In GW2 terms it is when a person can take that free jet make a transatlantic flight the first time they ever step into the cockpit.
I don't know why you are so focused on character development because I am not talking about that at all. And as for the skills being weapon locked for balance purposes was pointless if that was the case, everyone in game still runs FOTM. Remember that period of time when nearly every elementalist was DD?
I'd love to see you create a character, give no thought to it's spec or weapon loadout, pay no attention to the combo field mechanic and jump into a pvp match and end up dominating spamming 1 2 3 1 2 3. I'd really love to see it.
You brought up the fact that you didn't have to earn skills through a lot of work. That's specifically character development.
GW2 is one of the most competitive and balanced games (almost to a fault), there is no FOTM spec. Each spec has their place in combat and on a team, each do great against some specs and have a harder time with other specs. If there was a "FOTM build" you'd see every single competitive PVP lineup with the same classes and same weapons and same spec and same gear.
You don't see that at all, not even close.
Sorry if intruding but I found your convo interesting.
I think that GW2 has an amazing approach that I found to be easy to learn but hard to master (which I thought was excellent design). The only problem with it was a lack of weapon choice (I would have liked about 4x the weapons) and the sometime repetitious feel in PvE.
GW2 actually has a big hotbar you just cant see all of it at once. I think something that captured the feel of GW2 (pick up a chair, get specials) with the feeling of choice of a customizeable hotbar would be really good.
It's no problem at all. And I agree with you 100%, which is what I'm trying to convey to this other guy. The game presented you with a ton of choices, complex mechanics, and a really good amount of available skills to use at any one given time, especially since you also had to focus on action combat. I do wish there were more weapons, but that's just the gamer in us being greedy. I think there were a lot of choices from the start, the amount of skills each class was given was very respectable. Mathematically, about 1 unique skill for about every level or 2 in the game, for each class. That's pretty solid imho.
In GW2 terms it is when a person can take that free jet make a transatlantic flight the first time they ever step into the cockpit.
I don't know why you are so focused on character development because I am not talking about that at all. And as for the skills being weapon locked for balance purposes was pointless if that was the case, everyone in game still runs FOTM. Remember that period of time when nearly every elementalist was DD?
I'd love to see you create a character, give no thought to it's spec or weapon loadout, pay no attention to the combo field mechanic and jump into a pvp match and end up dominating spamming 1 2 3 1 2 3. I'd really love to see it.
You brought up the fact that you didn't have to earn skills through a lot of work. That's specifically character development.
GW2 is one of the most competitive and balanced games (almost to a fault), there is no FOTM spec. Each spec has their place in combat and on a team, each do great against some specs and have a harder time with other specs. If there was a "FOTM build" you'd see every single competitive PVP lineup with the same classes and same weapons and same spec and same gear.
You don't see that at all, not even close.
No FOTM spec? Now I know you're living in your own little world. Hit the GW2 forums and see how similar peoples specs really are.
Also I don't PvP, no that I won't ever, I just prefer PvE. Are you considering PvE as character development?
There is no "FOTM" spec. People will generate similar builds, sure, but you're just as likely to see a Staff AOE DPS ele in a pvp tournament as you are to see a D/D or a support/tank ele. Each has their own area of expertise, and different players have different preferences.
If the game wasn't balanced, you'd see tPVP matches built and specced the exactly the same. It doesn't happen.
It matters because the skills you learned at level 5 are still the same ones your using at 30, there's no real deviation there, my play style never changed once no matter which mob I was fighting. Its mindless. As for weapon theme, that doesn't change it up much either, they're just 4 more abilities you're switching over to still using the same buttons.
As for the 123, believe what you want to believe, but I and others know the truth if you ever catch any of my characters in game, I'll show you just how effective my button spamming can be. I don't profess to have mad skills, just the opposite. But that's my point. My skills in game are poor and yet I seem to make it through the game just fine.
Well for one, as I already mentioned, your complaining about the pace of character development. As for playing the same as level one, that also hints that you've missed the point of the game. You can respec your traits, switch weapons and change gear as you wish.
For PVP I can equip a Mace and shield / hammer, trait heavily into a specific heal/defense spec, equip toughness and vitality gear and turn into an insane tank/support character, then I can swap gear to str/precision gear, new runes, new traits, and weild a sword+touch/greatsword and be a full on glass canon DPS character.
I've never seen a game that gave so much range and freedom with character building than GW2 did, and the fact that it was action combat, with upwards to 20 abilities to worry about and a field mechanic to play with, was simply more complex than any MMORPG out there. Not even an opinion, it just had a lot to it that I don't see many games offering, not nearly as much anyway.
Who is talking about character development? Only you. I'm talking about combat which you refuse to acknowledge. As for respeccing traits, switching weapons, etc., I've done all of that and the game really isn't much different. Especially since you only have a few weapon choices at your disposal.
I'm done with discussing this with you. Your posts are coming across a little to fanboyish, as you refuse to accept that others may not feel the same way about things as you do. Its ok that you love the game, I have things I love that no one else does too, but I'm not going to try to invalidate their opinion on the subject just because I can't get them on my side.
The difference is you're factually wrong. You don't even understand basic game design concept and can't comprehend what's being told to you.
I can respect someone's preference for something. Some people like pie, some people hate cake, some people like both, hey, whatever.
