Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

A small problem with action combat . It kills raiding.

KiyorisKiyoris BejingPosts: 965Member Uncommon

Ok, so the major problem people have with action combat is that it tends to result in zerg combat, it doesn't help grouping.

 

Ok, I have another problem with it....surprise....anyway

The problem is........that is destroys viable raiding.........trinity systems created dependency.

The EQNext designer himself said you can keep going if you lose all your healers, it doesn't matter.

Well, in EQ you need those people to be online. All guilds revolve around RA (raid attendance), the whole game is a well oiled raid machine of non-stop unadulterated no-life raid madness, awesomecake!

 

With action combat, people don't care, they log on whenever they want, it's a zergfest anyway, so who cares if class A or B is missing, who even cares who we recruit, they're all multiclass anyway....ZEEERG FACEROLL

 

My argument is, action combat creates a failcakes game for raiders!

 

]

«13

Comments

  • SiugSiug TallinnPosts: 1,236Member Uncommon
    I will be skill spam zerging like GW2 I'm afraid.
  • MargulisMargulis Glendale, AZPosts: 1,614Member
    Well Dave already said in an interview there isn't going to be raiding like in other games, because there is no end game or level cap.  What he did say made it sound like scaleable public events
  • LorgarnLorgarn SwedenPosts: 371Member Uncommon

    Yes, this is one of the main reasons me and my guys lost interest in GW2 shortly after finally getting inside the first few instances. (Damn bug prevented people joining the same instance for several days) We realized there there is no sense of teamwork involved. Everyone is doing their own thing.

     

    In short, we lost interest after that extremely quickly.

     

    I'm not convinced...

  • NadiaNadia Canonsburg, PAPosts: 11,866Member Uncommon

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,206Member Uncommon

    there's nothing 'small' about that, sir.

     

    the player-character replationship doesnt have to be one of "character sits there blindly doing as its told". the character can aim the spells on its own. the UI can simply serve as a tool to communicate with your character and get feedback on what he's doing.

     

    imagine for a second you ARE your character. There's no UI. No health bars. No cast bars.

     

    so all these things are entirely player-side not character-side. Why must the player aim a spell, when the character is the one actually casting it ? my hand holds the mouse, not a sword. why am I aiming my next swing ? I'm no throwing my mouse at the boss, the character is swinging his sword.

     

    let the characters aim.

    image

  • RattsRatts Springfield, MAPosts: 48Member
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Ok, so the major problem people have with action combat is that it tends to result in zerg combat, it doesn't help grouping.

     

    Ok, I have another problem with it....surprise....anyway

    The problem is........that is destroys viable raiding.........trinity systems created dependency.

    With action combat, people don't care, they log on whenever they want, it's a zergfest anyway, so who cares if class A or B is missing, who even cares who we recruit, they're all multiclass anyway....ZEEERG FACEROLL

     

     

    At the same time, I'd kind of say that not every game has to be raid-centric, any more than it has to be pvp centered.

    This game seems to be about creating a big, open world of emergent gameplay.  To me, that doesn't seem like a good fit for raiding anyway, which relies on vertical progression and mastering the timing and strategies of static encounters.

    Games are allowed to be different things, maybe this one won't give you the raiding experience you want?

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Piiritus
    I will be skill spam zerging like GW2 I'm afraid.

         I like a lot what GW2, but they too left out flavor in in combat.. Even WoW / Rift and others did as well.. There is more to mob encounters then just the holy trinity.. I don't mind that raids have a CHANCE of success if the tanks or healers die.. BUT they should of kept in the important roles of healing, kiting, CCing and whatnot as the added bonus to strategy..  I do agree this new action combat that GW2 does and it appears that EQN is going to do really homogenizes the fight into a group hack and slash, nothing more.. 

  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard La BarrePosts: 3,549Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    The thing in one of the video that crushes the trees and then the building in which the character tried to hide definitely looks like something a single player can't kill alone. That looked more like a person fleeing from the T-Rex in Jurassic Park than like someone actually fighting a mob, and this is cool. Want to take that down? Run for your life and get some help.

    Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2, The Crew, SotA

    Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

    Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO, SW:TOR and GW2.

    ----------------

    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.
    So if you notice that I'm no longer answering your nonsense, stop trying... because you just joined my block list.

  • zwei2zwei2 SingaporePosts: 361Member
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    Well, it could be like Vanguard, where there are overland bosses, like Tharrion (is that the spelling?) and anyone can come together to take down the boss. Zerg may not be the only viable choice, if everyone can co-ordinate well as a team/guild.

    The possibility of the universe collapsing into a singularity is higher than the birth of a perfect MMORPG.

