I think action true aim MMO's are less popular as there is a larger gap in skill between the top and the bottom. There is almost no chance that someone in the lower skill level will beat a higher skilled player in Darkfall. People don't like being slaughtered with no hope. I love the game and I'm a lower level PvP person, but I can see how most would get killed 25 times in a row (in 1 vs 1 situations) and never go back. In tab target games I have a much higher chance of getting a kill as a lower tier PvPer.
Not every game is pvp. Having a pve game, with a difficulty slider, and everyone can enjoy action combat.
It is just a matter of preferences. I like action combat with some physical effects (like those in Diablo 3) but hey, that is not the only way to do combat mechanics in a game.
I think action true aim MMO's are less popular as there is a larger gap in skill between the top and the bottom. There is almost no chance that someone in the lower skill level will beat a higher skilled player in Darkfall. People don't like being slaughtered with no hope. I love the game and I'm a lower level PvP person, but I can see how most would get killed 25 times in a row (in 1 vs 1 situations) and never go back. In tab target games I have a much higher chance of getting a kill as a lower tier PvPer.
Unless the mmo is specifically designed for it in most cases the lower level's attacks will simply be resisted by the higher level, in the tab targetted mmo's, whereas a skill based mmo, in theory, will let a low level hit the high level if his ability with the fighting system is good enough to land some hits.
For example (of a player's own skill based system) a 2 year old FPS character in Battlefield can still be killed by a very very new character, but will your level 1 wow character kill a level 50, ever?
The twitch combat system should be like that.. Older characters might have a bit better armor and a fancier weapon, but an entry level player with a wooden sword should still be able to slap him silly if the old player is incompetent or drunk..
One day in the distant future we'll get in a matrix-like game environment and do the actual fighting ourselves, not roll dice and watch from above.. so might as well get used to it
I think TESO did a good job with the pace of their combat.
A lot of "action combat" is really fast paced twitchy stuff, I think something more along the lines of Dark Souls style action combat would be fun in an MMO. Slower, more strategic action combat with some weight and momentum.
I like mayonnaise and coke zero, but I wouldn't like them mixed together. I find mixing FPS with RPG about as appealing.
Originally posted by Azoth It's not an RPG to me if all that matters is how good and fast you can circle or bunny hop around. For that type of gameplay I go with FPS that does it way better.
For my mmorpg I think the stats of the character should be the key deciding factor, thus why tab targeting always seemed to do better to me.
I could not have said it better, myself.
Originally posted by Xthos Not a huge fan of the gigantic weapons, super flashy combat, and damage numbers flying everywhere, like a arcade game in mmorpgs.
OMG totally; I think this aspect was one of the reasons Vanguard never took off. I always found the combat in Vanguard to be abstract. And numbers flying all over the screen was a big part, especially since I never knew which numbers were mine!! It also made the game seem more mario brothers-ish rather than an RPG.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
There has yet to (imo) be a fantasy based mmorpg that actually went for full 100% action combat. Guild Wars 2 and most "action" combat mmorpgs still have one foot planted firmly in traditional mmo combat in some form. It's like they are all too scared to take that "leap" and make a full 100% action combat leap with their gameplay, they don't want to "alienate" the mmo vets (even if many of us are sick and tired of tab-target, cycle rotation combat).
I mean lets look at some GOOD "Action" games with good "combat."
You have imo the end-all be all action game for melee combat, Severance (aka Blade of Darkness). A very underrated action-adventure game that came out in the early 2000's. It had a huge depth of combat moves that were depending on both the character you played as and what weapon you used. The game relied heavily on both offensive and defense. It used a stamina system where if you used too much you'd become exhausted, you'd move slower and be open to attack. This is what stopped you from "spamming" moves (there's no "Cooldowns) and there's no "hotkeys."
