a little thing such as /assist basically change the whole gaming experience, it removes a lot of players the needs and capability to adapt to whats happening in front of them, its basically handing your toon in someone else's hands, you rely too much on your MA.
and i think / hope that it would go enough agaisnt FP "choices matter" that they will stay away from it.
and as where someone stated that it help the 8vs8, its true, too much in fact, i hope CU wont go that way, encouraging 8vs8 too much, and not impletement /assist sure would help alot.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
Im torn about /assist.....rarely ever used it myself, and can see how it could take away from chaos of game. But, if not on VoIP ,
pit would be asking a bit much to have target chatted in chat box. Maybe /assist only shows aura or highlight around his target...still up to individual to target.
Any script type macros are completely game breaking for me. I don't mind simple macro's like DAoC, and actally would love to see /assist features in the game.
This is one thing that worries me about the web based UI. They will need to figure out a way to keep web scripts from ruining the game.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
Disagree. One of the greatest aspects of DAOC is that it supported all formats of PvP within the RvR structure. You could do major objectives (relics), small objectives (keeps), 8v8 group fighting, solo stealth warzzz, IRS stacking, whatever you wanted to.
One of the reasons why GW2's WvW is lackluster is because of how much emphasis is placed on ONLY the objectives.
The fact that you personally don't find 8v8 meaningful is fine. Other players find it fun -- DAOC was good because it accomodated both PvP players in a battlefield where 8v8s could interact with the zerg. Don't make the mistake of trying to shift CU towards GW2's WvW and excluding a significant subset of RvR players.
Anyways, on second and third thought on /assist, I'll have to revert to supporting it to help the pug / casual groups compete a bit against groups that are on voice comms or who are inherently skilled / coordinated. As long as the peons still get rolled, it's ok if they don't get rolled quite as hard and feel like they make some headway.
a little thing such as /assist basically change the whole gaming experience, it removes a lot of players the needs and capability to adapt to whats happening in front of them, its basically handing your toon in someone else's hands, you rely too much on your MA.
and i think / hope that it would go enough agaisnt FP "choices matter" that they will stay away from it.
and as where someone stated that it help the 8vs8, its true, too much in fact, i hope CU wont go that way, encouraging 8vs8 too much, and not impletement /assist sure would help alot.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
you make the choice to assist or not. if you "rely to much on your MA", that is your problem (or benefit, depending)
it helps PUGs far, far more than it will ever help an 8vs8 group.
I don't care too much about face, but we definitely need at least /stick.
100% for friendlies. I personally don't care if it's there for enemies too. I liked it.
But as long as I can /stick whoever is driving and eat my pizza while we play, I will be content
a little thing such as /assist basically change the whole gaming experience, it removes a lot of players the needs and capability to adapt to whats happening in front of them, its basically handing your toon in someone else's hands, you rely too much on your MA.
and i think / hope that it would go enough agaisnt FP "choices matter" that they will stay away from it.
and as where someone stated that it help the 8vs8, its true, too much in fact, i hope CU wont go that way, encouraging 8vs8 too much, and not impletement /assist sure would help alot.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
Using /assist or even manually assisting a main assist is hard. A lot of people suck at it and sucked at it in DAOC despite being able to use /assist macros. It took a lot of work to get good enough to where everybody in your group was assisting the main assist. In a pick up group, you considered yourself lucky if even one person assisted the main assist for his first target.
8v8 groups would easily overcome the lack of /assist. People who want to do that playstyle are going to do it as long as the game rewards it with character progression. By not having /assist you are just making it that much harder for unorganized groups to fight back against the 8v8ers. Those fights may not have meaning to you but winning them is important to those players and the availability of that playstyle and more casual versions of it (roaming guild groups for instance) needs to be part of CU. Fighting keep gates is boring; fight players is fun.
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
having /assist (with qbinds) is no different than what you described, really.