But you're not comprehending the topic being discussed.
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
The depth of a game's mechanics are quantifiable. It's not up for opinions. You may have an opinion that you didn't like it, or that you prefer something else, but what you're saying isn't an opinion. You're making claims of how envolved the game's combat is, and you can compare it to other games and see quantifiable differences. GW2 is not a "simple" combat system.
It's also clear that you haven't heard a single word I said. Nor do you understand anything about game design in general.
Frankly, I think the problem is that I take a designer's prospective on things, and assume other people are rational enough to do the same. A designer's analysis talks about the mechanics and features of a game in a quantifiable manner. It's an analysis of what the game has, what it attempts to achieve and if it achieves it and compares it to other industry standards. It's not about likes or dislikes or opinions.
I've read most of this thread and related ones. . .
For those going for the few button/deck system, do you account for buffs and utility? GW2 for example doesn't have any long term buffs or actual healing.
Assuming EQN goes with a more traditional RPG system and has healing/buffs/utility abilities, would you include them in the deck or is there a side deck/bar for them?
I can't see how having SOW or a Teleport ability on screen would hinder anyone. If someone chooses to clutter their screen with 20 teleports, that doesn't provide them any advantage in a PVE/PVP combat situation.
Or do you want to have to add these abilities to the bar, use them, and then remove them every time?
When comparing EQ/WoW to GW2 for example, these games have totally different types of classes and abilities. Fundamentally they are not the same and can't be compared as such. If you put EQ spells in GW2, it would be a completely different game style.
It's like if you brought Magic cards to a Poker game and tried to play Black Jack with them. While both are card based games, they are not remotely close.
Below I've listed what I've seen suggested a lot, plus my own thoughts:
1. 10+ Core Skills: used heavily (dps, dots, heals, etc).
2. 10+ Reactionary/Situational Skills: used semi heavily and usually have cool downs (if X, then Y).
3. Buffs: long term, out of group castable, total number not set.
4. Utility/Fluff/Fun Skills: total number not set (shrink, grow, levitate, sow, etc).
5. Consumables/Gear Switching/Inventory: total number not set.
So basically, you only need 10-20 buttons, but there is room to add a lot of extra that don't effect combat too heavily if at all.
6. Action Combat: Something along the lines of GW2 and TERA with dodge and movement reactions available but not required.
7. Tab Targeting: Available, but movement provides advantage with extra work required.
8. Macros: Game is flawed if they are required to be "good" (personally don't want to see them at all).
9. Custom UI: Able to fully customize UI, have 100 buttons or 5, our choice. Shouldn't provide any sort of advantage or disadvantage if number of Core Skills are the same for everyone.
10. Easy Mode: No parsing, can't see buffs or time left on debuffs/dots on others, no damage/threat/hate meters, can't see what mob/player is casting/activating, no automated systems in general.
If someone is able to calculate every single action that they and others are doing for an extended period of time, they probably have better things to do then play games.
11. Challenge: Everyone wants one and thinks their preferred system provides one, but in reality, either everyone is right or everyone is wrong. I'm going with everyone is wrong and no matter the button number, it comes down to who can mash their sequences of buttons faster and more accurately, plus a little luck. Once you learn a system, a lot of the challenge goes away.
We all are different and may find one system easier or harder to master, but there is no true "skill" based system for everyone. Essentially whack a mole, some have 5 fast moles, some have 10 slow moles, but in the end we are all doing the same thing.
EQN hopefully takes the good from other games and adds in a lot of new ideas to give us something fresh.
My perfect setup would be what I listed above, ZERO buttons on screen (little UI as possible), 20 or less abilities bound to keys. Anything beyond 20 I can open a window and quickly access. I don't want 15 buff buttons on my screen, especially if they last a while, but I see no reason to stop someone else from doing so.
I found GW2 and EQ/WoW systems to be easy to learn and not too hard to master. You hit a point where there is no longer progression and it is just muscle memory button mashing.
The way for EQN to be more exciting is if they have a lot of options and customization.
GW2 linking 25% of more abilities to a weapon wasn't fun for me. Neither was pressing 111123111123 in WoW.
I'm looking for something that makes me go "Woah, I've never seen that before" a year into the game. Doubt that will happen, but I can hope.
I can't see how having SOW or a Teleport ability on screen would hinder anyone. If someone chooses to clutter their screen with 20 teleports, that doesn't provide them any advantage in a PVE/PVP combat situation.
10. Easy Mode: No parsing, can't see buffs or time left on debuffs/dots on others, no damage/threat/hate meters, can't see what mob/player is casting/activating, no automated systems in general.
That's a good point. Buffs were a huge part of EQ, and in many ways it helped foster a sense of community. Getting SOW or an invis from a passing stranger or from someone in town really helped. Passing around buffs was a great part of the game.
But as you mentioned, teleports and buffs were not really a part of the combat. I see no reason why they would force you to swap out attacks to place buffs, just so you can swap back to the attack when you're done. That's just tedious and I'm sure they'll avoid something like that. (Maybe by keeping buffs separate from combat slots).
As for parsing, if there's no in game parsing, us programmers will just make a 3rd party one. We always do.
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
The depth of a game's mechanics are quantifiable. It's not up for opinions. You may have an opinion that you didn't like it, or that you prefer something else, but what you're saying isn't an opinion. You're making claims of how envolved the game's combat is, and you can compare it to other games and see quantifiable differences. GW2 is not a "simple" combat system.
