentioned as well as a couple other games. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were a cognitive human being.
As for the "chess not in the same context", that is itself you dodging of the fact that axe was the introductory argument of using said analogy, and pointing out the differentiating factors that affects one game's depth versus the other would be the exact point of bringing up another title to compare or contrast elements against.
To which again, you can claim what you want, but anyone that's not blind can see that I mentioned four games BY NAME on page six alone, making what you just claimed complete bullshit. I've not been vastly more honest than you've been, and everyone can see that plainly.
You wanna try again after you straighten up that honesty argument?
You... aren't a very nice person, are you?
Anyway, you did mention games like Widstar and something else. Your argument was that movement and dodging added more depth. And you are probably somewhat right at least in my eyes. There are still a lot of movement abilities in WoW and even many AoE abilities that may put WoW ahead in depth in situational situations.
I think that's the crux of the argument and why you and Axe should both consider the possibility that depth in MMORPGs tends to be situational. If everyone stood still and did rotations, there would be no decisions. When you introduce movement and rotations are constantly broken, it turns into a game of making decisions again. And the cream rises to the top (in all games).
Anyway, you still can't admit that he was using chess in a different context, and that says a lot about you.
Axe was saying wow is deep because combat is the biggest activity and it is deep.
I'm saying the combat is shallow because the decisions during combat rarely alter the outcome of the combat. Use the rotation on virtually any mob and the outcome is the same. Don't use the rotation, use a different rotation, use part of the rotation. It doesn't matter for the majority of mobs they are dead regardless. Wow is doubly shallow because combat has so little affect on anything else. So the biggest factor in the game ends up being shallow.
Wow is /was fun because of its simplicity.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Axe was saying wow is deep because combat is the biggest activity and it is deep.
I'm saying the combat is shallow because the decisions during combat rarely alter the outcome of the combat. Use the rotation on virtually any mob and the outcome is the same. Don't use the rotation, use a different rotation, use part of the rotation. It doesn't matter for the majority of mobs they are dead regardless. Wow is doubly shallow because combat has so little affect on anything else. So the biggest factor in the game ends up being shallow.
Wow is /was fun because of its simplicity.
Yes, it is actually when you have to break rotation or use movement when decisions start happening. I agree that if there is only one best way, it is literally completely shallow. For example, a target dummy does not represent the reality of rotations and situations tend to bring out decision making, especially for the best players of the game.
And yes, in PvE, WoW tends to be a very simple game where a small mistake can make or break success at high levels. It's almost a test more of focus than actual skill.
Most mmo games do have shallow combat. it is usually the other areas if the game and how they relate to each other and combat which characterize depth. actually any one activity on its own is inherently shallow.
Yes, they do in my opinion as well. Until you get to PvP where it actually does start to become a chess match. But that's a different point.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Actually the chess comparison was an argument made by Axe first. Venge was pointing out how the analogy was flawed.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
He wasn't using chess in the same context. He was explaining depth in his opinion using chess as an example. He was not saying WoW was as deep as chess. It would be nice if you would at least admit that.
Also, you once again dodge naming a specific game. At least he is forced to defend what he considers the game with the most combat depth wheras, from what I've seen thus far, you have not presented any game or PvE system in MMORPGs which has more depth. His job is much harder in that case. I believe that's why, at least in my eyes, you have not been an honest participant in the debate.
Because multiple games were already named and if you were capable of scrolling up on just this page alone you'd see discussion on two of the MMOs mentioned as well as a couple other games. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were a cognitive human being.
As for the "chess not in the same context", that is itself you dodging of the fact that axe was the introductory argument of using said analogy, and pointing out the differentiating factors that affects one game's depth versus the other would be the exact point of bringing up another title to compare or contrast elements against.
To which again, you can claim what you want, but anyone that's not blind can see that I mentioned four games BY NAME on page six alone, making what you just claimed complete bullshit. I've not been vastly more honest than you've been, and everyone can see that plainly.
You wanna try again after you straighten up that honesty argument?
You... aren't a very nice person, are you?