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
having /assist (with qbinds) is no different than what you described, really.
I beg to differ.
For this partiuclar case of /assist macro
I agree yes it does streamline the process, but for me I think it is lazy and takes battelfield tactics and awareness away from the game.
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist, you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
a little thing such as /assist basically change the whole gaming experience, it removes a lot of players the needs and capability to adapt to whats happening in front of them, its basically handing your toon in someone else's hands, you rely too much on your MA.
and i think / hope that it would go enough agaisnt FP "choices matter" that they will stay away from it.
and as where someone stated that it help the 8vs8, its true, too much in fact, i hope CU wont go that way, encouraging 8vs8 too much, and not impletement /assist sure would help alot.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
you make the choice to assist or not. if you "rely to much on your MA", that is your problem (or benefit, depending)
Not much of a"my problem or not" issue, i really think it takes away a good part of what "players" should do, rather than simply push a button to have everyone targetting the same
it helps PUGs far, far more than it will ever help an 8vs8 group.
I don't care too much about face, but we definitely need at least /stick.
100% for friendlies. I personally don't care if it's there for enemies too. I liked it.
But as long as I can /stick whoever is driving and eat my pizza while we play, I will be content
Originally posted by naezgul
Originally posted by BowbowDAoC
a little thing such as /assist basically change the whole gaming experience, it removes a lot of players the needs and capability to adapt to whats happening in front of them, its basically handing your toon in someone else's hands, you rely too much on your MA.
and i think / hope that it would go enough agaisnt FP "choices matter" that they will stay away from it.
and as where someone stated that it help the 8vs8, its true, too much in fact, i hope CU wont go that way, encouraging 8vs8 too much, and not impletement /assist sure would help alot.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
Im torn about /assist.....rarely ever used it myself, and can see how it could take away from chaos of game. But, if not on VoIP ,
i'd rather have players rely on VoIP thant /assist, at least they do have to communicate to coordinate whatever they want to do.
pit would be asking a bit much to have target chatted in chat box. Maybe /assist only shows aura or highlight around his target...still up to individual to target.
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC Thurka on WAR
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
having /assist (with qbinds) is no different than what you described, really.
I beg to differ.
For this partiuclar case of /assist macro
I agree yes it does streamline the process, but for me I think it is lazy and takes battelfield tactics and awareness away from the game.
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
totally agree
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC Thurka on WAR
And regarding the 8v8 argument... with spread out settlements and mines, I think there will be far more small group action in CU than there was in DAOC. (You don't need a zerg to raid farms and steal sheep...)
I voted yes... But not macros like in RIFT, where one key was pretty much your entire rotation. I'm thinking macros like in the older games. DAoC or FFXI comes to mind. Where you could bind for situations. Like assist target at % sort of thing.
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
It depends. Macros like the one's in DaoC are fine. Things like
Macro RepairWall /repair
Macro CreateAssistMacro /Macro Assist /Assist %t
Macro HealMe /g --Peel %t off me and heal please--
Then you can Qbind that stuff to different keys.
Now if you mean macros like
Heal
Check if target is full health
If full health do nothing
If 75% or high health do small heal
If 50% or higher do medium heal
If 25% or higher do greater heal
If less than 10% do emergency heal
If less than 10% do higher heal (assuming emergency heal is on cooldown)
I don't agree with the above macro because it takes the tactics of chosing the correct heal from the player and makes it automated.
i actually like those sort of macros.. i don't think it would be great in a PVP centered game like this but for PVE i actually like it.. for those that played Final Fantasy 12 they used a similar system and it was fun playing with the combinations and seeing how it played out in battle.. made combat feel more like a strategy game
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
having /assist (with qbinds) is no different than what you described, really.
I beg to differ.
For this partiuclar case of /assist macro
I agree yes it does streamline the process, but for me I think it is lazy and takes battelfield tactics and awareness away from the game.
