Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Sociology and how people think changing the combat system will make an MMO fun? LAFF!
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
That's exactly how I feel. I've really liked ALL MMO's combat. Well, I can't say that for Tabula Rasa, but I didn't give the game a fair chance either.
And to Ronnyrulz, I'm really not sure whether you're taking the mickey with your post or not articulating yourself very well. An auto-attack system like Everquests is dull, this is why it has been altered in next gen games like WoW or EQ2. When you have the majority of these games as combat-orientated(rightly or wrongly) then it does need to have a good gameplay element.
Ok, I get you and I agree. Mmorpgs definitely need to encapture more of that rpg element.And to Ronnyrulz, I'm really not sure whether you're taking the mickey with your post or not articulating yourself very well. An auto-attack system like Everquests is dull, this is why it has been altered in next gen games like WoW or EQ2. When you have the majority of these games as combat-orientated(rightly or wrongly) then it does need to have a good gameplay element.
What does "taking the mickey" mean?
Did you read my post, #17?
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1618414
I never said the combat system shouldn't evolve, enhance, or transform. Quite the opposite.
WoW and EQ2 are just enhancements of EQ1's system, which was not dull for its time, ESPECIALLY spellcasting.
Really, it is only the melee which is now dull, as spellcasting is very similar to current style. In its time though, Rogue and other melee classes were not dull, although I cannot say the same for Warrior (no magic and only like 1 special move). DAoC introduced "Styles" to enhance melee combat, which was a great idea.
I have several posts after my first three, which might help you understand what I'm trying to say.
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". 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. 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. 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.
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.
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, having read your 10 posts used to explain this(could this not have been one post?) I do understand more where you're coming from and I agree to an extent, despite the manner that you've chosen to communicate this idea.
Yes, one feature like combat isn't going to make a mmorpg and there does need to be more. And yes turn-based can be just as fun as twitch-based depending on the game.
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.
Just pointing out to the OP that he has the very same biased subjective (whatever abstract had to do with anything is beyond me but go ahead, have that) opinion as everyone else.
Sorry, you're not special either.
---also, NC2 isn't turnbased nimrod, it's D20based.
Played so far: 9Dragons, AO, AC, AC2, CoX, DAoC, DF, DnL, DR, DDO, Ent, EvE, EQ, EQ2, FoMK, FFO, Fury, GW, HG:L, HZ, L1, L2, M59, MU, NC1, NC2, PS, PT, R:O, RF:O, RYL, Ryzom, SL, SB, SW:G, TR, TCoS, MX:O, UO, VG, WAR, WoW...
It all sucked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't my opinion either, it's my theory. There IS a difference. 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.
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.
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. 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.
Not turnbased, but D20based?
LOL
I've played it before, I know how it works. It has a FPS feel to it, but your weapon can only shoot based on a specific delay time, which is a TURN.
owned again.
D20based? LOL
Don't you have other places to troll?
In target based combat you mostly already have a plan (macro) how the battle will be.
The thing i need (AoC, Tabula Rasa) is that I AM making the shots. The pace of the battle is of less importance.
To fullu understand the perfect battle system, try Mount&Blade. I have never heard anyony complain about that system.
http://www.taleworlds.com/
Best of all, you have to do the fighting, no system is holding your hand. But in the same time its very slow pace, so all kinnda players can coop with it.
1. Technology issues: In fps games latency is a huge factor. With a high latency or lag you cannot dodge the fireball, you cannot hit him properly with your sword because you are out of range. You simply cannot react in time. MMOs have players from all around the globe. If the server would only be for the local people it may work well. As soon as people from different continents are playing, stat based combat is a lot easier to handle in laggy situations.
2. Missing player skill: We all know that those long time fps players have got high player skills (reactions, adaptability, movement etc). The typical MMO player does not have these skills. Thats the way it is. A company tries to maximize the size of their customer base and the developers KNOW that the typical players would die horribly in a fps twich based environment because of missing skill. We also all now that without success a lot of players would stop playing the game quite soon. The player base would be small. Thus non player skill based combat systems are being used. Combat systems where every monkey could win.