  • MightykingMightyking CapellePosts: 233Member Uncommon

    Don't think it's the action combat itself that will make raids as we know it impossible. It's indeed that trinity, that will make it very hard to design something challenging. All the EQN team has said about this when asked, is: "We have a lot of experience, so we will do what we can to make a meaningful game for everyone"

    But if a tank can not tank, why does a raid leader even want to have a tank in their ranks, when he could just as well add another flavour of the month top dps guy? Why have a healer when you can do without heals, just add another dps and we get even faster to the phat loot, yay for us!

    I'm cynical, very cynical, but nevertheless I hope they will give us a game better than I currently think it will be.

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    The thing in one of the video that crushes the trees and then the building in which the character tried to hide definitely looks like something a single player can't kill alone.

    True.. so a group of 6 could take it down?  We just don't know.. but I doubt there are any 30 person fights planned.. LOL

  • SareiSarei HerzogenratzPosts: 11Member
    I think the opposite. A good and free combat system provides many ways to solve a problem/situation. It has the flexibility of movement and fast attacks. I think they are going to be tab target/action combo. They never ever are going to make a pure action real time combat game. Because too much people want a dumbd down gw2 or tab targeting combat.
  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member
    Originally posted by Kiyoris

    Ok, so the major problem people have with action combat is that it tends to result in zerg combat, it doesn't help grouping.

     

    Ok, I have another problem with it....surprise....anyway

    The problem is........that is destroys viable raiding.........trinity systems created dependency.

    The EQNext designer himself said you can keep going if you lose all your healers, it doesn't matter.

    Well, in EQ you need those people to be online. All guilds revolve around RA (raid attendance), the whole game is a well oiled raid machine of non-stop unadulterated no-life raid madness, awesomecake!

     

    With action combat, people don't care, they log on whenever they want, it's a zergfest anyway, so who cares if class A or B is missing, who even cares who we recruit, they're all multiclass anyway....ZEEERG FACEROLL

     

    My argument is, action combat creates a failcakes game for raiders!

     

    Did they say that when healers die it doesnt matter becuase heals are not needed? Because a class has a limited active abilities it seems... which therefore suggests that a choice in class role has to be made... meaning the trinity exists if there is healing, if there is tanking, if there are other roles.

    The trinity does not exist if the content is so easy you dont need healers, or even tanks... just dps to finish the job quicker. 

    They never said that. 

    Not sure you are right about your assumption.

    Also action combat has nothing to do with trinity. They are two exclusive things OP.

    Please do not spread misinformation, beucase that is what it seems you are doing. Since you are not asking, but stating something that sounds wrong by stating not only does the trinity system not exist, but it does not exist becuase the combat is action oriented...

     

    edit: As far as i know for character abilties.. there is movement, offensive, defensive, and utility. The defensive and utility can be categorized as 'healing' classes. So the trinity does exist.

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • MightykingMightyking CapellePosts: 233Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Incomparable

    Did they say that when healers die it doesnt matter becuase heals are not needed? Because a class has a limited active abilities it seems... which therefore suggests that a choice in class role has to be made... meaning the trinity exists if there is healing, if there is tanking, if there are other roles.

    The trinity does not exist if the content is so easy you dont need healers, or even tanks... just dps to finish the job quicker. 

    They never said that. 

    Not sure you are right about your assumption.

    Also action combat has nothing to do with trinity. They are two exclusive things OP.

    Please do not spread misinformation, beucase that is what it seems you are doing. Since you are not asking, but stating something that sounds wrong by stating not only does the trinity system not exist, but it does not exist becuase the combat is action oriented...

    There's a video currently on curse.com where they basically confirm they got rid of the trinity, although they didn't use the word trinity. But "our AI is too smart to keep attacking the same guy during the whole fight" means tanking won't be possible. And healers aren't needed is an exact phrase they used.

    Basically they want the game so noone in a guild has to depend on anyone in particular. If the top healer in a guild decides not to log on the raid can still continue. That's their design choice.

     

    edit: here's the curse video, part 2 in the sidebar, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOKhfxwLokg

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,206Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Mightyking
     If the top healer in a guild decides not to log on the raid can still continue. That's their design choice.

    alternatively if the top healer in the guild does decide to log he can be benched and the raid can still continue with a faster, higher-dps comp.

     

    as someone with over 3 years of daily recruiting under his belt I can assure you that healers - who already don't do anything to the boss the whole fight - MUST be needed or they won't be played, or won't be picked.