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
sorry, I've never played GW2 - how is the /assist command any different from clicking a button that picks up your MA's marked target? What am I missing in your description?
Just looked it up - you mean the 'extra keystroke' to mark the target?
Considering that is on the MA's end, I don't see that changing anything for the person actually /assisting
An extra step for the MA is an almost meaningless change. Although if your MA can switch targets after marking and not update your target, that's actually more powerful than the daoc system.
The difference is almost irrelevant. I'd be happy with either one, so long as target sharing is in. PUG ftw
Just looked it up - you mean the 'extra keystroke' to mark the target?
Considering that is on the MA's end, I don't see that changing anything for the person actually /assisting
An extra step for the MA is an almost meaningless change. Although if your MA can switch targets after marking and not update your target, that's actually more powerful than the daoc system.
The difference is almost irrelevant. I'd be happy with either one, so long as target sharing is in. PUG ftw
I apologize, I shouldn't have assumed people were familiar with GW2's combat system and I should have worded my last post differently.
In GW2 there is no assist command or macros, there is no MA. There are two bound keys, Call Target (marking) and Take Target (selecting the marked target). So it is an extra keystroke to mark target as well as take target. So it requires players to respond to the called target and take it as opposed to relying on a /macro to automatically switch targets for you based on what your MA is attacking.
I want players to be responsible and have to react in battle.
Originally posted by Orangu
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist, you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
I underlined the part of the quote, that is the main point I am trying to make on why I am against /assist.
The best (and also lamest) example I came up with to explain to a friend was imagine if you were punching a punching bag and the trainer instructed you to switch to another bag. Instead of having to process that command and take action by moving to another punching bag, a macro would let you stay in place while you continue punching and the punching bag is switched for you. I want players to have to think, react/respond in fights. I consider that a major factor in winning and losing in battle. The ability for soldiers to process and execute commands.
Just looked it up - you mean the 'extra keystroke' to mark the target?
Considering that is on the MA's end, I don't see that changing anything for the person actually /assisting
An extra step for the MA is an almost meaningless change. Although if your MA can switch targets after marking and not update your target, that's actually more powerful than the daoc system.
The difference is almost irrelevant. I'd be happy with either one, so long as target sharing is in. PUG ftw
I apologize, I shouldn't have assumed people were familiar with GW2's combat system and I should have worded my last post differently.
In GW2 there is no assist command or macros, there is no MA. There are two bound keys, Call Target (marking) and Take Target (selecting the marked target). So it is an extra keystroke to mark target as well as take target. So it requires players to respond to the called target and take it as opposed to relying on a /macro to automatically switch targets for you based on what your MA is attacking.
I want players to be responsible and have to react in battle.
Originally posted by Orangu
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist, you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
I underlined the part of the quote, that is the main point I am trying to make on why I am against /assist.
The best (and also lamest) example I came up with to explain to a friend was imagine if you were punching a punching bag and the trainer instructed you to switch to another bag. Instead of having to process that command and take action by moving to another punching bag, a macro would let you stay in place while you continue punching and the punching bag is switched for you. I want players to have to think, react/respond in fights. I consider that a major factor in winning and losing in battle. The ability for soldiers to process and execute commands.
I just don't follow - once someone marks a target, if I just have to click "take target", that's the same as hitting my "/assist soandso" qbind, no? It's not like having hit /assist once constantly updates your target - you have to hit it every time you want updated information.
I'm fine with the MA having to mark a target, but I don't see it as a do or die type of thing. So long as we can assist properly
I just don't follow - once someone marks a target, if I just have to click "take target", that's the same as hitting my "/assist soandso" qbind, no? It's not like having hit /assist once constantly updates your target - you have to hit it every time you want updated information.