Anyway, you did mention games like Widstar and something else. Your argument was that movement and dodging added more depth. And you are probably somewhat right at least in my eyes. There are still a lot of movement abilities in WoW and even many AoE abilities that may put WoW ahead in depth in situational situations.
I think that's the crux of the argument and why you and Axe should both consider the possibility that depth in MMORPGs tends to be situational. If everyone stood still and did rotations, there would be no decisions. When you introduce movement nad rotations are constantly vroken, it turns into a game of making decisions again. And the cream rises to the top (in all games).
Anyway, you still can't admit that he was using chess in a different context, and that says a lot about you.
Actually I did admit he very well was using it in a different context. The difference is that the distinction is inconsequential. If you are going to argue about a game's given depth then you argue about all comparable elements to discern strengths and weaknesses, not cherry pick the only argument that favor your opinion and hop away into the sunset oblivious to the rest of reality.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
I'm not nice when people sabotage any reason to respect them. If you did not respond to me with a statement that itself was hostile to me while providing multiple statements that are proven false by even a cursory glance at page six, then I would not in turn become hostile. But you engaged in what may be called intellectual dishonesty, and I have no respect for people who think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Just because a game is complex doesn't mean that the game has a lot of depth and no matter how much complexity you add, most action games where you fight computer controlled enemies lack depth.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Actually I did admit he very well was using it in a different context. The difference is that the distinction is inconsequential. If you are going to argue about a game's given depth then you argue about all comparable elements to discern strengths and weaknesses, not cherry pick the only argument that favor your opinion and hop away into the sunset oblivious to the rest of reality.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
I'm not nice when people sabotage any reason to respect them. If you did not respond to me with a statement that itself was hostile to me while providing multiple statements that are proven false by even a cursory glance at page six, then I would not in turn become hostile. But you engaged in what may be called intellectual dishonesty, and I have no respect for people who think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything.
We'll go over this really quickly.
Dodging things exists in WoW. That covers almost your entire post.
More specifically, you wrote: "The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast."
Movement can and does break rotations. Just like every other MMORPG with movement. You can't just say it and make it be true. I don't accept this argument at all. And no one else should either.
Actually I did admit he very well was using it in a different context. The difference is that the distinction is inconsequential. If you are going to argue about a game's given depth then you argue about all comparable elements to discern strengths and weaknesses, not cherry pick the only argument that favor your opinion and hop away into the sunset oblivious to the rest of reality.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
I'm not nice when people sabotage any reason to respect them. If you did not respond to me with a statement that itself was hostile to me while providing multiple statements that are proven false by even a cursory glance at page six, then I would not in turn become hostile. But you engaged in what may be called intellectual dishonesty, and I have no respect for people who think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything.
We'll go over this really quickly.
Dodging things exists in WoW. That covers almost your entire post.
More specifically, you wrote: "The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast."
Movement can and does break rotations. Just like every other MMORPG with movement. You can't just say it and make it be true. I don't accept this argument at all. And no one else should either.
Dodging things only exists in WoW in the context of a numeric value (IE, a percent chance to dodge an attack). My post, and what you can read in the part I quoted, is that there is a difference between such a passive element and an "active gameplay" element like using an actual dodge ability which relies on player input/skill.
So good on you admitting to missing most of the point. I can respect your honesty about not understanding it.
And if you want to claim movement breaks rotations then you're going to have to give a valid argument not a "nuh-uh". When the game in question uses tab-target and stat driven gameplay then nothing outside of breaking that tab through obstruction of line of sight or creating a sufficient gap that the character are effectively no longer engaged in combat, then you are coming up with nothing.
I even pointed to this with bringing up Blink as an example. If it worked as you claimed then blink would be able to let players dodge the flight path of spells and projectiles, but it can't. Instead we are treated to watching the arrows and spells change their path in the air to track the target that just blinked.
The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential.