Overall I agree that a combat system is not about how you control it. A combat system is about how much variability you have. I am pretty sure that you could make a "q..1..2..1.." so complex that player skills would be needed and monkeys would get unemployed again. Not with movement or dodging but via adaption and decision making (strategy). Something like chess with 2 seconds time to decide your move. Its possible but what has to happen first is that the developers decide to take the risk to actually make player skill important again. In multi million dollar projects it is very hard to push for risky requirements if you could just go the sure way of using trusted and well working game mechanics. Try to convince investors who might have never played a game in their life before why they should invest into your risky non conform (non WoW) mechanics. Actually its quite understandable why we are seeing clone after clone being raised.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
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.
Now, I do have a disagreement with the statement made that those wanting more physics based attacks (arrows hitting depending on whether or not something is in the way) are simply looking for an FPS with MMO elements. Asherons Call had a system where spells and arrows could be dodged depending on the players movement, and I found that it added a level of realism and excitement to certain battles that was sorely needed. Especially in the area of PvP, which was made incredibly nerve wracking/exciting when you were zig zagging around with firebolts zipping past your head.
So true, but here is also where the problem is. There are two main reasons why fps style combat systems where player skill is the main factor for success are not being used:1. Technology issues: In fps games latency is a huge factor. With a high latency or lag you cannot dodge the fireball, you cannot hit him properly with your sword because you are out of range. You simply cannot react in time. MMOs have players from all around the globe. If the server would only be for the local people it may work well. As soon as people from different continents are playing, stat based combat is a lot easier to handle in laggy situations.
2. Missing player skill: We all know that those long time fps players have got high player skills (reactions, adaptability, movement etc). The typical MMO player does not have these skills. Thats the way it is. A company tries to maximize the size of their customer base and the developers KNOW that the typical players would die horribly in a fps twich based environment because of missing skill. We also all now that without success a lot of players would stop playing the game quite soon. The player base would be small. Thus non player skill based combat systems are being used. Combat systems where every monkey could win.
Overall I agree that a combat system is not about how you control it. A combat system is about how much variability you have. I am pretty sure that you could make a "q..1..2..1.." so complex that player skills would be needed and monkeys would get unemployed again. Not with movement or dodging but via adaption and decision making (strategy). Something like chess with 2 seconds time to decide your move. Its possible but what has to happen first is that the developers decide to take the risk to actually make player skill important again. In multi million dollar projects it is very hard to push for risky requirements if you could just go the sure way of using trusted and well working game mechanics. Try to convince investors who might have never played a game in their life before why they should invest into your risky non conform (non WoW) mechanics. Actually its quite understandable why we are seeing clone after clone being raised.
What you are describing, and what I think a lot of people do not know about, is Vanguard's combat system.
It is a real-time turn-based "q...1..2...1" type of combat, but it is a lot more complex with that, ESPECIALLY as you level up to higher levels, getting more abilities.
First, the mobs aren't easy. In fact, the game is sometimes quite difficult (and thus fun, because you have to really think and strategize, using the right spells/abilities at the right time.)
The adaption and decision making is a big part of vanguard. There is the REACTION system, which implements reactions that are trigger, but you have a limited amount of time to use them. The timing is perfect IMO, enough to allow you to hit them when you want to, but fast enough where you have little time to decide.
These things are very important, as you can have around 3 reactions go off at the same time, such as protecting your defensive target, doing super damage, or "counter-spelling" to cancel the NPC's (or PvP's) spell. This is all done in real time, with reactions, split-second decisions, etc. You have only a few seconds to decide before you can't use the reaction.
There are many times in Vanguard where I've won or lost depending on if I used my reactions instead of my other skills, and what reaction or skill I picked to use.
A similar system is in EQ2, but not as vital or important. It is also a reaction based system, but you start the reaction yourself (In Vanguard multiple variables light up the reactions) and you chain your moves. The system isn't as good or complex as Vanguard's though, but as you can see, with EQ2 and Vanguard, and I'm sure future MMO's, they are vastly improving the real-time turn-based combat.
We all began with 1-10 spells and "Q" combat, that's it.
Now it's evolved to be a lot more complex, with a lot of different enhancements and styles. It's not even close to the same system it once was.
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.
The melee classes in EQ were pretty horrible. You only had autoattack, taunt, and kick. The Rogue was also pretty horrible in EQ. Auttoattack and Backstab. Both classes were improved a great deal in WoW with the addition of their own power source and a lot more abilities to choose from during combat. I do like the autoattack style, but I also like the faster paced FPS/Diablo Style. If the combat is implemented well then any style can work.