It's also clear that you haven't heard a single word I said. Nor do you understand anything about game design in general.
Frankly, I think the problem is that I take a designer's prospective on things, and assume other people are rational enough to do the same. A designer's analysis talks about the mechanics and features of a game in a quantifiable manner. It's an analysis of what the game has, what it attempts to achieve and if it achieves it and compares it to other industry standards. It's not about likes or dislikes or opinions.
[mod edit] you don't seem to be reading anything well at all. You have this one idea running in your head and you refuse to see pass that to realize that people are talking about completely different things than you. Who is talking about quantifiable system data when this entire thread has been about discussing what skills are needed, how many, and how these skills play? You can talk about a game's inner design being great all day long, but all of that will mean nothing if the skills do not play well in game or give a player a fluid like motion. How skills play in game and their feel to a gamer are completely different than what you are trying to interject in this arguement. Those things are subjective at best, can not in any way be quantitative, and come down completely to opinion. For you to continue to try to argue otherwise says more about you personally than any Rorschach test ever possibly could.
I see you consider yourself to be a game designer. If this is the thinking all game devs do when designing their games no wonder MMOs have continuously been going down the toilet over the years.
But like I said previously, I'm tired of this conversation and your fanatical views.
I've read most of this thread and related ones. . .
I found GW2 and EQ/WoW systems to be easy to learn and not too hard to master. You hit a point where there is no longer progression and it is just muscle memory button mashing.
The way for EQN to be more exciting is if they have a lot of options and customization.
GW2 linking 25% of more abilities to a weapon wasn't fun for me. Neither was pressing 111123111123 in WoW.
Thank you for this! I see I am not the only one who felt this way or found no challenge in the process.
I've read most of this thread and related ones. . .
For those going for the few button/deck system, do you account for buffs and utility? GW2 for example doesn't have any long term buffs or actual healing.
Assuming EQN goes with a more traditional RPG system and has healing/buffs/utility abilities, would you include them in the deck or is there a side deck/bar for them?
I can't see how having SOW or a Teleport ability on screen would hinder anyone. If someone chooses to clutter their screen with 20 teleports, that doesn't provide them any advantage in a PVE/PVP combat situation.
Or do you want to have to add these abilities to the bar, use them, and then remove them every time?
When comparing EQ/WoW to GW2 for example, these games have totally different types of classes and abilities. Fundamentally they are not the same and can't be compared as such. If you put EQ spells in GW2, it would be a completely different game style.
It's like if you brought Magic cards to a Poker game and tried to play Black Jack with them. While both are card based games, they are not remotely close.
Below I've listed what I've seen suggested a lot, plus my own thoughts:
1. 10+ Core Skills: used heavily (dps, dots, heals, etc).
2. 10+ Reactionary/Situational Skills: used semi heavily and usually have cool downs (if X, then Y).
3. Buffs: long term, out of group castable, total number not set.
4. Utility/Fluff/Fun Skills: total number not set (shrink, grow, levitate, sow, etc).
5. Consumables/Gear Switching/Inventory: total number not set.
So basically, you only need 10-20 buttons, but there is room to add a lot of extra that don't effect combat too heavily if at all.
6. Action Combat: Something along the lines of GW2 and TERA with dodge and movement reactions available but not required.
7. Tab Targeting: Available, but movement provides advantage with extra work required.
8. Macros: Game is flawed if they are required to be "good" (personally don't want to see them at all).
9. Custom UI: Able to fully customize UI, have 100 buttons or 5, our choice. Shouldn't provide any sort of advantage or disadvantage if number of Core Skills are the same for everyone.
10. Easy Mode: No parsing, can't see buffs or time left on debuffs/dots on others, no damage/threat/hate meters, can't see what mob/player is casting/activating, no automated systems in general.
If someone is able to calculate every single action that they and others are doing for an extended period of time, they probably have better things to do then play games.
11. Challenge: Everyone wants one and thinks their preferred system provides one, but in reality, either everyone is right or everyone is wrong. I'm going with everyone is wrong and no matter the button number, it comes down to who can mash their sequences of buttons faster and more accurately, plus a little luck. Once you learn a system, a lot of the challenge goes away.
We all are different and may find one system easier or harder to master, but there is no true "skill" based system for everyone. Essentially whack a mole, some have 5 fast moles, some have 10 slow moles, but in the end we are all doing the same thing.
EQN hopefully takes the good from other games and adds in a lot of new ideas to give us something fresh.
My perfect setup would be what I listed above, ZERO buttons on screen (little UI as possible), 20 or less abilities bound to keys. Anything beyond 20 I can open a window and quickly access. I don't want 15 buff buttons on my screen, especially if they last a while, but I see no reason to stop someone else from doing so.
I found GW2 and EQ/WoW systems to be easy to learn and not too hard to master. You hit a point where there is no longer progression and it is just muscle memory button mashing.
The way for EQN to be more exciting is if they have a lot of options and customization.
GW2 linking 25% of more abilities to a weapon wasn't fun for me. Neither was pressing 111123111123 in WoW.
I'm looking for something that makes me go "Woah, I've never seen that before" a year into the game. Doubt that will happen, but I can hope.