Now for both Ranged and Mounted combat imo no game has done it better then Mount and Blade. The archery and horseback combat just feels good. Most of all they have many rpg elements, your archery skills as a character influence your bow but it doesn't take "control" away from you, you still aim and do everything as the player but your characters skills in it can influence how long you can draw your bow before the aiming cone (IE where the arrow will go) gets bigger and bigger (thus the arrows landing area is more random).
Then you have honorable mentions like Rune, Jedi Knight games, and the more out there action games like God of War and probably the "closest" action-rpg to get near a good fun combat system, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Not a single mmorpg can come close to any of these games in combat.
Even if they say action they still want to keep hold of either tab-target, or "sticky" target (IE you hit whatever is near your mouse or character, like in the Neverwinter mmorpg), or things like blocking/dodging don't actually....block or dodge well (IE you take dmg even if you block the hit with a shield, or dodge hardly works (IE Guild wars 2).
That is why imo most "action mmorpgs" have backlash, because the ACTUAL combat isn't 100% action combat and because they keep trying to half-ass it and mix it with "Traditional" mmorpg style combat it feels crappy and doesn't work good or isn't "fun" to play.
Originally posted by Sleepyfish I like action combat to a point like removing tab target , but not to the point where I only have less than a handful of skills to choose from and no weapon or options for flexibility. Thats where action combat has failed its not the combat its the console dumbing down of class mechanics that go along with it.
This pretty much. I am surprised this isn't talked about more when this subject comes up.
Originally posted by Mavolence Wasn't Age of Conan an action combat game before GW2? Or Tabula Rasa,Darkfall?,Mortal,Tera?
Were they? GW2 is the game that I remember bringing action combat into the mainstream.
Ok. I am calling bullshit. You got called on your bs claim and now you add additional qualification of mainstream. GW2 wasn't first. Got it. Stop trying to turn it into a claim.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by lugal The only people who should slighted are those with real disabilities. When I played SWG, there were many who played with 1 hand. Not by choice, but due to a disability. Now if a game that has action combat and can not be configured to play with 1 hand, then those people would feel slighted.
I use to play WoW as a clicker and I never tab targeted. So with one hand I could handle that system as well
GW2 is part action combat, part tab target and I think more of the latter than the former. I think there is room for both styles but I do think the "future" is in action combat. The reason is technology like Oculus Rift is pushing us closer to VR play (yes, like Sword Art Online). It's hard to pull that off in a realistic fashion without action or reticle based combat. There will be many iterations in the coming years of action combat but I think a system based as such with a wide variety of abilities like current tab target systems is possible. That's what I think is missing at the moment is action combat with more than 12 abilities. My hope is that intuitive systems that integrate "tiered" abilities are added to action/reticle systems.
Well, I think back in the EQ1 days the slower combat was largely a necessity based on the latency of Internet connections. Now that this isn't an issue developers are looking at different styles of combat that exist in single player games.
Tab targeting combat really doesn't exist outside of MMORPGs. There is really no reason any MMO has to be tab target anymore.
I think we are just going to see more different styles of combat as MMORPG developers are free now to use whatever combat style they like.
ESO was originally going to be a tab target design until fans (rightfully so) expressed their dislike of that idea as it goes against what the elder scrolls series has always been.
Originally posted by Mavolence Wasn't Age of Conan an action combat game before GW2? Or Tabula Rasa,Darkfall?,Mortal,Tera?
Were they? GW2 is the game that I remember bringing action combat into the mainstream.
tera, vindictus and please dont say GW2 has action combat, it has targeted abiltiies but the core is Tab Target lol
Uh no. Your hits will actually miss if you don't aim correctly. The targeting is just a crutch if you want to use it. GW2 can also be played without targeting. There isn't any crosshair, and that's why people like you think it's not action combat, when it actually is.
Apparently you think Tera and Vindictus are mainstream too. That's funny, i don't remember either of them selling over 3.5 million copies, or being promoted with massive marketing hype on all the major MMO, and non-MMO websites.
Dude In GW2 many skills curve to hit targetd characters. Try it out. I proved this back at launch when a few cats here called me a troll for pointing this out.