I'm fine with the MA having to mark a target, but I don't see it as a do or die type of thing. So long as we can assist properly
Somehow I took my arguement way off track, I apologize! Let's try and get on the same page, obviously my stance is no macros, so that would include /assist, but I am not against assist and I pointed out earlier that GW2's call & take target system works fine. There have been many replies that expressed they want macros because of /assist and I was trying to make a point that macros are not necessary for /assist if you made it a bindable key.
Now here is where I got off track and you stayed on, with macros enabled yes you can have /assist macro and place that on your bar and press it to assist, that is what you have been talking about, but what I have been trying to say is how /assist can be used as a macro of lazyness. You can macro your all or some of your attacks skills to include /assist which would execute what I had described before. Enabling a player to just continously cast skills with any thought of having to manually switch targets.
The best (and also lamest) example I came up with to explain to a friend was imagine if you were punching a punching bag ...
Bad example. With the /assist macro, the player still has to cognizantly press the button when a new target is called to swap targets. Hence they go through the same decision process as your example with the punching bag.
They just do it via 3rd-person command via a keyboard and automatic target selection instead of manually via their eyes and LMB.
The real question here is how much you want the game to ride on manual dexterity and eye-hand coordination versus decision making and tactics.
/assist reduces the strain on dexterity and player physical coordination, but only rubs the fringes of decision making and tactics.
You can macro your all or some of your attacks skills to include /assist which would execute what I had described before. Enabling a player to just continously cast skills with any thought of having to manually switch targets.
Ambivalent. What you're saying here is that the player is an idiot, because they eliminate all/most of their tactical flexibility in favor of "auto-assist".
I tested out the autofocus commander addon in Warhammer which mostly has the same effect as what you're talking about, and it's actually a detriment to good gameplay in any complex situation, especially for groups of mixed range (rDPS and mDPS).
That said, you can simply eliminate the option by categorizing the /assist command as an actual execution, and limiting macros to 1 execution per macro. E.g. you cannot /assist and /cast in the same macro.
This still retains the ability to /assist as necessary without providing any real automation (even if that automation is detrimental to your performance, as the /autoassist example is).
I used to be dead against macros in MMORPGs but now if you don't put in game macros in it jsut gives those with gaming mice and keyboards a greater advantage.
In fact the only reason not to put macros in a game these days is to encourage sales of these devices especially those branded with your game right EA?
Comments
Im torn about /assist.....rarely ever used it myself, and can see how it could take away from chaos of game. But, if not on VoIP ,
pit would be asking a bit much to have target chatted in chat box. Maybe /assist only shows aura or highlight around his target...still up to individual to target.
I voted no as well.
Any script type macros are completely game breaking for me. I don't mind simple macro's like DAoC, and actally would love to see /assist features in the game.
This is one thing that worries me about the web based UI. They will need to figure out a way to keep web scripts from ruining the game.
Although 8vs8 is fun, it is still, to me at least, "useless" RvR, its fights without true meanings.
Disagree. One of the greatest aspects of DAOC is that it supported all formats of PvP within the RvR structure. You could do major objectives (relics), small objectives (keeps), 8v8 group fighting, solo stealth warzzz, IRS stacking, whatever you wanted to.
One of the reasons why GW2's WvW is lackluster is because of how much emphasis is placed on ONLY the objectives.
The fact that you personally don't find 8v8 meaningful is fine. Other players find it fun -- DAOC was good because it accomodated both PvP players in a battlefield where 8v8s could interact with the zerg. Don't make the mistake of trying to shift CU towards GW2's WvW and excluding a significant subset of RvR players.
Anyways, on second and third thought on /assist, I'll have to revert to supporting it to help the pug / casual groups compete a bit against groups that are on voice comms or who are inherently skilled / coordinated. As long as the peons still get rolled, it's ok if they don't get rolled quite as hard and feel like they make some headway.
you make the choice to assist or not. if you "rely to much on your MA", that is your problem (or benefit, depending)
it helps PUGs far, far more than it will ever help an 8vs8 group.
I don't care too much about face, but we definitely need at least /stick.