The combat system you described sounds like a good comprimise between tab and action. How do you feal about first-person view?
Honestly I would get the "Woah, I've never seen that before" feeling if they did away with the typical third-person perspective we see in every fantasy MMORPG. It would also make sense considering PS2 is in first-person and they'll be sharing the same engine.
I'm comfortable with 2 hotbars with active and reactive abilities and spells. Another hotbar for buffs and situational skills / spells is fine too. Anything more than that causes me frustration, especially if the majority of them are reactive / chain / situational abilities. Having to deal with memorizing a bunch of skill combos or remembering special situational data is more than I want from combat.
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
The depth of a game's mechanics are quantifiable. It's not up for opinions. You may have an opinion that you didn't like it, or that you prefer something else, but what you're saying isn't an opinion. You're making claims of how envolved the game's combat is, and you can compare it to other games and see quantifiable differences. GW2 is not a "simple" combat system.
It's also clear that you haven't heard a single word I said. Nor do you understand anything about game design in general.
Frankly, I think the problem is that I take a designer's prospective on things, and assume other people are rational enough to do the same. A designer's analysis talks about the mechanics and features of a game in a quantifiable manner. It's an analysis of what the game has, what it attempts to achieve and if it achieves it and compares it to other industry standards. It's not about likes or dislikes or opinions.
[mod edit] you don't seem to be reading anything well at all. You have this one idea running in your head and you refuse to see pass that to realize that people are talking about completely different things than you. Who is talking about quantifiable system data when this entire thread has been about discussing what skills are needed, how many, and how these skills play? You can talk about a game's inner design being great all day long, but all of that will mean nothing if the skills do not play well in game or give a player a fluid like motion. How skills play in game and their feel to a gamer are completely different than what you are trying to interject in this arguement. Those things are subjective at best, can not in any way be quantitative, and come down completely to opinion. For you to continue to try to argue otherwise says more about you personally than any Rorschach test ever possibly could.
I see you consider yourself to be a game designer. If this is the thinking all game devs do when designing their games no wonder MMOs have continuously been going down the toilet over the years.
But like I said previously, I'm tired of this conversation and your fanatical views.
I'm DONE.
Welcome to the Gallus85 irritation club. You'll not find a more condescending poster on this board who will argue beside the point till he turns blue in the face.
He'll throw game design insults at you for just about every argument, as if he were not only a professional designer himself, but the one with all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is too stupid to acknowledge his brilliance.
Welcome to the Gallus85 irritation club. You'll not find a more condescending poster on this board who will argue beside the point till he turns blue in the face.
He'll throw game design insults at you for just about every argument, as if he were not only a professional designer himself, but the one with all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is too stupid to acknowledge his brilliance.
It's hard to talk about the intricacies of a combustion engine when the person on the other end of the conversation doesn't even know how to change the oil.
Please refrain from using personal attacks. If you want to discuss/argue a point please do so on the merits of the argument not verbally attacking other posters
MMORPG.com does not tolerate personal attacks on other posters. Please keep your arguments and posts on topic, and argue the ideas and topics of the thread instead of insulting other users. Example: Telling someone that you disagree with their argument is tolerated, while calling someone inappropriate names is not.
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
The depth of a game's mechanics are quantifiable. It's not up for opinions. You may have an opinion that you didn't like it, or that you prefer something else, but what you're saying isn't an opinion. You're making claims of how envolved the game's combat is, and you can compare it to other games and see quantifiable differences. GW2 is not a "simple" combat system.
It's also clear that you haven't heard a single word I said. Nor do you understand anything about game design in general.
Frankly, I think the problem is that I take a designer's prospective on things, and assume other people are rational enough to do the same. A designer's analysis talks about the mechanics and features of a game in a quantifiable manner. It's an analysis of what the game has, what it attempts to achieve and if it achieves it and compares it to other industry standards. It's not about likes or dislikes or opinions.
[mod edit] you don't seem to be reading anything well at all. You have this one idea running in your head and you refuse to see pass that to realize that people are talking about completely different things than you. Who is talking about quantifiable system data when this entire thread has been about discussing what skills are needed, how many, and how these skills play? You can talk about a game's inner design being great all day long, but all of that will mean nothing if the skills do not play well in game or give a player a fluid like motion. How skills play in game and their feel to a gamer are completely different than what you are trying to interject in this arguement. Those things are subjective at best, can not in any way be quantitative, and come down completely to opinion. For you to continue to try to argue otherwise says more about you personally than any Rorschach test ever possibly could.
I see you consider yourself to be a game designer. If this is the thinking all game devs do when designing their games no wonder MMOs have continuously been going down the toilet over the years.
But like I said previously, I'm tired of this conversation and your fanatical views.
I'm DONE.
Welcome to the Gallus85 irritation club. You'll not find a more condescending poster on this board who will argue beside the point till he turns blue in the face.
He'll throw game design insults at you for just about every argument, as if he were not only a professional designer himself, but the one with all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is too stupid to acknowledge his brilliance.
Yes, I am starting to realize this trend. You would think after three threads dealing with it, I would have noticed it sooner and stayed far away.
First off in a tab target MMO its 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 (cause we all know the majority of those abilities on your bar are situational and are not part of the normal rotation)....How the eff is this any different? But that is just comparing the actual ability pressing. In a Tab Target game, nothing else changes except for an occasional move out of the boss fire but the majority of the time your standing still trading blows and relying on hidden rolling dice to determine hit, resist, defense chance....TOTAL RNG.