Originally posted by Mavolence Wasn't Age of Conan an action combat game before GW2? Or Tabula Rasa,Darkfall?,Mortal,Tera?
Were they? GW2 is the game that I remember bringing action combat into the mainstream.
tera, vindictus and please dont say GW2 has action combat, it has targeted abiltiies but the core is Tab Target lol
Uh no. Your hits will actually miss if you don't aim correctly. The targeting is just a crutch if you want to use it. GW2 can also be played without targeting. There isn't any crosshair, and that's why people like you think it's not action combat, when it actually is.
Apparently you think Tera and Vindictus are mainstream too. That's funny, i don't remember either of them selling over 3.5 million copies, or being promoted with massive marketing hype on all the major MMO, and non-MMO websites.
Dude In GW2 many skills curve to hit targetd characters. Try it out. I proved this back at launch when a few cats here called me a troll for pointing this out.
Agree.. GW2 is tab targeting with the exception of AE type spells.. ALL non AE skills will be inactive unless you have a target in range..
Originally posted by Mavolence Wasn't Age of Conan an action combat game before GW2? Or Tabula Rasa,Darkfall?,Mortal,Tera?
Were they? GW2 is the game that I remember bringing action combat into the mainstream.
tera, vindictus and please dont say GW2 has action combat, it has targeted abiltiies but the core is Tab Target lol
Uh no. Your hits will actually miss if you don't aim correctly. The targeting is just a crutch if you want to use it. GW2 can also be played without targeting. There isn't any crosshair, and that's why people like you think it's not action combat, when it actually is.
Apparently you think Tera and Vindictus are mainstream too. That's funny, i don't remember either of them selling over 3.5 million copies, or being promoted with massive marketing hype on all the major MMO, and non-MMO websites.
Dude In GW2 many skills curve to hit targetd characters. Try it out. I proved this back at launch when a few cats here called me a troll for pointing this out.
You're not a troll, I'd even say you're Captain Obvious. In jest, of course, GW2 is tab-targetting so ostensibly. Non-tab games, hmmm, may Phantasy Star Online 2 and Firefall.
Originally posted by Dreamo84 Well, I think back in the EQ1 days the slower combat was largely a necessity based on the latency of Internet connections. Now that this isn't an issue developers are looking at different styles of combat that exist in single player games.
Tab targeting combat really doesn't exist outside of MMORPGs. There is really no reason any MMO has to be tab target anymore.
I think we are just going to see more different styles of combat as MMORPG developers are free now to use whatever combat style they like.
ESO was originally going to be a tab target design until fans (rightfully so) expressed their dislike of that idea as it goes against what the elder scrolls series has always been.
THey must have no heard then because the combat (Especially range) still relies on soft locks, you can't "miss" even if you aim away from a target with range, your spells go to the nearest target where your mouse is pointed, similar to Neverwinter.
Even so the regular TES games have horrid combat in the first place so not really something anyone should aspire to imo (at least melee combat, and the fact that targetting certain areas offers 0 difference in dmg or any different effects).
I am not saying it is impossible but what i have seen is action combat is dumbed down combat when compared to in depth tab combat such as FFXI.No game on this planet has as many systems bult into it's combat as FFXI ,including on the fly macro gear swapping.
Action combat is usually based on aiming and nothing more.I love BOTH types but they have to be utilized properly in a certain type of game.Example i love aiming in a fps such as Unreal Tournament or Quake but cannot stand it's simplicity in rpg's.Outside of ARENA type combat which in itself adds a lot to the skill set,i only see aiming viable in an army type setting with realistic weapons example Call of Duty ect ect.
Think about it,where in real life would you see two people walk right out in the open and start firing on each other,it is FAKE and defeats the purpose of adding realism through aiming.You should have the proper map layout with places to take cover,that is realistic and rpg's NEVER do mapping to support pvp.Even with PVE the mob ALWAYS attacks you,you think if you shot at something in real life it will attack before running?
