TOR's combat system reminds me too much of Allods combat which doesn't make it more interesting. It seems to have more of a pseudo-action based combat instead of real time action like TERA or Vindictus.
A good chunk of what makes AoC melee combat dynamic is the lack of global cooldown, along with the directional shield telling you were to hit.
In WoW you end up spamming abilities while auto-attack only provides some sort of passive damage to your target.
In Aion, the dynamic part was to time your combo with your auto-attack swings.
This being said, I dont see a correlation between melee combat being dynamic and the auto-attack feature... Unless we're talking about low level characters with very few abilities
I looked at two people playing chess. It looked incredibly boring to me. I also looked at someone playing Civilization 4, and I fell asleep after 3 minutes.
Thus, chess and civilization are boring and therefore, bad games.
You stole the reply I wanted to make before I knew I would even make it. I've seen your other posts around mmorpg.com, good work.
Judging games by watching video is akin to judging movies just by their audio. Videos of a game can give you an idea of the total product, but its missing the most important part, gameplay.Wwhich can only be fully realized by actually playing the game.
Does anyone realize that SWTOR and FFXIV both tout a NO Auto Attack combat system and that everyone who watches the combat vids keeps griping about how slow or clunky the combat looks?
I think I heard this same argument when they were showing AoC combat before it launched, as it too does not utilize auto attack.
My point here, is maybe the lack of auto attack makes spectating boring but playing incredibly fun and different then the norm. So hold off on those "combat sucks" opinions until you get a chance to play it. I know I am.
You sir have a very valid observation and a good point made.
A good chunk of what makes AoC melee combat dynamic is the lack of global cooldown, along with the directional shield telling you were to hit.
In WoW you end up spamming abilities while auto-attack only provides some sort of passive damage to your target.
In Aion, the dynamic part was to time your combo with your auto-attack swings.
This being said, I dont see a correlation between melee combat being dynamic and the auto-attack feature... Unless we're talking about low level characters with very few abilities
I think that auto-attack is just a way to control damage a character can deal. You can achieve this very same by altering the damage of used abilities. This per se is not really a skill or dynamism issue as Emhster points out. The sole fact that you have auto-attack does not make away the fact that once you have more abilities than you can use within a given time frame you have to make choices and that is what adds the dynamism, not the lack or presence of auto-attack. Situational attacks and counter abilities is what creates dynamism to the combat, not auto-attack. If you are fighting with only auto-attack you are doing something horribly wrong...
Hence, I don't think that removing auto-attack is that clever a choice. It does not add any more choices to the game from player's perspective but distances you from the heat of the battle. A system like this runs a risk, especially if linked with auto-facing, of turning into a whack-a-mole simulation where instead of placing foci on your character you monitor your skill bar for what you have available -- or, alternatively, you tap franticly single button which simply means you are doing the auto-attack by yourself. There hardly are any pros to the system but there are multiple cons.
I looked at two people playing chess. It looked incredibly boring to me. I also looked at someone playing Civilization 4, and I fell asleep after 3 minutes.
Thus, chess and civilization are boring and therefore, bad games.
You stole the reply I wanted to make before I knew I would even make it. I've seen your other posts around mmorpg.com, good work.
Judging games by watching video is akin to judging movies just by their audio. Videos of a game can give you an idea of the total product, but its missing the most important part, gameplay.Wwhich can only be fully realized by actually playing the game.
Hyanmen's corollary is deeper than most would see. He practically sweeps away the argument many posts here, boasting personal skills and "excitement" factor. Kudos to Hyanmen.
There are different kinds of games, each with it own kind of gameplay. Chess is an extreme case in which there is no combat, its all in the plot, the winner kills the piece of the other side. Physical boxing or Wii is 100% personal action, you move, you hit or miss. No statistics, no computer skills, all yours.
RPG is more plot and statistics than action game, RPG is developing a character and let him play. The player is a builder NOT the player, the character is the player. The fun of RPGs, like DnD, SirTech days or ultima days, are all in the statistics, the fun is in twitching statistics for a particular venture, statistics as in class, as in specialisation, as in armor and gear, it is all in the numbers. Those who talk about "personal skills" in MMORPGs or RPGs are totally out of focus.
There are games that are in between, which some statistics working into combat awareness. Like WoW. If there is a patch of fire on the ground, you die in 2 seconds unless you move, statistics won't save you. But, when the boss launch an aoe, it delivers 20k damage to all, if you statistics show that you maximum buffed hp is 19999, you die, no amount of personal skill will save you, unless someone cast something on you that helps allevaite enough of the incoming damage, alleviation allowed by the game for that particular attack.