In an Action game your position matters, your ability to counteract what a boss is doing at any given time, constantly moving, constantly repositioning and on top of this, your skills are not part of a set rotation instead your abilities matter more, because they are usually not situational but instead have meaning and purpose. Tack this onto the "PLAYER CHOICE" to build the sute of skills you wish to use at any given time. Instead of a tab target game that gives you access to every skill, with the majority of them being situational or part of a rotation, you...the player now have the choice to chose which skill to not only use but place on your bar....it adds a hidden element that is not found in another combat style it further seperates the skilled player from the novice. It's like playing a game of Magic the Gathering with your entire collection of cards...its a pointless jumbled mess and it is stupid, now you get to chose the right combinations, find the hidden synergy and create scenarios to create the perfect compliment of skills for your deck.
Tab Targetting sucks and will always suck and people who like it are simple minded and blind to the hidden beauty of player choice and the ease of balancing classes as a whole. Again no one is clamoring to limit the deck to 4 or 5 skills, 8-10 choices at a given time is perfect for all the reasons I posted.
To semi quote you....You fail, resorting to name calling....
Thanks for being a hypocrite.
Never called anyone a name but I was telling the truth, those who think tab target, multi hotbar, RNG combat mechanics are...repeat "ARE" simple minded, that's not calling anyone a name, that's stating the obvious fact. The only arguments against an action combat, limited hotbar, deck building MMO are those using the same mistakes I pointed out...like Neverwinter's 5 ability, Wildstar telegraphed abilities or GW2 horribly rigid weapon system...A game like I envisioned would offer 8 to 10 ability hotbar, with active dodging, reticle based combat wherever your character looks is where your skill fires off and zero RNG for defense or to hit. If your in range, and your facing your target, you hit...no RNG. The thing is hardly anyone has gotten the system completely right but there still a bit better IMO then the rigid and archaic tab targeting system.
So calling people simple minded isn't name calling, because you have appointed yourself the judge of mmo combat and peoples mental states....Sure. Why would you automatically hit if you were in range? Does the person or monster your playing against have no defenses, except for rolling out of the way? Shield? Armor? Weapons?
I also hate telegraphed/Christmas tree lit up areas warning that an attack is coming, locked out mouse controls for targeting/interaction (too good of a tool imo to relegate to left mouse/right mouse abilities).
Also, please look up the meaning of fact, no matter how strongly you feel, it is an opinion.
As for the bolded in red, well because RNG sucks and it is unrealistic. If I am standing (still mind you) and I am in range of a target and I swing my 2handed sword and on my screen it looks like I hit him, but the RNG combat mechanics tell me I missed or that the target dodged....without actually telling me why I missed or showing me the target dodged then it is by definition pointless, shallow and unrealistic. Defense should be used to determine "via math" how much less damage I take when I am hit relative to my attackers power rating and dodge and block should only happen when....well I actively dodge and block with a key press. Why is this not so hard to grasp? And you say I call names when I say its simple minded. Where I am from when someone doesn't understand something that's been explained then they are...well I'll let you figure it out.
Also you should not I mentioned in an earlier post, I hate telegraphed markers on the ground as well. The only tells should come from the actual animations of your opponent or once a negative effect has landed on the ground.
Even old EQ would tell you someone parried/blocked/dodged an attack, so yes you were told why you missed.
As for not understanding, that isn't the argument, you said anyone that didn't like it, again, when is someones preference not understanding? I have played a few action that I think is ok, and many that I think suck. People have preferences, and those preferences are not indicative of their mental capacity, to think so is well...I will let you figure it out.
I want to be able to make shortcuts 2 bars deep on the sides and bottom if I want to.
This way I can have maybe boots that caste spirit of wolf on a hotkey.
Maybe a food and water item I picked up I can click to give aoe food and water to people around me.
Maybe an item that gives extra mana regen per tick if I click it.
These are a few examples of extended use of buttons beyond combat.
Another is creating macros. Maybe you want to switch gear or provide a casting message when you cast a spell.
there are literally countless things you need extra buttons to use in the original Everquest and it's expansions.
The only reason I could see for shortening the buttons is for console. other than that, there should remain depth and extra assignable buttons to a player's liking and need.
Nothing wrong with having macro, RP, effects, buffs, potions, or any other non combat activity on a hotbar...Although I personally think it should be limited or tied into a menu/hotkey system where its normally hidden away in combat. Combat skills should be limited to the actual combat skills. Situational skills are pointless and clutter up your UI.
Not a huge fan of too much of this, it is often done wrong, like with Rift, when it came out, you could 2 key macro some classes, 1 key was for distance attacks and another for close attacks, you could put down every situational, triggered effect and actual spell/attack in a priority order and just press 1 or 2 keys and play your class...
I think someone said they got rid of this, not sure though, since I have not played again, but their have been a few games like this.
A macro to switch out gear, or something, no problem, but when it severely hinders game mechanics and makes everything trivial, it has gone way too far.
But as you mentioned, teleports and buffs were not really a part of the combat. I see no reason why they would force you to swap out attacks to place buffs, just so you can swap back to the attack when you're done. That's just tedious and I'm sure they'll avoid something like that. (Maybe by keeping buffs separate from combat slots).