     

    to quote a top world WoW guild, "when in doubt, drop a healer. when impossible, drop two". Well, now we can drop all of them or close to it so you'd have to be really really stupid to play anything other than a dps in EQN.

    image

  • RusqueRusque Las Vegas, NVPosts: 2,229Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    The thing in one of the video that crushes the trees and then the building in which the character tried to hide definitely looks like something a single player can't kill alone.

    True.. so a group of 6 could take it down?  We just don't know.. but I doubt there are any 30 person fights planned.. LOL

    Just play GW2 to see what Scalable public events are.

    And for difficult champion bosses, you do need a lot of people. I've ran across some events that probably had close to 100 people participating in Orr. But without a trinity it's a bit chaotic. You can't structure combat, it becomes a game of every man for himself, you stay out of the fire and hit things when you can.

    I do hope EQN doesn't punish melee as much as GW2 does. Nothing worse than seeing most of the ground within 2 dodge rolls covered in red circles. Unavoidable death = dumb.

  • RydesonRydeson Canton, OHPosts: 3,858Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rusque
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    The thing in one of the video that crushes the trees and then the building in which the character tried to hide definitely looks like something a single player can't kill alone.

    True.. so a group of 6 could take it down?  We just don't know.. but I doubt there are any 30 person fights planned.. LOL

    Just play GW2 to see what Scalable public events are.

    And for difficult champion bosses, you do need a lot of people. I've ran across some events that probably had close to 100 people participating in Orr. But without a trinity it's a bit chaotic. You can't structure combat, it becomes a game of every man for himself, you stay out of the fire and hit things when you can.

    I do hope EQN doesn't punish melee as much as GW2 does. Nothing worse than seeing most of the ground within 2 dodge rolls covered in red circles. Unavoidable death = dumb.

    I'm well familiar with GW2.. I was just saying with the 30 man number, is that it's the MINIMUM needed to defeat the boss.. Even GW2 doesn't go that demanding.. All the boss fights I've been in ranged from 15 to 30 at most.. I have yet to be in one over 40 people.. 

  • IncomparableIncomparable KuwaitPosts: 872Member
    Originally posted by Mightyking
    Originally posted by Incomparable

    Did they say that when healers die it doesnt matter becuase heals are not needed? Because a class has a limited active abilities it seems... which therefore suggests that a choice in class role has to be made... meaning the trinity exists if there is healing, if there is tanking, if there are other roles.

    The trinity does not exist if the content is so easy you dont need healers, or even tanks... just dps to finish the job quicker. 

    They never said that. 

    Not sure you are right about your assumption.

    Also action combat has nothing to do with trinity. They are two exclusive things OP.

    Please do not spread misinformation, beucase that is what it seems you are doing. Since you are not asking, but stating something that sounds wrong by stating not only does the trinity system not exist, but it does not exist becuase the combat is action oriented...

    There's a video currently on curse.com where they basically confirm they got rid of the trinity, although they didn't use the word trinity. But "our AI is too smart to keep attacking the same guy during the whole fight" means tanking won't be possible. And healers aren't needed is an exact phrase they used.

    Basically they want the game so noone in a guild has to depend on anyone in particular. If the top healer in a guild decides not to log on the raid can still continue. That's their design choice.

     

    edit: here's the curse video, part 2 in the sidebar, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOKhfxwLokg

    I realized I might be wrong in my assumption that the trinity exists... but I still find it too early to tell that there is no healing or tanking as meaning that there are no tanks, or no damage mitigation.

    It just means there are no taunts for tanks, and for utility classes there are not save the day buttons but rather something more situational like a debuff. Thus the trinity does exist but not in the traditional sense, and I did not see the video, but yea, those are their words... so I dont want to go against what they are saying... but a tank, and a utility class sounds like a trnity system that is more complicated with more movement and kiting than the traditional sense.

    I could be wrong, but I think its still to early to take thier words and exaggerate our opinions using certain labels. Since by saying there is no trinity, it suggests that there are no class roles. 

    It becomes an argument of semantics. And I do not want to take what they are saying the wrong way, but saying there is no trinity is a loaded term, and I beleive the OP is encouraging a certain perception that may be farther than the truth... even though the devs used that themselves... but its mostly becuase it is loaded terminology.

    So if there are class roles, then a certain kind of trinity system does exist. Possibly?

    “Write bad things that are done to you in sand, but write the good things that happen to you on a piece of marble”

  • InFlamestwoInFlamestwo HindPosts: 662Member

    ArenaNet is working on something like raiding already, it's not going to be normal mmorpg raiding but they have said there will be something similar to raiding. Let's see what it is before judging raiding doesn't work with action combat.