IMO it is just a bunch of clueless people designing the systems,they just toss together an idea without thinking about how plausible it is.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Pepeq Doesn't matter what combat system a game uses... nobody is going to play any of the new games for more than a month before switching games. They don't care to spend all their time playing one game anymore.
This is quite true and even with that FACT,you still see people defending developers.I think it says a LOT about the quality of gaming now a days and that SOLOING is NOT the answer for longevity because soloing usually means EASY mode gaming which becomes VERY boring after that month or sooner.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Pepeq Doesn't matter what combat system a game uses... nobody is going to play any of the new games for more than a month before switching games. They don't care to spend all their time playing one game anymore.
This is quite true and even with that FACT,you still see people defending developers.I think it says a LOT about the quality of gaming now a days and that SOLOING is NOT the answer for longevity because soloing usually means EASY mode gaming which becomes VERY boring after that month or sooner.
What does soloing or grouping have to do with anything? I've seen this argument time and time again and it holds no water.
UO? Most social mmo I have ever played, plenty of people grouped and socialized with other players/interacted. SWG? Same thing, plenty of social interaction amongst the players.
Why? Was it because like some other mmo's that it forced you to "group" in order to progress or get past things? Nope, you could play both games solo perfectly fine.
People socialized/grouped because the games mechanics encouraged it (but didn't force it) and they had many reasons to WANT to group while still having the completely viable option of soloing if they wanted to.
One of the key reasons for a lot of this was the fact the games economy was player ran and you had no global AH, players had non-instnaced housing/shops and there were many other things that contributed to encouraging social interaction amongst players.
Meanwhile when you have games that absolutely force you to solo to get past levels it feels like a chore, you get stuck /lfg or other things and players get frustrated.
1. MMORPGs are typically played in long stretches. Action combat turns from fun to tedious in long stretches
2. No one has pulled off action combat well yet. GW2's group mechanics suck. TERA lacks depth. It just seems like you are sacrificing good group mechanics or combat complexity for action combat because no one has made a game that shows otherwise.
I am curious about the future of action combat and tab-targeting in MMOs. My guess is that a lot of the recently released and currently being developed action MMOs were a direct result of GW2, which was thought by many to be a truly revolutionary game that could be a WoW-killer. That didn't come to pass, and unless I'm mistaken, none of the other action combat MMOs subsequently released have taken the top ranking spots in the West away from tab-target games like WoW, SWTOR and FFXIV. Am I correct in this? If this is the case, will future developers look at the continuing success of tab-target games and go back to this format with new games? I don't think that action combat will go away, but is there room in the future for both styles?
GW2s combat is still tab targeted even if you don't need to have the opponent in target if you attack with a melee weapon. Targetwise it is not unlike AoC.
And Wildstar also have some kind of action combat (or it ain't a traditional one at least), it is one of the top games in the West. If you count ESO, GW2 and FF XIV as the other recently successful MMOs in the West it would make the numbers 2-2.
What GW2 have is active dodging (and in some cases parrying), focus on positioning and the fact that you need to move while fighting. And even games like Wow have made it harder for people standing in the same spot while they rotate their skills since then.
There is also the trinity combat, where you traditionally have tank, spank and support. That seems to be changing to aofense, defense and support instead which might sounds similar but means that mobs will be smarter and combat will be less about rotate the same skills over and over.
MMO combat will change and my guess is that timing will be more important in the future, fire of the right skill in the right moment instead of just hitting it as soon as the cooldown is off. Moving while fighting is most likely here to stay as well.
Exactly how future group dynamics will work in the future is anyones guess though. The Wow styled dynamics (basically a cut down version of M59 and EQs mechanics) have lost a lot of support while the ones GW2 uses still need more work. And there is also the possibility that someone actually creates something new.
What is important is that people need to support eachother when they do group combat instead of just solo in group.
What does soloing or grouping have to do with anything? I've seen this argument time and time again and it holds no water.