As for parsing, if there's no in game parsing, us programmers will just make a 3rd party one. We always do.
I know people will always add them in, I just wish they weren't so immersion breaking. It turns into a 1 vs 1 who can do the most dps/healing or whatever and is the cause of a lot of useless debate on who's build/class is better than another because they did 1.2% more dps in a fight. In WoW, I spent more time watching the threat/dps meters then the actual fights a lot of the time in raids. Hopefully EQN isn't like WoW and combat takes more than dpsing mobs down quickly and requires a lot of team work and thinking. I'm the competitive type and always look for that extra 1.2%, but I wish the tools weren't so in your face.
The combat system you described sounds like a good comprimise between tab and action. How do you feal about first-person view?
Honestly I would get the "Woah, I've never seen that before" feeling if they did away with the typical third-person perspective we see in every fantasy MMORPG. It would also make sense considering PS2 is in first-person and they'll be sharing the same engine.
I personally prefer the option to go between 1st and 3rd. I wouldn't mind having either one, but both is much better. 1st person for dungeons, in side buildings, and being more immersed when walking around towns and interacting with others. 3rd person for out in the wild to take in more of the world and to enjoy what the devs have spent so much time on and of course to watch my back.
A big part of mmos is enjoying the time and effort we put into our characters and being only 1st person would take away from of a lot of that for many.
The combat system you described sounds like a good comprimise between tab and action. How do you feal about first-person view?
Honestly I would get the "Woah, I've never seen that before" feeling if they did away with the typical third-person perspective we see in every fantasy MMORPG. It would also make sense considering PS2 is in first-person and they'll be sharing the same engine.
I personally prefer the option to go between 1st and 3rd. I wouldn't mind having either one, but both is much better. 1st person for dungeons, in side buildings, and being more immersed when walking around towns and interacting with others. 3rd person for out in the wild to take in more of the world and to enjoy what the devs have spent so much time on and of course to watch my back.
A big part of mmos is enjoying the time and effort we put into our characters and being only 1st person would take away from of a lot of that for many.
As long as it isn't just a cop out zoom-in first person perspective we get in every MMO I'd be okay with that. I want to actually see my characters hands and want the first-person perspective to actually be viable, similar to TES
The combat system you described sounds like a good comprimise between tab and action. How do you feal about first-person view?
Honestly I would get the "Woah, I've never seen that before" feeling if they did away with the typical third-person perspective we see in every fantasy MMORPG. It would also make sense considering PS2 is in first-person and they'll be sharing the same engine.
I personally prefer the option to go between 1st and 3rd. I wouldn't mind having either one, but both is much better. 1st person for dungeons, in side buildings, and being more immersed when walking around towns and interacting with others. 3rd person for out in the wild to take in more of the world and to enjoy what the devs have spent so much time on and of course to watch my back.
A big part of mmos is enjoying the time and effort we put into our characters and being only 1st person would take away from of a lot of that for many.
As long as it isn't just a cop out zoom-in first person perspective we get in every MMO I'd be okay with that. I want to actually see my characters hands and want the first-person perspective to actually be viable, similar to TES
I think 1st person view is actually the best way to play many of these types of games. If you look at old RPG's, they were done almost exclusively in 1st person to give a deeper feel of being involved in the actions of your avatar and the world around you.
There should be an option to zoom perspective away and spin around for certain situations where this would be advantageous.
The closer games get graphically, to actual locations you could imagine in your head, the more 1st person should be the main perspective. Another thing is 1st person brings scale into gaming like no other tool. This is the way we view our world, so why wouldn't game designers try to imitate that.
Another great reason for pushing 1st person is VR headsets. They are making huge strides toward improving headsets this year. Soon you should be able to grab a high definition headset and get into gaming like never before.
To pull off first person you need to see your lower torso and feet when you look down, also your shoulders and arms when you look down right and down left with mouse look. Another important tool is weapons and armor showing impact, physics, wear and tear, environmental effects such as getting wet or sandy or covered with blood etc. Also the use of light sources in the game world and details and shadow really immerse when in 1st person if done correctly.
And another thing....if you did first person you wouldn't want to clutter the user interface as much as a 3rd person style game.
I'd certainly like to see less buttons than the earlier mmos, games like wow just went overboard with a screen full of them but I also don't want to see EQN follow the current trend of only a small amount either. Somewhere around 20 skills including buffs etc would be a nice amount. Guess a lot of this will also depend if the game ends up on the next gen consoles as skills will need dumbing down then.
Comments
It's no problem at all. And I agree with you 100%, which is what I'm trying to convey to this other guy. The game presented you with a ton of choices, complex mechanics, and a really good amount of available skills to use at any one given time, especially since you also had to focus on action combat. I do wish there were more weapons, but that's just the gamer in us being greedy. I think there were a lot of choices from the start, the amount of skills each class was given was very respectable. Mathematically, about 1 unique skill for about every level or 2 in the game, for each class. That's pretty solid imho.
But sure, more is always cooler :P
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
There is no "FOTM" spec. People will generate similar builds, sure, but you're just as likely to see a Staff AOE DPS ele in a pvp tournament as you are to see a D/D or a support/tank ele. Each has their own area of expertise, and different players have different preferences.
