Reticle or Auto-target?

Rydeson

     I was just thinking..  There are numerous threads and discussions of which people prefer..  It's a debate that will never have a clear cut winner because it's a subjective point of view and preference.. Are there pro's and con's to each side of the debate?  I think there are..  Here is something to think about and support    Every game I have played has allowed players to customize their game, from screen size, graphics detail, loot preference to key bindings..  Why not add in ONE more option..   Auto target or Reticle..  This is a simple solution that current games already enjoy..

     If you prefer to aim and shoot, then go for it, and if others wish to auto target, then let them.. Both can exist in the same game, at the same time..  Everyone is happy now

YashaX

Maybe would be ok if your  damage, healing, hit points, armor, and movement speed was halved when you chose to play in tab-targeting mode.....

Rydeson

Originally posted by YashaX
Maybe would be ok if your  damage, healing, hit points, armor, and movement speed was halved when you chose to play in tab-targeting mode.....

Why would you want that..  Does one method have a distinctive advantage over the other?  for both PvE and PvP?  I've played World of Tanks for awhile now, and both methods live together in harmony.. (generally speaking).. I use both methods depending what I'm doing at any given time..  No need to adjust armor, damage, movement, etc etc.. 

YashaX

Originally posted by Rydeson

Originally posted by YashaX
Maybe would be ok if your  damage, healing, hit points, armor, and movement speed was halved when you chose to play in tab-targeting mode.....

Why would you want that..  Does one method have a distinctive advantage over the other?  for both PvE and PvP?  I've played World of Tanks for awhile now, and both methods live together in harmony.. (generally speaking).. I use both methods depending what I'm doing at any given time..  No need to adjust armor, damage, movement, etc etc.. 

Yeah, among other things tab-targeting is generally a lot easier to hit enemies with. The devs will have to tweak encounter difficulty in line with how combat works, so what might be difficult for one style of aiming could be a faceroll for the other. Same for pvp.

 

 

Nanfoodle

Full tab target is what I would pick but thats not even close to what EQN is shooting for. Not happy but I will roll with it and hope it keeps me interested longer then other action MMOs. GW2 held me the longest with 6 months play. We will see.

Aelious

It's possible they could opt for a flex system like that. Skyforge combat is set up that way.

My only concerns would be how it would effect content options. At the moment a player is able to place fields that change the ground material (to ice) and additional effects are based on that (another attack freezing the mob if they are on top of ice). To account for this a click then place functionality would have to be added for those playing tab.

The other concern is taking away motion and mob speed as a dimension of difficulty. A mob may be hard hitting and very fast but extremely squishy to balance it out. Defeating them means aiming slowing or stunning abilities. Tab targeting trivializes this.

Will be interesting to see what they do. I like reticle personally because I adds emersion and is more engaging to me. Having content is actually challenging is one item towards the top of my MMO feature list.

Archlyte

A dual system would be awesome, but I don't think it's going to happen.  I think some sort of a projected reticle that is somewhat sticky but not tabbed might work.

If they stole the combat from DDO I would shut up about every other fault of the game. That would make me happy in a big way.

YashaX

Originally posted by Archlyte

A dual system would be awesome, but I don't think it's going to happen.  I think some sort of a projected reticle that is somewhat sticky but not tabbed might work.

If they stole the combat from DDO I would shut up about every other fault of the game. That would make me happy in a big way.

 

I was amazed at how good the combat was in DDO, I never got very far in it, but those first few dungeons in particular had better puzzles, traps, level design, and mob AI than I have seen in any mmo. And the character development was so D&D and so deep.

Allein

Originally posted by Rydeson

     I was just thinking..  There are numerous threads and discussions of which people prefer..  It's a debate that will never have a clear cut winner because it's a subjective point of view and preference.. Are there pro's and con's to each side of the debate?  I think there are..  Here is something to think about and support    Every game I have played has allowed players to customize their game, from screen size, graphics detail, loot preference to key bindings..  Why not add in ONE more option..   Auto target or Reticle..  This is a simple solution that current games already enjoy..

     If you prefer to aim and shoot, then go for it, and if others wish to auto target, then let them.. Both can exist in the same game, at the same time..  Everyone is happy now

I agree that both can exist in the same game, but it is entirely dependent on how combat is designed.