I am sometimes sad to see totally sweeping statements, as if games with "personal skills" are a must or superior form of game asking for bigger intelligence. The biggest intelligence, the deepest plot, are sometimes found in games such as chess/poker, as wargames, in which the commander/player builds up advantage and let god decide who actually wins an ecnounter In chess the rule is god, in wargames, dice is the god.
What are you talking about? One line answers are breeding grounds for trolls. Back up what you say.
What are you talking about? You mean trolls are fu.. err... coupling in his post? O_o
Never mind that, just kidding and separating intended meanings from resulted meanings... a hobby of a sort...
Closer to topic. I can't see how AoC combat system is a plus. Don't get me wrong I like active combat about as much as I like thoughtful combat, but AoC is the perfect example off a failed active combat from my point of view.
The trick of AoC combat is not timing positioning or situational use of abilities, although they were present at minimal extent.
The trick of AoC combat was overcoming inconveniences.
Positioning was a factor and combos needed to be wound-up, but no rules were implemented regarding movement and wounding-up combos, as such combat turned into running around like crazy swinging weapon in the air before landing the one hit that counted while trying to beat your opponent's "skill" at this "breathtaking" activity.
Key sequences had to be pressed and timed and were macroed (I'm talking clever macros here not just button sequences).
The most dangerous obstacle of AoC wasn't a skilled opponent. It was lame design. Exploit that, and you are the predator. Ignore that and you're the prey.
Compared to AoC combat auto-attacking combat is a boon since it doesn't force players to compete in struggling with the interface and lets them compete in other things.
That said, a well made active combat system would be welcome like a breath of fresh air.
What are you talking about? One line answers are breeding grounds for trolls. Back up what you say.
What are you talking about? You mean trolls are fu.. err... coupling in his post? O_o
Never mind that, just kidding and separating intended meanings from resulted meanings... a hobby of a sort...
Closer to topic. I can't see how AoC combat system is a plus. Don't get me wrong I like active combat about as much as I like thoughtful combat, but AoC is the perfect example off a failed active combat from my point of view.
The trick of AoC combat is not timing positioning or situational use of abilities, although they were present at minimal extent.
The trick of AoC combat was overcoming inconveniences.
Positioning was a factor and combos needed to be wound-up, but no rules were implemented regarding movement and wounding-up combos, as such combat turned into running around like crazy swinging weapon in the air before landing the one hit that counted while trying to beat your opponent's "skill" at this "breathtaking" activity.
Key sequences had to be pressed and timed and were macroed (I'm talking clever macros here not just button sequences).
The most dangerous obstacle of AoC wasn't a skilled opponent. It was lame design. Exploit that, and you are the predator. Ignore that and you're the prey.
Compared to AoC combat auto-attacking combat is a boon since it doesn't force players to compete in struggling with the interface and lets them compete in other things.
That said, a well made active combat system would be welcome like a breath of fresh air.
I've always liked how daoc did its combat. It had reactionaries off of evasions, parries, blocks, combo chains, positionals with other chains and auto attack. It just seemed more involved to me than AoC, more fun. I found aoc melee to be a bit boring and poorly done.
Interesting too, that FFXIV will have you pinpoint certain parts of a creature in battle resulting in differing tactics. Good stuff.
And on the other side, SWTOR, the AI of the enemy mobs is also showing some tactical shifts in MMO norms. Mobs using cover or reacting differently in agro mechanics.
All the more reason to not diss on the combat of these 2 upcoming games.
Comments
TOR's combat system reminds me too much of Allods combat which doesn't make it more interesting. It seems to have more of a pseudo-action based combat instead of real time action like TERA or Vindictus.
A good chunk of what makes AoC melee combat dynamic is the lack of global cooldown, along with the directional shield telling you were to hit.
In WoW you end up spamming abilities while auto-attack only provides some sort of passive damage to your target.
In Aion, the dynamic part was to time your combo with your auto-attack swings.
This being said, I dont see a correlation between melee combat being dynamic and the auto-attack feature... Unless we're talking about low level characters with very few abilities
You stole the reply I wanted to make before I knew I would even make it. I've seen your other posts around mmorpg.com, good work.
Judging games by watching video is akin to judging movies just by their audio. Videos of a game can give you an idea of the total product, but its missing the most important part, gameplay.Wwhich can only be fully realized by actually playing the game.