UO? Most social mmo I have ever played, plenty of people grouped and socialized with other players/interacted. SWG? Same thing, plenty of social interaction amongst the players.
Why? Was it because like some other mmo's that it forced you to "group" in order to progress or get past things? Nope, you could play both games solo perfectly fine.
People socialized/grouped because the games mechanics encouraged it (but didn't force it) and they had many reasons to WANT to group while still having the completely viable option of soloing if they wanted to.
One of the key reasons for a lot of this was the fact the games economy was player ran and you had no global AH, players had non-instnaced housing/shops and there were many other things that contributed to encouraging social interaction amongst players.
Meanwhile when you have games that absolutely force you to solo to get past levels it feels like a chore, you get stuck /lfg or other things and players get frustrated.
Well, frankly do solo and group combat pose a bit of a problem for the old combat mechanics. For solocontent you really need to give all classes in the game an equal shot to beat a mob but with trinity combat mechanics particularly the healer do have a problem there.
It get even worse when you put PvP as well into the game, what is balanced for one type of content might not work at all in another, while tanks are hard to kill they also usually do very little damage and taunts always are disabled in PvP.
It do have zero to do with social aspects of the game though, stuff like player owned stores affect that way more than any combat system do. Mechanics for Quests or DEs on the other hand can change things and locking combat to a group or individual for example affects it negatively.
Getting a good combat system that works for all 3 types of gameplay needs a rather different mechanics than most games have, GW2 try to let you switch roles during combat as a fix which works but still can be better implemented. Other games, like GW1 had specific skills for PvP and let soloers get bots for the group content, while other games have PvP gear (which frankly never helpedthat much).
I don't see that much of a backlash against action combat myself, after all Tera Online was the 3rd highest grossing MMo of 2013, with number 1 being Wow and 2 being Lineage 1.
So you are saying TERA's gross is below a game that was such a flop in the west it shut down in the west years ago?
You could say it like that. Or you could say it like this. It's gross was above any other western MMO except WoW. I think it's truly unfortunate that NCSoft closed Lineage in the west. Along with CoH it shows how little they really care about the player.
Maybe they felt they made enough money and didn't want to deal with all the QQ that comes with the gamers from the West, specifically the NA community.
Comments
Not every game is pvp. Having a pve game, with a difficulty slider, and everyone can enjoy action combat.
It is just a matter of preferences. I like action combat with some physical effects (like those in Diablo 3) but hey, that is not the only way to do combat mechanics in a game.
Unless the mmo is specifically designed for it in most cases the lower level's attacks will simply be resisted by the higher level, in the tab targetted mmo's, whereas a skill based mmo, in theory, will let a low level hit the high level if his ability with the fighting system is good enough to land some hits.
For example (of a player's own skill based system) a 2 year old FPS character in Battlefield can still be killed by a very very new character, but will your level 1 wow character kill a level 50, ever?
The twitch combat system should be like that.. Older characters might have a bit better armor and a fancier weapon, but an entry level player with a wooden sword should still be able to slap him silly if the old player is incompetent or drunk..
One day in the distant future we'll get in a matrix-like game environment and do the actual fighting ourselves, not roll dice and watch from above.. so might as well get used to it
I think TESO did a good job with the pace of their combat.
A lot of "action combat" is really fast paced twitchy stuff, I think something more along the lines of Dark Souls style action combat would be fun in an MMO. Slower, more strategic action combat with some weight and momentum.
I like mayonnaise and coke zero, but I wouldn't like them mixed together. I find mixing FPS with RPG about as appealing.
I could not have said it better, myself.
OMG totally; I think this aspect was one of the reasons Vanguard never took off. I always found the combat in Vanguard to be abstract. And numbers flying all over the screen was a big part, especially since I never knew which numbers were mine!! It also made the game seem more mario brothers-ish rather than an RPG.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
There has yet to (imo) be a fantasy based mmorpg that actually went for full 100% action combat. Guild Wars 2 and most "action" combat mmorpgs still have one foot planted firmly in traditional mmo combat in some form. It's like they are all too scared to take that "leap" and make a full 100% action combat leap with their gameplay, they don't want to "alienate" the mmo vets (even if many of us are sick and tired of tab-target, cycle rotation combat).