100% for friendlies. I personally don't care if it's there for enemies too. I liked it.
But as long as I can /stick whoever is driving and eat my pizza while we play, I will be content
No to macros that essentially play the game for you at the press of a button
assist and such are fine though
Dark Age of Camelot Community Lead
Postcount.net Admin
Ex IGN.com Board Moderator
Ex VN Board Senior Manager, Camelot Vault SM, Warhammer Vault SM, IGNVault Editorial Coordinator.
Using /assist or even manually assisting a main assist is hard. A lot of people suck at it and sucked at it in DAOC despite being able to use /assist macros. It took a lot of work to get good enough to where everybody in your group was assisting the main assist. In a pick up group, you considered yourself lucky if even one person assisted the main assist for his first target.
8v8 groups would easily overcome the lack of /assist. People who want to do that playstyle are going to do it as long as the game rewards it with character progression. By not having /assist you are just making it that much harder for unorganized groups to fight back against the 8v8ers. Those fights may not have meaning to you but winning them is important to those players and the availability of that playstyle and more casual versions of it (roaming guild groups for instance) needs to be part of CU. Fighting keep gates is boring; fight players is fun.
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
Having /assist is an excuse to be LAZY!!!!!
There is no need for /assist macro if there is key bind for mark target and assist. GW2's system of marking targets and assisting works perfectly fine.
I think there should be necessary macros for /repairwall and things of that nature, with the introducion of the crafter class I would expect his skills on his bar to be things like repair wall.
having /assist (with qbinds) is no different than what you described, really.
I beg to differ.
For this partiuclar case of /assist macro
I agree yes it does streamline the process, but for me I think it is lazy and takes battelfield tactics and awareness away from the game.
I think a group of players who can not just communicate but also follow instructions of their designated commander should have an advantage. Having a /assist on every skill removes that aspect from battle.
By having an additional keystroke to assist, you are putting a variance into battle on how well that group of players play together and it could be the difference in battle. The time to press an additional keystroke is minute, but the time for a player to respond to a target switch can be a much greater degree. That is a key factor in pvp that I think should exist.
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
Thurka on WAR
totally agree
Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
Thurka on WAR
DAOC style single line macros. YES
SWG style script macros. NO
And regarding the 8v8 argument... with spread out settlements and mines, I think there will be far more small group action in CU than there was in DAOC. (You don't need a zerg to raid farms and steal sheep...)
"In the immediate future, we have this one, and then weve got another one that is actually going to be so were going to have, what we want to do, is in January, what were targeting to do, this may or may not happen, so you cant hold me to it. But what were targeting to do, is have a fun anniversary to the Ilum shenanigans that happened. An alien race might invade, and they might crash into Ilum and there might be some new activities that happen on the planet." ~Gabe Amatangelo
i actually like those sort of macros.. i don't think it would be great in a PVP centered game like this but for PVE i actually like it.. for those that played Final Fantasy 12 they used a similar system and it was fun playing with the combinations and seeing how it played out in battle.. made combat feel more like a strategy game
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
sorry, I've never played GW2 - how is the /assist command any different from clicking a button that picks up your MA's marked target? What am I missing in your description?
What 'extra keystroke'?
Just looked it up - you mean the 'extra keystroke' to mark the target?
Considering that is on the MA's end, I don't see that changing anything for the person actually /assisting
An extra step for the MA is an almost meaningless change. Although if your MA can switch targets after marking and not update your target, that's actually more powerful than the daoc system.
The difference is almost irrelevant. I'd be happy with either one, so long as target sharing is in. PUG ftw
I apologize, I shouldn't have assumed people were familiar with GW2's combat system and I should have worded my last post differently.
In GW2 there is no assist command or macros, there is no MA. There are two bound keys, Call Target (marking) and Take Target (selecting the marked target). So it is an extra keystroke to mark target as well as take target. So it requires players to respond to the called target and take it as opposed to relying on a /macro to automatically switch targets for you based on what your MA is attacking.