You can choose to accept or reject anything you want, that doesn't change the core mechanics of a game or how they subsequently interact with the rest of the game or it's resulting depth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Actually I did admit he very well was using it in a different context. The difference is that the distinction is inconsequential. If you are going to argue about a game's given depth then you argue about all comparable elements to discern strengths and weaknesses, not cherry pick the only argument that favor your opinion and hop away into the sunset oblivious to the rest of reality.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
I'm not nice when people sabotage any reason to respect them. If you did not respond to me with a statement that itself was hostile to me while providing multiple statements that are proven false by even a cursory glance at page six, then I would not in turn become hostile. But you engaged in what may be called intellectual dishonesty, and I have no respect for people who think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything.
We'll go over this really quickly.
Dodging things exists in WoW. That covers almost your entire post.
More specifically, you wrote: "The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast."
Movement can and does break rotations. Just like every other MMORPG with movement. You can't just say it and make it be true. I don't accept this argument at all. And no one else should either.
Dodging things only exists in WoW in the context of a numeric value (IE, a percent chance to dodge an attack). My post, and what you can read in the part I quoted, is that there is a difference between such a passive element and an "active gameplay" element like using an actual dodge ability which relies on player input/skill.
So good on you missing most of the point.
And if you want to claim movement breaks rotations then you're going to have to give a valid argument not a "nuh-uh". When the game in question uses tab-target and stat driven gameplay then nothing outside of breaking that tab through obstruction of line of sight or creating a sufficient gap that the character are effectively no longer engaged in combat, then you are coming up with nothing.
I even pointed to this with bringing up Blink as an example. If it worked as you claimed then blink would be able to let players dodge the flight path of spells and projectiles, but it can't. Instead we are treated to watching the arrows and spells change their path in the air to track the target that just blinked.
The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential.
You can choose to accept or reject anything you want, that doesn't change the core mechanics of a game or how they subsequently interact with the rest of the game or it's resulting depth.
My post was about movement and you made it about the dodge stat? Which largely no longer exists for DPS classes?
And yes, in WoW, you can change targets. So that tab target complaint is just ridiculous.
Blink doesn't get you out of the way of an already targeted projectile that locks on to you, but there are a thousand skills you can avoid with it. There are a wide variety of different types of attacks in the game. So your complain about blink is completely invalid in that respect. And it fails to address the original issue... it breaks up your rotation.
Disengagement is irrelevant. At this point I'm questioning your ignorance. Blink literally allows you to avoid all kinds of attacks in WoW. Movement (just simply walking around) breaks up rotations if your goal is highest DPS. That you are unable to understand this simple concept is shocking me right now.
Actually I did admit he very well was using it in a different context. The difference is that the distinction is inconsequential. If you are going to argue about a game's given depth then you argue about all comparable elements to discern strengths and weaknesses, not cherry pick the only argument that favor your opinion and hop away into the sunset oblivious to the rest of reality.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
We'll go over this really quickly.
Dodging things exists in WoW. That covers almost your entire post.
Dodging things only exists in WoW in the context of a numeric value (IE, a percent chance to dodge an attack). My post, and what you can read in the part I quoted, is that there is a difference between such a passive element and an "active gameplay" element like using an actual dodge ability which relies on player input/skill.
So good on you missing most of the point.
And if you want to claim movement breaks rotations then you're going to have to give a valid argument not a "nuh-uh". When the game in question uses tab-target and stat driven gameplay then nothing outside of breaking that tab through obstruction of line of sight or creating a sufficient gap that the character are effectively no longer engaged in combat, then you are coming up with nothing.
I even pointed to this with bringing up Blink as an example. If it worked as you claimed then blink would be able to let players dodge the flight path of spells and projectiles, but it can't. Instead we are treated to watching the arrows and spells change their path in the air to track the target that just blinked.
The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential.
You can choose to accept or reject anything you want, that doesn't change the core mechanics of a game or how they subsequently interact with the rest of the game or it's resulting depth.
My post was about movement and you made it about the dodge stat? Which largely no longer exists for DPS classes?
And yes, in WoW, you can change targets. So that tab target complaint is just ridiculous.
Blink doesn't get you out of the way of an already targeted projectile that locks on to you, but there are a thousand skills you can avoid with it. There are a wide variety of different types of attacks in the game. So your complain about blink is completely invalid in that respect. And it fails to address the original issue... it breaks up your rotation.
