Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
GW2 vs TESO vs EQ:N - what's your opinion about moving in combat?
Elikal
Member UncommonPosts: 7,912
You see, ever since I used to play GW2, I am hooked into "moving combat". Back in the days BEFORE GW2, we all used to be rooted while executing our skills. And that was fine and nice, because we didn't know any better. But now, I am sort of spoiled. I felt this very badly, when I tried the new Ranger class in Neverwinter.
Back being rooted again... felt... so... wrong.
So, does anyone know how combat is handled in Elder Scrolls Online and Everquest Next? Just curious.
And, how do you guys think about this GW2-style moving combat vs classic rooted combat?
/discuss ^^
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
No bitchers.
I don't think action combat is old enough for it to have a classic style
But I don't like the free movement of gw2 fighting. It felt very console/button spammy to me. "rooted" combat means you can't just use whatever skill you want whenever you want. If you're caught mid action, you're caught mid action and it tends to hurt.
I don't think either are better. They just offer different things for a combat style.
I don't think one model is inherently better than the other. It depends on the ability mechanics.
However, I think a good model would utilize both approaches, making either certain skills immibilize you based on relative power or include skills that increased mobility when using otherwise stationary abilities.
Basically, mobility should be an advantage in combat, and as such should be balanced according to the advantage it affords.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
I don't mind being rooted as a long cast time magic user, when combat is trinity based and I don't need to move as part of avoiding aggro.
Remove the trinity side where I am forced to avoid aggro, and being rooted during cast would blow my effectiveness.
I haven't seen enough of TESO or EQ:N to know what to expect as a caster.
Didn't TERA mix action combat and rooted casters? Never played it.
Combat in GW2 always reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUaaX3qC1M0
The combat in ESO looks much better.
I prefer standing still and having lots of cool abilities to cast to jumping around like a dumbass while spamming a couple of buttons.
I respect GW2 combat for being pretty complex and skillful but I didn't actually enjoy it much.
Best combat for me is a arrow to the head with no helmet on kills you. Add in some blocking that is time based, with stamina drain, and dodge with light armor, with no dodge with heavy armor, and location damage and you got combat. All this 50 trillon hit point, where it take 40 days and nights to kill super big mob 2 is just stupid. Also movement in combat, was way before GW2, I guess you havent played many games.
There is and was movement based combat in UO.
What is more is they should add into a mmo, a kinda wii controller that looks like a sword, and a bow ect... So there are no cartmans in mmos any more lol.
Combat wasn't really all that important to me as long as I got to play my healer/caster class...
But then I started playing TerA...
Now I cannot play any non-action game basically...
I need to be able to move around and aim. GW2 was probably some of the worst combat I've seen though, tab-targetting (if not auto-target) and you could run around like a retard while you spammed four buttons. TerA's combat had a lot of problems (desync, skill movement imbalance, lock-ons, etc.) but overall is was addicting. TerA was one of the worst MMOs I've ever seen and yet the combat was so fun it completely made up for it. That combat system in a good or even average mmo (for pvp at least) and I'd be content for life.
ESO's content seemed ok to me because [NDA] hahaha.
Wildstar's looks interesting.
But yea, vanilla wow, fire specc'd mage, level 38, 41 yards, pyroblast[1], fireball[2], fireball[2], instant-cast-ok-damage-short-range fire spell thing[3], is not in my future.
I really do prefer action combat now....unfortunately TESO is to action combat the same way Tai Chi is to UFC fighting....
I'm hoping EQ:N pulls off something great because GW2 you never feel like you're progressing.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Can't really comment on EQN, and ESO still has an NDA so there isn't much that can be said about that game either =/.
All i can really tell you (for now), is that ESO is very much an action combat game. However, imho GW2 still has one of the most fluid combat system amongst MMOs to date.