I want players to be responsible and have to react in battle.
I underlined the part of the quote, that is the main point I am trying to make on why I am against /assist.
The best (and also lamest) example I came up with to explain to a friend was imagine if you were punching a punching bag and the trainer instructed you to switch to another bag. Instead of having to process that command and take action by moving to another punching bag, a macro would let you stay in place while you continue punching and the punching bag is switched for you. I want players to have to think, react/respond in fights. I consider that a major factor in winning and losing in battle. The ability for soldiers to process and execute commands.
I just don't follow - once someone marks a target, if I just have to click "take target", that's the same as hitting my "/assist soandso" qbind, no? It's not like having hit /assist once constantly updates your target - you have to hit it every time you want updated information.
I'm fine with the MA having to mark a target, but I don't see it as a do or die type of thing. So long as we can assist properly
Somehow I took my arguement way off track, I apologize! Let's try and get on the same page, obviously my stance is no macros, so that would include /assist, but I am not against assist and I pointed out earlier that GW2's call & take target system works fine. There have been many replies that expressed they want macros because of /assist and I was trying to make a point that macros are not necessary for /assist if you made it a bindable key.
Now here is where I got off track and you stayed on, with macros enabled yes you can have /assist macro and place that on your bar and press it to assist, that is what you have been talking about, but what I have been trying to say is how /assist can be used as a macro of lazyness. You can macro your all or some of your attacks skills to include /assist which would execute what I had described before. Enabling a player to just continously cast skills with any thought of having to manually switch targets.
The best (and also lamest) example I came up with to explain to a friend was imagine if you were punching a punching bag ...
Bad example. With the /assist macro, the player still has to cognizantly press the button when a new target is called to swap targets. Hence they go through the same decision process as your example with the punching bag.
They just do it via 3rd-person command via a keyboard and automatic target selection instead of manually via their eyes and LMB.
The real question here is how much you want the game to ride on manual dexterity and eye-hand coordination versus decision making and tactics.
/assist reduces the strain on dexterity and player physical coordination, but only rubs the fringes of decision making and tactics.
You can macro your all or some of your attacks skills to include /assist which would execute what I had described before. Enabling a player to just continously cast skills with any thought of having to manually switch targets.
Ambivalent. What you're saying here is that the player is an idiot, because they eliminate all/most of their tactical flexibility in favor of "auto-assist".
I tested out the autofocus commander addon in Warhammer which mostly has the same effect as what you're talking about, and it's actually a detriment to good gameplay in any complex situation, especially for groups of mixed range (rDPS and mDPS).
That said, you can simply eliminate the option by categorizing the /assist command as an actual execution, and limiting macros to 1 execution per macro. E.g. you cannot /assist and /cast in the same macro.
This still retains the ability to /assist as necessary without providing any real automation (even if that automation is detrimental to your performance, as the /autoassist example is).
This is a really bad poll because this issue isnt just black and white.
There are a lot of different types of macros.
Should you be able to bind all of your abilities to one key? No.
Should you be able to run complex scripts in a macro? No.
Should you be able to use text commands or /say things when you use an ability? Yes.
But all that said, just not putting in macros really doesnt solve any problems. People just use hardware macros instead.
You really just need to design the game so that a bunch of abilities cant be used simultaneously and you cant queue up more than one.
i would normally say "no".
BUT
MJ said that ull have a ton of abilities, like in wow. plus no global cooldown.
which means... chaos, frantic pace, shaky hands after pvp, broken keyboards and such...
so i will sadly say.. yes, it needs macros.
I used to be dead against macros in MMORPGs but now if you don't put in game macros in it jsut gives those with gaming mice and keyboards a greater advantage.
In fact the only reason not to put macros in a game these days is to encourage sales of these devices especially those branded with your game right EA?