Disengagement is irrelevant. At this point I'm questioning your ignorance. Blink literally allows you to avoid all kinds of attacks in WoW. Movement (just simply walking around) breaks up rotations if your goal is highest DPS. That you are unable to understand this simple concept is shocking me right now.
And I quote from you;
"Dodging things exists in WoW."
I addressed that claim, and then I went on to address the rest of the argument including movement. So two things can be discerned about what you just wrote.
1) You are lying about the content of your own post even though everyone can read it. 2) You are lying about the content of my post even though everyone can read it.
Next up, "changing targets" doesn't even address any aspect of the argument just made. Changing targets is inconsequential to the point that tab target systems by their nature create a situation with a person's tact at facing/hitting an enemy is mitigated by a heavy handed element of machine/calculated assistance.
And your counterargument on blink misses the fundamental point that was already stated. All those abilities you want to claim it evades all rely on the same core stat and tab system. The entirety of your claim was already addressed in this segment;
"The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential."
Beyond that, your claim of avoiding AoE abilities falls into being exactly subject to what I just quoted there as well as the above commentary about already engaged abilities. Even if you blink, if the game has started any calculations for hit/miss, then your blink is not evading that ability for you. The only instance of that being useful is then as a pre-emptive factor in which you are disengaging from the target.
Hence disengagement is relevant to the point that you were talking about breaking combat rotations, and disengaging players from combat is one of the few methods with which that actually happens.
Your argument is predicated on ignorance in that it assume one player doing something without an equal response from the target or opposing player. The notion of breaking DPS for example only works if the player doesn't follow you, and anyone that doesn't have a brick for a brain is going to do something like that. Even AI mobs in WoW do that (up to the point of aggro radius).
Before you try to jab about a failure to understand something, at least learn the basic of the game in question.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What more, none of this dialogue you are so adamant in engaging in is even addressing the core point of it. That of how the components of the game are implemented and the kind of play and depth experienced out of them.
If we can't look at the majority of the gameplay situations and see a break in something like a repetitive combat rotation, then it already implies that active skills for evasion in the game are either largely ineffectual, or not worth using.
We can similarly observe the AI mechanics when trying to understand such points. If the AI effectively ignores certain things (such as automatically sprinting to the user's new position or striking through/in spite of an action/movement), then the depth of a game and it's mechanics are going to be directly impacted.
And then we turn to other games to compare and contrast their features as individual components and as how they interact/compare as a whole.
Like lets say we compare WoW and STO now?
Is STO an outstanding game? Most are likely to say "no" or "meh".
However, STO has many elements that the likes of WoW lacks when it comes to even just the combat mechanics and it creates a form of depth that WoW can't match, even if it falls short in other elements.
With the likes of shields, shield facing, weapons and weapon facing, the spacial maneuvering, the ability to select different modes on ships to quickly shift between stronger weapon, shield, or movement settings, etc. Even the ground combat in STO has a good amount of mechanical depth to it in spite of it being perhaps the game's biggest weak point, and it offers features like team AI commands, squad setup/roles, distinct companion passive advantages/abilities, an active dodge mechanic as well as cover, a soft-target game mode. Even building/progressing your character leaves you open to a wide variety of hard and soft counter abilities, movement skills, different types of defensive and offensive setups that can vary quite widely in their style for users to find a depth in their build and chosen tactics.
So is STO arguably a deeper game than WoW? Quite possibly.
Then what is the hangup?
Well, the reality is that, while a game like STO may very well have greater depth in even just the combat mechanics, that does not mean it's an engaging game overall or even gets the sum of the combat mechanics "right" for most people to be comfortable with. Moreover, simple gets across to more players, so in a popularity contest the deep game is not going to be the largest game.
Hence then why WoW is arguably more fun because it's not deep. It has less moving parts or technical elements for a user to pay attention to, reflexively have to handle, or even think about in favor of a much more FOTM-oriented and dominantly stat-driven system whose simplicity in it's core mechanics is the appeal over depth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
What more, none of this dialogue you are so adamant in engaging in is even addressing the core point of it. That of how the components of the game are implemented and the kind of play and depth experienced out of them.