You sir have a very valid observation and a good point made.
I think that auto-attack is just a way to control damage a character can deal. You can achieve this very same by altering the damage of used abilities. This per se is not really a skill or dynamism issue as Emhster points out. The sole fact that you have auto-attack does not make away the fact that once you have more abilities than you can use within a given time frame you have to make choices and that is what adds the dynamism, not the lack or presence of auto-attack. Situational attacks and counter abilities is what creates dynamism to the combat, not auto-attack. If you are fighting with only auto-attack you are doing something horribly wrong...
Hence, I don't think that removing auto-attack is that clever a choice. It does not add any more choices to the game from player's perspective but distances you from the heat of the battle. A system like this runs a risk, especially if linked with auto-facing, of turning into a whack-a-mole simulation where instead of placing foci on your character you monitor your skill bar for what you have available -- or, alternatively, you tap franticly single button which simply means you are doing the auto-attack by yourself. There hardly are any pros to the system but there are multiple cons.
Hyanmen's corollary is deeper than most would see. He practically sweeps away the argument many posts here, boasting personal skills and "excitement" factor. Kudos to Hyanmen.
There are different kinds of games, each with it own kind of gameplay. Chess is an extreme case in which there is no combat, its all in the plot, the winner kills the piece of the other side. Physical boxing or Wii is 100% personal action, you move, you hit or miss. No statistics, no computer skills, all yours.
RPG is more plot and statistics than action game, RPG is developing a character and let him play. The player is a builder NOT the player, the character is the player. The fun of RPGs, like DnD, SirTech days or ultima days, are all in the statistics, the fun is in twitching statistics for a particular venture, statistics as in class, as in specialisation, as in armor and gear, it is all in the numbers. Those who talk about "personal skills" in MMORPGs or RPGs are totally out of focus.
There are games that are in between, which some statistics working into combat awareness. Like WoW. If there is a patch of fire on the ground, you die in 2 seconds unless you move, statistics won't save you. But, when the boss launch an aoe, it delivers 20k damage to all, if you statistics show that you maximum buffed hp is 19999, you die, no amount of personal skill will save you, unless someone cast something on you that helps allevaite enough of the incoming damage, alleviation allowed by the game for that particular attack.
I am sometimes sad to see totally sweeping statements, as if games with "personal skills" are a must or superior form of game asking for bigger intelligence. The biggest intelligence, the deepest plot, are sometimes found in games such as chess/poker, as wargames, in which the commander/player builds up advantage and let god decide who actually wins an ecnounter In chess the rule is god, in wargames, dice is the god.
What are you talking about? You mean trolls are fu.. err... coupling in his post? O_o
Never mind that, just kidding and separating intended meanings from resulted meanings... a hobby of a sort...
Closer to topic. I can't see how AoC combat system is a plus. Don't get me wrong I like active combat about as much as I like thoughtful combat, but AoC is the perfect example off a failed active combat from my point of view.
The trick of AoC combat is not timing positioning or situational use of abilities, although they were present at minimal extent.
The trick of AoC combat was overcoming inconveniences.
Positioning was a factor and combos needed to be wound-up, but no rules were implemented regarding movement and wounding-up combos, as such combat turned into running around like crazy swinging weapon in the air before landing the one hit that counted while trying to beat your opponent's "skill" at this "breathtaking" activity.
Key sequences had to be pressed and timed and were macroed (I'm talking clever macros here not just button sequences).
The most dangerous obstacle of AoC wasn't a skilled opponent. It was lame design. Exploit that, and you are the predator. Ignore that and you're the prey.
Compared to AoC combat auto-attacking combat is a boon since it doesn't force players to compete in struggling with the interface and lets them compete in other things.
That said, a well made active combat system would be welcome like a breath of fresh air.
I've always liked how daoc did its combat. It had reactionaries off of evasions, parries, blocks, combo chains, positionals with other chains and auto attack. It just seemed more involved to me than AoC, more fun. I found aoc melee to be a bit boring and poorly done.
Hmmm... sounds like something to dig...
Interesting too, that FFXIV will have you pinpoint certain parts of a creature in battle resulting in differing tactics. Good stuff.
And on the other side, SWTOR, the AI of the enemy mobs is also showing some tactical shifts in MMO norms. Mobs using cover or reacting differently in agro mechanics.
All the more reason to not diss on the combat of these 2 upcoming games.