If I was to place the games on a scale as far as PvP goes, I'd put ESO somewhere between Neverwinter & GW2. I believe ESO will have better WvW (realm combat), but probably less satisfying 1v1 combat.
same, but with more lights
I agree, except that the main problem with most games up to this point was you play an archer to change an already easy game into a game where you might as well afk for a couple days and just be higher level. Every NPC should have a ranged weapon and a melee weapon, then they pelt you while they close in on you, in which case you would be dodging. Although I realize the actual reason you play an archer.......
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
I've seen crazy praise about TESO when all I'm seeing it as being is nothing more than Darkfall with PvE in the Elder Scrolls universe. Combat looks the same (and kind of clunky) and it's got PvP for territories too.
It's far too early to tell about EQ:N. By the time the game comes out, it could have gone through 1-3 different combat iterations.
Guild Wars 2 has excellent combat that has completely spoiled me. The spells have to contact to hit, where as something as old-school as WoW the spell is determined to hit by the time cast (whether or not the person targeted is able to hide behind something before the animation gets to them, they'll still be hit). The dodge mechanic is a great thing that is noted a lot, but very seldom do people recognize the ally-player-interrupt (i.e. a Warrior getting in front of a Ranger attacking a Necro and taking the hits), getting behind environmental objects, or even abilities that cause blocking as well.
The one action-based combat game in the future that I really have my eyes on is Wildstar. That game looks very fun, even if ti's raiding obsessed much the way WoW has become (sadly). The awesome thing about the game is that it looks more full-featured than the other two mentioned by the original poster; player housing, Paths, crafting, dungeons, raids, and so much more.
I guess time will tell which one retains the most players after the game's initial launch rush (1-3 months is the usual, right?).
Honestly, GW2 for me was an example of what moving in combat is BAD. It felt just so "Slippery". While i feel a more solid combat system CAN make it feel better then GW2 pulled it off, I still feel the lack of rooting and other elements can hurt the gameplay as well as it becomes just 'goofy' and about running around in circles. It just takes out the element of 'skill' that you really want involved if you are doing action combat.
Tera i think is the best example of action combat (though not a definitive answer either). I do feel more movement can be used in it, but how combat was pulled off in the game it gave that feeling of impact as well as elements of strategy and planning. Taking those elements and adding perhaps less rooting while making actions have some element of both posative and negative aspects (with the ability to 'cancel' of course) I think it will make for a greater MMo experience.
To look at how action combat should work, I think the best way to learn would be to look at fighting games and take some (not all) cues from it. Its all about finding the right mix of mobility while also 'rooting' to create a combat system that really feels rewarding and smooth.
Most stand and cast games were designed long before you had all this significant movement required in games. In EQ1 I wasn't running around like a headless chicken every few seconds like I am in modern games.
That being said, it creates an imbalance when melee can move around freely and casters cannot, which has usually been fixed by making casters CC heavy. This ends up causing even more problems when melee ends up getting CC locked.
Anyway I like Vanguards system (later adopted by EQ2) the best, where you could move while casting, but at a reduced movement speed. This could be negated by either gear with appropriate stats or by casting certain skills (levitate for instance).
Its just not fun to lose a lot of DPS or control in a fight by having to move constantly. As long as we are designing fights which require constant movement, then mages will need to move and cast.
I prefer to be able to move during fights, if the game has dodging like guild wars 2 is even better.
I will still play classic tab targeting games but only if the combat is fast enough and if you can move to interrupt a spell. I hate the so called "action" combat of TERA where you are rooted most of the time, classic mmo combat like WOW is much better than that and while I am not a Blizzard fan, I think they did a great job with WOW combat,it is very fun and fluid and until playing gw2 I would have said it was the best.
Fast combat was around on pc long time before consoles, Unreal tournament had a great pace of play in my opinion (even if I am horrible at it,it is still very fun) and it's nice to see mmo giving up on static fights. I could understand realism arguments in a medieval simulation game but in a game where players use fireballs and mithril is as strong as steel but much lighter I don't see a point in making players moving like a full armored knight.