If we can't look at the majority of the gameplay situations and see a break in something like a repetitive combat rotation, then it already implies that active skills for evasion in the game are either largely ineffectual, or not worth using.
We can similarly observe the AI mechanics when trying to understand such points. If the AI effectively ignores certain things (such as automatically sprinting to the user's new position or striking through/in spite of an action/movement), then the depth of a game and it's mechanics are going to be directly impacted.
And then we turn to other games to compare and contrast their features as individual components and as how they interact/compare as a whole.
Somehow my last post got deleted. I don't know why. But I will say this.
You are ignorant of how WoW works. You just are. There are so many PBAoEs and GTAoEs that blink (and a multitude of other skills) avoid in PvE content (not to mention just walking). The boss doesn't have to "follow" that person with an attack. Attacks that are specifically targeted at a player and are intended to hit them will hit them, but that is not all there is to worry about.
In every MMORPG, the boss's AI ignores things. I have an issue with you making a distinction about that without offering a better version of evidence. Where is this brilliant AI in MMORPGs that makes you think you're argument about this would stand up?
And in WoW, you see and incredible amount of breaking of rotation. That you don't understand that is telling of your ignorance. WoW upper tier raid combat is fluid in tone because apparently, the developers like to fuck with you as much as possible. Knowing rotations and priorities is paramount to success, but so is reacting to situations. What separates the great from the good (concerning DPS) is making consistently good decisions after you are forced out of your comfort zone.
But like I said earlier, I believe WoW is a game that is a test more about focus than it is with skill. And I would say that it is on a similar level with a few other games concering depth. And I would also say that when I played TERA, I believe that if we are only talking about combat, it had some depth. I was able to do pretty incredible things with a lot of practice in that game and it was heavily based on the decisions I made.
Comments
The fact that you could beat most of the mobs using that rotation and only that rotation is not depth, it's lack of depth. The fact that you could beat the same mobs using that rotation, or half that rotation or just by using 2 buttons in that rotation shows an extreme lack of depth. It shows the choices are not significant and do not alter the outcome (it may alter how much dmg you do but how much dmg you do does not alter the outcome or affect any other choices in the game, the mob is still dead).
No Axe, you have proved that wow doesn't have depth.
And of course wow's other issues are extremely shallow again compared to other games. Shallow crafting, shallow (non existant) world events, nothing that impacts your character's decisions in the future, nothing that impacts other characters (good or bad). Most mobs are dead regardless of your choices for those activities. No activity you do really impacts anything else you do, therefore none of the decisions are significant, therefore shallow.
No Wow is not deep at all.
It is a good responsive simple and fun game. Thats it. It's like checkers and tic tac toe. Fun but not deep.
Don't kid yourself that other games lack rotations. Every game has conditional rotations. There is always one perfect path through every situation. The more difficult and nuanced it is to describe those rotations, the deeper the game.
Claiming the choices aren't significant is nonsense.
Describing the choices doesn't make them less significant:
- You're standing on a subway platform. A train approaches.
- Choice #1: Don't step off.
I have not somehow deprived that choice of consequence by telling you the optimal path of how to survive your encounter in the subway station.If you think a player using a 2-button rotation advances through trivial mobs at a faster rate than a player who has knowledge of their character's full capabilities, you're wrong. If you think "surviving one mob" is the only meaningful measure of success, you're settling for mediocrity at which point why are you even interested in a discussion about optimization (if survival is your bar for success then you're not going to care about the meaningful, real nuance that exists).
Depth isn't about long-term consequences. Depth is about whether decisions are hard to master.