Exactly!
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 he "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.
I agree to an extent that a simple sidestep shouldn't be enough to shake off an arrow or firebolt from some godly archer/spellcaster, but I liked the idea that with enough evasive action of my part (and not just putting 200 points into some evasion stat) an arrow or spell could miss (with characters who could pump tons into Run or Jump skills in AC, some pretty crazy battles could take place!). Realistically, even the most skilled archer would miss a wildly moving/jumping target sometimes. Perhaps it could be made that evasive movement simply increases the likelyhood of a projectile missing. But yes current technology is part of the thing that holds back a lot of the more complex ideas behind combat.
I don't believe it's the technology that stops that kind of combat from being in MMOs. There are plenty of FPS games where you can dodge attacks manually. Many people do not have the reflexes to compete in such a game. A stat games based on random rolls allows everyone a chance to compete with each other. Besides it would be somewhat difficult to make a game based on character progression if there are no stats and everything relies on the characters ability to aim, shoot, and dodge quickly.
Look at it differently: A game can be looked at as a competition. Several players are competing against each other under a specific rule set. What is it that determines your success? Its your IRL accuracy, strategy, and reflexes. You are trying to play your super powerful mage better than your opponent is trying to play his super powerful mage. The difference in strength is not because of the characters but because of you being a better player than your human opponent. What I am trying to say is that in terms of competing with each other, there is no distinction between yourself and your character, role playing or not.Right now MMOs try to minimize the effects of your human strengths in the game so that anyone and everyone can have success. Thats why a lot of people are starting to get bored and even angry. After all: when I play a game I want to win because I myself am good enough to overcome the obstacles the game or other human players throw at me and not because of my 'time-invested-into-the-game x grade-of -efficiency' value. Anyway we are moving off track of your original topic so I will stop here.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Just replace levels and stats with variability. Think in terms of players gaining modificiations for spells, like speed/armor piercing mods for fireballs but with reduced damage. A level 1 char could kill a level 60 char, but the difference is: the level 1 char is a one trick pony where as the high end level char has got a lot of options to use in the fight. He will definately know how to counter the standard fireball but the level 1 char will not know what the high level char will throw at him.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What abilities do you speak of and how can a character level up in such a system? If the game is based on FPS style then anyone can use any ability right from the start or it wouldn't make any sense IMO. What exactly would you gain when you leveled up? The only thing you could gain is new abilities, but that wouldn't make any sense as I pointed out. If it's a skill based game then it shouldn't be about what abilities you have only the skill you have with moving around and attacking quickly.
I agree with you Kyleran. I could care less about the combat system as long as I can make it work.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Ok, I admit a few levels have to be in there, like 20 levels. Imagine these 20 levels like being a tutorial. I dont care if you gain /hp/stats in these 20 levels as you would get through them after 12 hours. The point is: You would gradually gain the basic spells like fireball, teleport and learn how to use them. Imagine the 20 levels being the basic education your char gets in a certain role at an academy (mage etc).
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. A player who has seen the world, gone through several mage schools out there and has learned how to use his spells well will be a lot stronger than a new mage fresh from the academy (lvl20). The new mage will be blown away by the combinations the "high level" players can put out but both have essentially the same stat values (before items/spells).
To balance things out you can only gain a certain amount of modifications. If you want to use other modifications you will have to start switching mods. This is just an idea but I am sure you could design a good game around it. The main point is though that a bad "high level" player who hasn't learned how to use the skill system properly might still lose to a new player. But to be honest - thats the way it should be.
---
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
yeah i think ur rit 2, i like the old combat system, only thing i want it more stuff 2 play with, with it, like in MMORPGs i want more attacks & spells & stuff, in FPSs i want more guns & cooler guns, 3rd person same has FPS & with lots of other things 4 all of them, well thats what i think
dice rolls blow. imagine if you're fighting someone in PVP that is a higher level. jsut imagine. He tosses a bolt. you 'dodge' it manually. You live to see another day. See Starport- newbies survive attacks from epic NPCs and vets daily
Take WoW. High level throws a bolt, you die in one hit
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
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
edit- this post is not directed at the poster in regards to newbies need to stop botting lol