If the game wasn't balanced, you'd see tPVP matches built and specced the exactly the same. It doesn't happen.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Here you go again with the same issue I had with you earlier on other threads. I'm now FACTUALLY wrong because in my OPINION I find a game to be simple in its combat mechanics than I have with other games I've played?! And I am not comprehending something just because I hear what you say and still don't agree with you?
You really are delusional and narcisistic. And have some serious control issues that you really need to work on.
The depth of a game's mechanics are quantifiable. It's not up for opinions. You may have an opinion that you didn't like it, or that you prefer something else, but what you're saying isn't an opinion. You're making claims of how envolved the game's combat is, and you can compare it to other games and see quantifiable differences. GW2 is not a "simple" combat system.
It's also clear that you haven't heard a single word I said. Nor do you understand anything about game design in general.
Frankly, I think the problem is that I take a designer's prospective on things, and assume other people are rational enough to do the same. A designer's analysis talks about the mechanics and features of a game in a quantifiable manner. It's an analysis of what the game has, what it attempts to achieve and if it achieves it and compares it to other industry standards. It's not about likes or dislikes or opinions.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I've read most of this thread and related ones. . .
For those going for the few button/deck system, do you account for buffs and utility? GW2 for example doesn't have any long term buffs or actual healing.
Assuming EQN goes with a more traditional RPG system and has healing/buffs/utility abilities, would you include them in the deck or is there a side deck/bar for them?
I can't see how having SOW or a Teleport ability on screen would hinder anyone. If someone chooses to clutter their screen with 20 teleports, that doesn't provide them any advantage in a PVE/PVP combat situation.
Or do you want to have to add these abilities to the bar, use them, and then remove them every time?
When comparing EQ/WoW to GW2 for example, these games have totally different types of classes and abilities. Fundamentally they are not the same and can't be compared as such. If you put EQ spells in GW2, it would be a completely different game style.
It's like if you brought Magic cards to a Poker game and tried to play Black Jack with them. While both are card based games, they are not remotely close.
Below I've listed what I've seen suggested a lot, plus my own thoughts:
1. 10+ Core Skills: used heavily (dps, dots, heals, etc).
2. 10+ Reactionary/Situational Skills: used semi heavily and usually have cool downs (if X, then Y).
3. Buffs: long term, out of group castable, total number not set.
4. Utility/Fluff/Fun Skills: total number not set (shrink, grow, levitate, sow, etc).
5. Consumables/Gear Switching/Inventory: total number not set.
So basically, you only need 10-20 buttons, but there is room to add a lot of extra that don't effect combat too heavily if at all.
6. Action Combat: Something along the lines of GW2 and TERA with dodge and movement reactions available but not required.
7. Tab Targeting: Available, but movement provides advantage with extra work required.
8. Macros: Game is flawed if they are required to be "good" (personally don't want to see them at all).
9. Custom UI: Able to fully customize UI, have 100 buttons or 5, our choice. Shouldn't provide any sort of advantage or disadvantage if number of Core Skills are the same for everyone.
10. Easy Mode: No parsing, can't see buffs or time left on debuffs/dots on others, no damage/threat/hate meters, can't see what mob/player is casting/activating, no automated systems in general.
If someone is able to calculate every single action that they and others are doing for an extended period of time, they probably have better things to do then play games.
11. Challenge: Everyone wants one and thinks their preferred system provides one, but in reality, either everyone is right or everyone is wrong. I'm going with everyone is wrong and no matter the button number, it comes down to who can mash their sequences of buttons faster and more accurately, plus a little luck. Once you learn a system, a lot of the challenge goes away.
We all are different and may find one system easier or harder to master, but there is no true "skill" based system for everyone. Essentially whack a mole, some have 5 fast moles, some have 10 slow moles, but in the end we are all doing the same thing.
EQN hopefully takes the good from other games and adds in a lot of new ideas to give us something fresh.
My perfect setup would be what I listed above, ZERO buttons on screen (little UI as possible), 20 or less abilities bound to keys. Anything beyond 20 I can open a window and quickly access. I don't want 15 buff buttons on my screen, especially if they last a while, but I see no reason to stop someone else from doing so.
I found GW2 and EQ/WoW systems to be easy to learn and not too hard to master. You hit a point where there is no longer progression and it is just muscle memory button mashing.
The way for EQN to be more exciting is if they have a lot of options and customization.
GW2 linking 25% of more abilities to a weapon wasn't fun for me. Neither was pressing 111123111123 in WoW.
I'm looking for something that makes me go "Woah, I've never seen that before" a year into the game. Doubt that will happen, but I can hope.
That's a good point. Buffs were a huge part of EQ, and in many ways it helped foster a sense of community. Getting SOW or an invis from a passing stranger or from someone in town really helped. Passing around buffs was a great part of the game.
But as you mentioned, teleports and buffs were not really a part of the combat. I see no reason why they would force you to swap out attacks to place buffs, just so you can swap back to the attack when you're done. That's just tedious and I'm sure they'll avoid something like that. (Maybe by keeping buffs separate from combat slots).