"A multiplayer game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries." -David Sirlin
Chess isn't shallow because you can use a 2-piece offensive to beat newbies. No, Chess is deep because after expert players have practiced and studied it for years it continues to offer a set of difficult decisions. Judging Chess' depth based on beating a bunch of newbies who offer no challenge isn't exactly a reasonable attitude -- and yet that's what you seem to be implying by fixating on that ~7% of WOW's gameplay experience that you're talking about.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Advanving faster is not the issuevand os determined more by the players engagement at the time. The mob is still dead regardless of your rotation. Your choices did not affect the outcome. Thar is shallow design.
Chess has depth because you have a multitude of strategies and decisions that affect future decisions. You made a wrong move you lose a piece which makes future decisions more important and risky. wow doesn't do that. Regardless of which rotation or choosing not to use a rotation most mobs still die your decisions therefore affect nothing further. Shallow.
Although, I played TERA for a bit and I'd say the combat is very dynamic and therefor perhaps has more depth.
I think what Axe is saying is bring me ONE MMORPG that has MORE depth in PvE than WoW. He was comparing WoW to MMORPGs while you compared it to chess - an unfair comparison in my opinion.
Beyond that, the comparison of WoW to other MMOs has been done dozens of times in the past, and there's plenty of games that have differing strengths and weaknesses from WoW. The complaints on that title have been mentioned in previous posts with reasonable variety and some call outs to other games made as to other individuals perspectives on titles that offered a better challenge through some mechanic, even if not in a universally better sense.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Also, you once again dodge naming a specific game. At least he is forced to defend what he considers the game with the most combat depth wheras, from what I've seen thus far, you have not presented any game or PvE system in MMORPGs which has more depth. His job is much harder in that case. I believe that's why, at least in my eyes, you have not been an honest participant in the debate.
Other parts of those games suck.
Wow is fun because it is simple. coh was fun because it was simple.
Remember depth does not mean fun.
I was pointing out chess was deep because the decisions mattered. They affected other actions. Wow decisions do not affect other decisions so it is not deep. by far the major of wows gameplay is like this. Isolated decisions with little to no affect on other aspects of gameplay and varying the responses in those same components of gameplay rarely means a different outcome.
I will concede to PvP being a completely different ballgame.
And Axe was talking specifically about combat. I know that I view sandbox style MMORPGs to have incredible depth overall compared to any themepark that I've ever played. Axe always says how little depth EVE has for instance which I think he is insanely incorrect about. But when it comes to combat specifically, it would be nice if pulling wasn't the only thing that makes you think an opposing game has combat depth.
As for the "chess not in the same context", that is itself you dodging of the fact that axe was the introductory argument of using said analogy, and pointing out the differentiating factors that affects one game's depth versus the other would be the exact point of bringing up another title to compare or contrast elements against.
And what's this "again" statement any ways? That comment you just responded to was the first dialogue between you and me, meaning there is no "again" for you to be referencing at the moment.
You can claim what you want, but anyone that's not blind can see that I mentioned four games BY NAME on page six alone, making what you just claimed complete bullshit. I've now already been vastly more honest than you, and everyone can see that plainly.
Perhaps you mistook my comment as coming from someone else?
You wanna try a proper response after you straighten up all those mistakes?
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Anyway, you did mention games like Widstar and something else. Your argument was that movement and dodging added more depth. And you are probably somewhat right at least in my eyes. There are still a lot of movement abilities in WoW and even many AoE abilities that may put WoW ahead in depth in situational situations.
I think that's the crux of the argument and why you and Axe should both consider the possibility that depth in MMORPGs tends to be situational. If everyone stood still and did rotations, there would be no decisions. When you introduce movement and rotations are constantly broken, it turns into a game of making decisions again. And the cream rises to the top (in all games).
Anyway, you still can't admit that he was using chess in a different context, and that says a lot about you.
I'm saying the combat is shallow because the decisions during combat rarely alter the outcome of the combat. Use the rotation on virtually any mob and the outcome is the same. Don't use the rotation, use a different rotation, use part of the rotation. It doesn't matter for the majority of mobs they are dead regardless. Wow is doubly shallow because combat has so little affect on anything else. So the biggest factor in the game ends up being shallow.
Wow is /was fun because of its simplicity.
And yes, in PvE, WoW tends to be a very simple game where a small mistake can make or break success at high levels. It's almost a test more of focus than actual skill.