    I'm pretty sure the raiding in GW2 will be very large scale and many objectives. Like revamping the Zhaitan fight so it becomes more epic and not firing cannons for 10 minutes. A ground battle that goes on for atleast 10-15 minutes, then some more fight on a ship with different objectives to complete.

    image

  • QSatuQSatu WarsawPosts: 1,735Member Uncommon
    For me raiding can stay dead. No more being forced to do content with 20+ players to progress. Win win for me. raiding would be ok if it didn't have the best rewards but you ll know raiders want the best rewards b/c they put "more work than other players" into a game.
  • -Ellessar--Ellessar- NYC, NYPosts: 98Member

    I'm all for innovation and breaking the theme-park  mold that has dominated the genre for the last ten years.  I want a good sandbox as much as the next guy, but I share in the concerns expressed by many here.  SOE seems to be making questionable choices when it comes to combat and the lack of raiding. 

    I like to raid.  I suspect a whole lot of other MMO fans also like to raid.  Why are we removing this?  I've only ever really heard two valid complaints about raiding:  

    1. It's repetitive.  That's true it can be, but that can also be true about almost all aspects of these games.  So repetitiveness by itself is not a reason to remove it.  

    2. Gear Grind.  I understand some people don't like gear grinds.  That's fine and EQN seems to be moving away from this, which I am fine with.  So no real problem here then.    

    So why are we removing it ENQ again?

    I have a feeling the real reason they are moving away from traditional raiding is because they are moving away from the Trinity. When you don't have the Trinity it's very hard to do complex PvE encounters.  How do you do a boss fight with a MOB who can one shot clothies if there are no tanks and there is no way to effectively manage aggro?  The answer is you can't.  Removing the Trinity tends to turn these games into DPS zerg fests, and you can't have raids like that.  

    Look at GW2.  Dungeons are a joke because they removed the Trinity.  Those large scale PvE "public raids" are nothing more than zerg fests.  Everyone just pew pews until the thing dies.  There is no thought of strategy or tactics.  

    Why can't we have a game that integrates that sandbox elements of games like SWG, the public quests and non linear advancement of GW2, and the enjoyable theme-park aspects of games like WoW?  Is that not possible?  Why is it one or the other?

    Yeah I want to have a house in the game, and maybe even a player city to put it in.  I also want to be able to raid with my buddies once or twice a week.

     

    -Ellessar- 

     

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,206Member Uncommon

    speculating, WoW pretty much has a monopoly on raiding. If you want to raid but not in WoW, then you don't really have any great options at this point. The few that exist are pre-wow titles.

     

    so perhaps they're moving away from raiding because they can't compete ?

     

    realistically, looking at WoW, what is there ? there's fluff - many games have that. there's simple crafting - many games have that. there's instanced pvp - not too bad but nothing unusual, many games have that, then there's raiding. titles like EQ2 have it, but nothing else post-wow reached any high popularity in this area. SWTOR tried and failed, RIFT/GW2 tried to twist it a bit and worked ok because it was slightly different...but that's where raiding ends.

     

    I believe devs simply gave up trying to kill wow by detrone it from its raiding ... dominion.

    image

  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,706Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nadia

    if nothing else, EQ was known for bringing raiding to mmos

    Georgeson said there are large scale encounters but its unclear on how large

    It will work like in GW2, scalable Epic encounters where 30+ people try as hard as they can to smash button as fast as possible to kill the thing...................not my idea of Raiding.

    Combat in EQNext seems pretty wrong, aimed at 12 y/o lightspeed typing wizards...................

  • ariestearieste toronto, ONPosts: 3,308Member Common

    It does sound a lot like the type of clusterfuck zergfest that GW2's "raids" are.  Where you may have 40 people killing something, but they're not killing it together, they're basically each soloing alongside 39 others. 

     

    On the flipside, TSW - which has 1. Action Combat, 2. 7-ish ability slots 3.  same type of cross-class system as EQN - it has some of the most diffculty and co-operative 5-man group content i've seen in any game.  So it is possible to create complex content with action cmobat and limited abilities, but TSW does use a trinity though.  

     

    "I’d rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."

    - Raph Koster

    Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
    Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2
    Currently Playing: EQ2, Firefall

  • BloodaxesBloodaxes ZabbarPosts: 2,651Member Uncommon

    It's not action combat that kills raiding it's how developers create the game that does.

    They could easily make collision so you can't pass trough people, tough dungeons were you don't rush but have to be careful of traps and sneaky encounters and trinity helps too with tanks on the front while the rest behind him just incase.

    To conclude, I didn't read the whole thread just basing my post on the title.

    image

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.