As for parsing, if there's no in game parsing, us programmers will just make a 3rd party one. We always do.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
[mod edit] you don't seem to be reading anything well at all. You have this one idea running in your head and you refuse to see pass that to realize that people are talking about completely different things than you. Who is talking about quantifiable system data when this entire thread has been about discussing what skills are needed, how many, and how these skills play? You can talk about a game's inner design being great all day long, but all of that will mean nothing if the skills do not play well in game or give a player a fluid like motion. How skills play in game and their feel to a gamer are completely different than what you are trying to interject in this arguement. Those things are subjective at best, can not in any way be quantitative, and come down completely to opinion. For you to continue to try to argue otherwise says more about you personally than any Rorschach test ever possibly could.
I see you consider yourself to be a game designer. If this is the thinking all game devs do when designing their games no wonder MMOs have continuously been going down the toilet over the years.
But like I said previously, I'm tired of this conversation and your fanatical views.
I'm DONE.
Couldn't agree more.
I like GW2's setup but with a reticle.
And if they make this game tab target, I'm going to point and laugh.
Thank you for this! I see I am not the only one who felt this way or found no challenge in the process.
The combat system you described sounds like a good comprimise between tab and action. How do you feal about first-person view?
Honestly I would get the "Woah, I've never seen that before" feeling if they did away with the typical third-person perspective we see in every fantasy MMORPG. It would also make sense considering PS2 is in first-person and they'll be sharing the same engine.
Welcome to the Gallus85 irritation club. You'll not find a more condescending poster on this board who will argue beside the point till he turns blue in the face.
He'll throw game design insults at you for just about every argument, as if he were not only a professional designer himself, but the one with all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree is too stupid to acknowledge his brilliance.
It's hard to talk about the intricacies of a combustion engine when the person on the other end of the conversation doesn't even know how to change the oil.
If you know what I mean.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Why does grandpa still talk about the 40s?
You don't really need to analyze it any deeper than that.
Yeah, I think we're seeing nostalgia from a certain MMO demographic rather than what's profitable, sustainable and fun for most gamers going forward.
Please refrain from using personal attacks. If you want to discuss/argue a point please do so on the merits of the argument not verbally attacking other posters
Rules of Conduct:
http://www.mmorpg.com/disclaimers.cfm#conduct
Flaming and Personal Attacks
Example: Telling someone that you disagree with their argument is tolerated, while calling someone inappropriate names is not.
Yes, I am starting to realize this trend. You would think after three threads dealing with it, I would have noticed it sooner and stayed far away.
Even old EQ would tell you someone parried/blocked/dodged an attack, so yes you were told why you missed.
As for not understanding, that isn't the argument, you said anyone that didn't like it, again, when is someones preference not understanding? I have played a few action that I think is ok, and many that I think suck. People have preferences, and those preferences are not indicative of their mental capacity, to think so is well...I will let you figure it out.
Not a huge fan of too much of this, it is often done wrong, like with Rift, when it came out, you could 2 key macro some classes, 1 key was for distance attacks and another for close attacks, you could put down every situational, triggered effect and actual spell/attack in a priority order and just press 1 or 2 keys and play your class...
I think someone said they got rid of this, not sure though, since I have not played again, but their have been a few games like this.
A macro to switch out gear, or something, no problem, but when it severely hinders game mechanics and makes everything trivial, it has gone way too far.
I know people will always add them in, I just wish they weren't so immersion breaking. It turns into a 1 vs 1 who can do the most dps/healing or whatever and is the cause of a lot of useless debate on who's build/class is better than another because they did 1.2% more dps in a fight. In WoW, I spent more time watching the threat/dps meters then the actual fights a lot of the time in raids. Hopefully EQN isn't like WoW and combat takes more than dpsing mobs down quickly and requires a lot of team work and thinking. I'm the competitive type and always look for that extra 1.2%, but I wish the tools weren't so in your face.
I personally prefer the option to go between 1st and 3rd. I wouldn't mind having either one, but both is much better. 1st person for dungeons, in side buildings, and being more immersed when walking around towns and interacting with others. 3rd person for out in the wild to take in more of the world and to enjoy what the devs have spent so much time on and of course to watch my back.
A big part of mmos is enjoying the time and effort we put into our characters and being only 1st person would take away from of a lot of that for many.
As long as it isn't just a cop out zoom-in first person perspective we get in every MMO I'd be okay with that. I want to actually see my characters hands and want the first-person perspective to actually be viable, similar to TES
I think 1st person view is actually the best way to play many of these types of games. If you look at old RPG's, they were done almost exclusively in 1st person to give a deeper feel of being involved in the actions of your avatar and the world around you.
There should be an option to zoom perspective away and spin around for certain situations where this would be advantageous.
The closer games get graphically, to actual locations you could imagine in your head, the more 1st person should be the main perspective. Another thing is 1st person brings scale into gaming like no other tool. This is the way we view our world, so why wouldn't game designers try to imitate that.
Another great reason for pushing 1st person is VR headsets. They are making huge strides toward improving headsets this year. Soon you should be able to grab a high definition headset and get into gaming like never before.
To pull off first person you need to see your lower torso and feet when you look down, also your shoulders and arms when you look down right and down left with mouse look. Another important tool is weapons and armor showing impact, physics, wear and tear, environmental effects such as getting wet or sandy or covered with blood etc. Also the use of light sources in the game world and details and shadow really immerse when in 1st person if done correctly.
And another thing....if you did first person you wouldn't want to clutter the user interface as much as a 3rd person style game.