I mean lets look at some GOOD "Action" games with good "combat."
You have imo the end-all be all action game for melee combat, Severance (aka Blade of Darkness). A very underrated action-adventure game that came out in the early 2000's. It had a huge depth of combat moves that were depending on both the character you played as and what weapon you used. The game relied heavily on both offensive and defense. It used a stamina system where if you used too much you'd become exhausted, you'd move slower and be open to attack. This is what stopped you from "spamming" moves (there's no "Cooldowns) and there's no "hotkeys."
Now for both Ranged and Mounted combat imo no game has done it better then Mount and Blade. The archery and horseback combat just feels good. Most of all they have many rpg elements, your archery skills as a character influence your bow but it doesn't take "control" away from you, you still aim and do everything as the player but your characters skills in it can influence how long you can draw your bow before the aiming cone (IE where the arrow will go) gets bigger and bigger (thus the arrows landing area is more random).
Then you have honorable mentions like Rune, Jedi Knight games, and the more out there action games like God of War and probably the "closest" action-rpg to get near a good fun combat system, Kingdoms of Amalur.
Not a single mmorpg can come close to any of these games in combat.
Even if they say action they still want to keep hold of either tab-target, or "sticky" target (IE you hit whatever is near your mouse or character, like in the Neverwinter mmorpg), or things like blocking/dodging don't actually....block or dodge well (IE you take dmg even if you block the hit with a shield, or dodge hardly works (IE Guild wars 2).
That is why imo most "action mmorpgs" have backlash, because the ACTUAL combat isn't 100% action combat and because they keep trying to half-ass it and mix it with "Traditional" mmorpg style combat it feels crappy and doesn't work good or isn't "fun" to play.
This pretty much. I am surprised this isn't talked about more when this subject comes up.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Ok. I am calling bullshit. You got called on your bs claim and now you add additional qualification of mainstream. GW2 wasn't first. Got it. Stop trying to turn it into a claim.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I use to play WoW as a clicker and I never tab targeted. So with one hand I could handle that system as well
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Tab targeting combat really doesn't exist outside of MMORPGs. There is really no reason any MMO has to be tab target anymore.
I think we are just going to see more different styles of combat as MMORPG developers are free now to use whatever combat style they like.
ESO was originally going to be a tab target design until fans (rightfully so) expressed their dislike of that idea as it goes against what the elder scrolls series has always been.
Dude In GW2 many skills curve to hit targetd characters. Try it out. I proved this back at launch when a few cats here called me a troll for pointing this out.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Agree.. GW2 is tab targeting with the exception of AE type spells.. ALL non AE skills will be inactive unless you have a target in range..
You're not a troll, I'd even say you're Captain Obvious. In jest, of course, GW2 is tab-targetting so ostensibly. Non-tab games, hmmm, may Phantasy Star Online 2 and Firefall.
THey must have no heard then because the combat (Especially range) still relies on soft locks, you can't "miss" even if you aim away from a target with range, your spells go to the nearest target where your mouse is pointed, similar to Neverwinter.
Even so the regular TES games have horrid combat in the first place so not really something anyone should aspire to imo (at least melee combat, and the fact that targetting certain areas offers 0 difference in dmg or any different effects).
I am not saying it is impossible but what i have seen is action combat is dumbed down combat when compared to in depth tab combat such as FFXI.No game on this planet has as many systems bult into it's combat as FFXI ,including on the fly macro gear swapping.
Action combat is usually based on aiming and nothing more.I love BOTH types but they have to be utilized properly in a certain type of game.Example i love aiming in a fps such as Unreal Tournament or Quake but cannot stand it's simplicity in rpg's.Outside of ARENA type combat which in itself adds a lot to the skill set,i only see aiming viable in an army type setting with realistic weapons example Call of Duty ect ect.