In the case of WoW theres again the differences that I again mentioned in a prior post;
"The difference on "rolling and dodging" versus a rotation would be the point that the rotation is something that is not an engaging aspect of the gameplay. It's something you can macro effectively without worrying about many interruptions to the timing of the actions. Dodging things ends up being an "active gameplay" element, something that you are reacting to. It's not a dramatic shift in depth, and it's not very deep in and of itself, but it's the difference between gameplay that relies more directly on user input versus gameplay leaning on numeric superiority."
The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast.
The different is coming from a multitude of components defining how combat in a game is going to operate, and as I said above and in the prior post now, they can't be taken in isolation. They are components within a framework and they have to play together with other elements to create a game's depth. There is value as a result in examining the individual components to see what their merits are, but only because they can be mixed with other things. Hence the statement I made about the game's AI as well.
I'm not nice when people sabotage any reason to respect them. If you did not respond to me with a statement that itself was hostile to me while providing multiple statements that are proven false by even a cursory glance at page six, then I would not in turn become hostile. But you engaged in what may be called intellectual dishonesty, and I have no respect for people who think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Dodging things exists in WoW. That covers almost your entire post.
More specifically, you wrote:
"The distinction is right in there. Even WoW's "movement" abilities you are introducing them within the framework of the stat-driven combat and they are consequently subject to the entirety of the game's functionality and subsequent limitations. Movement in a game like WoW can't break rotations unless line of sight and therefore combat itself is temporarily broken. Even Blink is/was subject to this. That's a more fundamental problem with the combat in WoW than it's rotations, but it is a primary factor that seizes this argument pretty fast."
Movement can and does break rotations. Just like every other MMORPG with movement. You can't just say it and make it be true. I don't accept this argument at all. And no one else should either.
So good on you admitting to missing most of the point. I can respect your honesty about not understanding it.
And if you want to claim movement breaks rotations then you're going to have to give a valid argument not a "nuh-uh". When the game in question uses tab-target and stat driven gameplay then nothing outside of breaking that tab through obstruction of line of sight or creating a sufficient gap that the character are effectively no longer engaged in combat, then you are coming up with nothing.
I even pointed to this with bringing up Blink as an example. If it worked as you claimed then blink would be able to let players dodge the flight path of spells and projectiles, but it can't. Instead we are treated to watching the arrows and spells change their path in the air to track the target that just blinked.
The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential.
You can choose to accept or reject anything you want, that doesn't change the core mechanics of a game or how they subsequently interact with the rest of the game or it's resulting depth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And yes, in WoW, you can change targets. So that tab target complaint is just ridiculous.
Blink doesn't get you out of the way of an already targeted projectile that locks on to you, but there are a thousand skills you can avoid with it. There are a wide variety of different types of attacks in the game. So your complain about blink is completely invalid in that respect. And it fails to address the original issue... it breaks up your rotation.
Disengagement is irrelevant. At this point I'm questioning your ignorance. Blink literally allows you to avoid all kinds of attacks in WoW. Movement (just simply walking around) breaks up rotations if your goal is highest DPS. That you are unable to understand this simple concept is shocking me right now.
"Dodging things exists in WoW."
I addressed that claim, and then I went on to address the rest of the argument including movement. So two things can be discerned about what you just wrote.
1) You are lying about the content of your own post even though everyone can read it.
2) You are lying about the content of my post even though everyone can read it.
Next up, "changing targets" doesn't even address any aspect of the argument just made. Changing targets is inconsequential to the point that tab target systems by their nature create a situation with a person's tact at facing/hitting an enemy is mitigated by a heavy handed element of machine/calculated assistance.
And your counterargument on blink misses the fundamental point that was already stated. All those abilities you want to claim it evades all rely on the same core stat and tab system. The entirety of your claim was already addressed in this segment;
"The only context in which you have any weight to claim is that it breaks melee rotations since the character is now disengaged, but as we already see that is not a universal truth and most combat rotations are going to inevitably have stuns, charges, etc that completely bypasses that potential."
Beyond that, your claim of avoiding AoE abilities falls into being exactly subject to what I just quoted there as well as the above commentary about already engaged abilities. Even if you blink, if the game has started any calculations for hit/miss, then your blink is not evading that ability for you. The only instance of that being useful is then as a pre-emptive factor in which you are disengaging from the target.
Hence disengagement is relevant to the point that you were talking about breaking combat rotations, and disengaging players from combat is one of the few methods with which that actually happens.
Your argument is predicated on ignorance in that it assume one player doing something without an equal response from the target or opposing player. The notion of breaking DPS for example only works if the player doesn't follow you, and anyone that doesn't have a brick for a brain is going to do something like that. Even AI mobs in WoW do that (up to the point of aggro radius).
Before you try to jab about a failure to understand something, at least learn the basic of the game in question.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
If we can't look at the majority of the gameplay situations and see a break in something like a repetitive combat rotation, then it already implies that active skills for evasion in the game are either largely ineffectual, or not worth using.
We can similarly observe the AI mechanics when trying to understand such points. If the AI effectively ignores certain things
(such as automatically sprinting to the user's new position or striking through/in spite of an action/movement), then the depth of a game and it's mechanics are going to be directly impacted.
And then we turn to other games to compare and contrast their features as individual components and as how they interact/compare as a whole.
Like lets say we compare WoW and STO now?
Is STO an outstanding game? Most are likely to say "no" or "meh".
However, STO has many elements that the likes of WoW lacks when it comes to even just the combat mechanics and it creates a form of depth that WoW can't match, even if it falls short in other elements.
With the likes of shields, shield facing, weapons and weapon facing, the spacial maneuvering, the ability to select different modes on ships to quickly shift between stronger weapon, shield, or movement settings, etc. Even the ground combat in STO has a good amount of mechanical depth to it in spite of it being perhaps the game's biggest weak point, and it offers features like team AI commands, squad setup/roles, distinct companion passive advantages/abilities, an active dodge mechanic as well as cover, a soft-target game mode. Even building/progressing your character leaves you open to a wide variety of hard and soft counter abilities, movement skills, different types of defensive and offensive setups that can vary quite widely in their style for users to find a depth in their build and chosen tactics.
So is STO arguably a deeper game than WoW? Quite possibly.
Then what is the hangup?
Well, the reality is that, while a game like STO may very well have greater depth in even just the combat mechanics, that does not mean it's an engaging game overall or even gets the sum of the combat mechanics "right" for most people to be comfortable with. Moreover, simple gets across to more players, so in a popularity contest the deep game is not going to be the largest game.
Hence then why WoW is arguably more fun because it's not deep. It has less moving parts or technical elements for a user to pay attention to, reflexively have to handle, or even think about in favor of a much more FOTM-oriented and dominantly stat-driven system whose simplicity in it's core mechanics is the appeal over depth.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You are ignorant of how WoW works. You just are. There are so many PBAoEs and GTAoEs that blink (and a multitude of other skills) avoid in PvE content (not to mention just walking). The boss doesn't have to "follow" that person with an attack. Attacks that are specifically targeted at a player and are intended to hit them will hit them, but that is not all there is to worry about.
In every MMORPG, the boss's AI ignores things. I have an issue with you making a distinction about that without offering a better version of evidence. Where is this brilliant AI in MMORPGs that makes you think you're argument about this would stand up?
And in WoW, you see and incredible amount of breaking of rotation. That you don't understand that is telling of your ignorance. WoW upper tier raid combat is fluid in tone because apparently, the developers like to fuck with you as much as possible. Knowing rotations and priorities is paramount to success, but so is reacting to situations. What separates the great from the good (concerning DPS) is making consistently good decisions after you are forced out of your comfort zone.
But like I said earlier, I believe WoW is a game that is a test more about focus than it is with skill. And I would say that it is on a similar level with a few other games concering depth. And I would also say that when I played TERA, I believe that if we are only talking about combat, it had some depth. I was able to do pretty incredible things with a lot of practice in that game and it was heavily based on the decisions I made.