Think about it,where in real life would you see two people walk right out in the open and start firing on each other,it is FAKE and defeats the purpose of adding realism through aiming.You should have the proper map layout with places to take cover,that is realistic and rpg's NEVER do mapping to support pvp.Even with PVE the mob ALWAYS attacks you,you think if you shot at something in real life it will attack before running?
IMO it is just a bunch of clueless people designing the systems,they just toss together an idea without thinking about how plausible it is.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
This is quite true and even with that FACT,you still see people defending developers.I think it says a LOT about the quality of gaming now a days and that SOLOING is NOT the answer for longevity because soloing usually means EASY mode gaming which becomes VERY boring after that month or sooner.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
What does soloing or grouping have to do with anything? I've seen this argument time and time again and it holds no water.
UO? Most social mmo I have ever played, plenty of people grouped and socialized with other players/interacted. SWG? Same thing, plenty of social interaction amongst the players.
Why? Was it because like some other mmo's that it forced you to "group" in order to progress or get past things? Nope, you could play both games solo perfectly fine.
People socialized/grouped because the games mechanics encouraged it (but didn't force it) and they had many reasons to WANT to group while still having the completely viable option of soloing if they wanted to.
One of the key reasons for a lot of this was the fact the games economy was player ran and you had no global AH, players had non-instnaced housing/shops and there were many other things that contributed to encouraging social interaction amongst players.
Meanwhile when you have games that absolutely force you to solo to get past levels it feels like a chore, you get stuck /lfg or other things and players get frustrated.
Well said.
GW2s combat is still tab targeted even if you don't need to have the opponent in target if you attack with a melee weapon. Targetwise it is not unlike AoC.
And Wildstar also have some kind of action combat (or it ain't a traditional one at least), it is one of the top games in the West. If you count ESO, GW2 and FF XIV as the other recently successful MMOs in the West it would make the numbers 2-2.
What GW2 have is active dodging (and in some cases parrying), focus on positioning and the fact that you need to move while fighting. And even games like Wow have made it harder for people standing in the same spot while they rotate their skills since then.
There is also the trinity combat, where you traditionally have tank, spank and support. That seems to be changing to aofense, defense and support instead which might sounds similar but means that mobs will be smarter and combat will be less about rotate the same skills over and over.
MMO combat will change and my guess is that timing will be more important in the future, fire of the right skill in the right moment instead of just hitting it as soon as the cooldown is off. Moving while fighting is most likely here to stay as well.
Exactly how future group dynamics will work in the future is anyones guess though. The Wow styled dynamics (basically a cut down version of M59 and EQs mechanics) have lost a lot of support while the ones GW2 uses still need more work. And there is also the possibility that someone actually creates something new.
What is important is that people need to support eachother when they do group combat instead of just solo in group.
Well, frankly do solo and group combat pose a bit of a problem for the old combat mechanics. For solocontent you really need to give all classes in the game an equal shot to beat a mob but with trinity combat mechanics particularly the healer do have a problem there.
It get even worse when you put PvP as well into the game, what is balanced for one type of content might not work at all in another, while tanks are hard to kill they also usually do very little damage and taunts always are disabled in PvP.
It do have zero to do with social aspects of the game though, stuff like player owned stores affect that way more than any combat system do. Mechanics for Quests or DEs on the other hand can change things and locking combat to a group or individual for example affects it negatively.
Getting a good combat system that works for all 3 types of gameplay needs a rather different mechanics than most games have, GW2 try to let you switch roles during combat as a fix which works but still can be better implemented. Other games, like GW1 had specific skills for PvP and let soloers get bots for the group content, while other games have PvP gear (which frankly never helpedthat much).
Maybe they felt they made enough money and didn't want to deal with all the QQ that comes with the gamers from the West, specifically the NA community.