When mobs/AI just stand there and let you attack them, either works no problem.

When mobs/AI moves around, auto target has an automatic advantage. Aiming becomes pointless and counterproductive.

They aren't using aiming because of preference, but because of the overall design.

While PVP is an obvious area where there would be an issue (Aimbot is a cheat/hack for a reason in FPS games), PVE is no different.

Beyond really getting a kick out of aiming, if someone can just hit tab or click and all skills from there on magically hit the target, why would someone aim and handicap themselves?

I believe the issue is that we simply haven't seen the AI in action yet. So don't have a lot to go on. From my time with FPS games, I know that when Bots/AI are on hard, it is basically like giving them Auto-Target and isn't fun. It is very easy to make AI too hard this way. Works in reverse if we can never miss as well.

Again, this is all dependent on combat design, not personal preference. Just so happens that some might prefer or dislike one system or the other.

They've said that player "skill" is part of the design. Hopefully it doesn't require pro level twitch wrists to play, but with the basic combat shown in Landmark, I highly doubt it will be impossible for a tab fan to enjoy or play EQN. But it isn't simply a matter of adding tab as an option, aiming is part of the design from the start. Classes, skills, gear, etc all revolve around movement and aiming, tab does not fit at all.

With all that said. Aiming can be done many different ways and doesn't have to be precision only. Soft locks, fire and forget, large hit boxes, AOE, GTAOE, Cone, delayed hits, etc can all be utilized. So far at least, doesn't look like EQN will be filled with machine guns, head shots, and spraying. 

Amjoco

I like GW2s hybrid system. It would just make everyone happy! 

Allein

Originally posted by Amjoco
I like GW2s hybrid system. It would just make everyone happy! 

If EQN was copying GW2's combat-classes-skills-gear-AI, etc, which it isn't.

This is where we get "clones" and the same old thing. People claim they love XYZ, someone makes a game with XYZ and then it's a clone, sucks, not new or innovative, yadda yadda. EQN isn't making EQ3, WoW 2.0, GW3, etc. Seems some still can't grasp this idea. I have no problem with auto-aim/tab and have been playing those games for 15+ years. Regardless, I can see that the systems in EQN do not work with auto-aim by design. Can't magically shoehorn in a mechanic for a game not designed for it. But then I'm sure some still think there is time or that SOE should just scrap it all and start over again, not going to happen.

Amjoco

Originally posted by Allein

Originally posted by Amjoco
I like GW2s hybrid system. It would just make everyone happy! 

If EQN was copying GW2's combat-classes-skills-gear-AI, etc, which it isn't.

This is where we get "clones" and the same old thing. People claim they love XYZ, someone makes a game with XYZ and then it's a clone, sucks, not new or innovative, yadda yadda. EQN isn't making EQ3, WoW 2.0, GW3, etc. Seems some still can't grasp this idea. I have no problem with auto-aim/tab and have been playing those games for 15+ years. Regardless, I can see that the systems in EQN do not work with auto-aim by design. Can't magically shoehorn in a mechanic for a game not designed for it. But then I'm sure some still think there is time or that SOE should just scrap it all and start over again, not going to happen.

Well if you have played GW2 then you would know that it really has nothing to do with the details you mentioned. This was a simple discussion where the question is Reticle or Auto-target. GW2 offers a hybrid system that you choose between. 

edit: there are some features in games that don't automatically make them clones to WoW. Targeting an enemy is not cloning WoW because every game requires doing it. /shrug 

Allein

Originally posted by Amjoco

Originally posted by Allein

Originally posted by Amjoco
I like GW2s hybrid system. It would just make everyone happy! 

If EQN was copying GW2's combat-classes-skills-gear-AI, etc, which it isn't.

This is where we get "clones" and the same old thing. People claim they love XYZ, someone makes a game with XYZ and then it's a clone, sucks, not new or innovative, yadda yadda. EQN isn't making EQ3, WoW 2.0, GW3, etc. Seems some still can't grasp this idea. I have no problem with auto-aim/tab and have been playing those games for 15+ years. Regardless, I can see that the systems in EQN do not work with auto-aim by design. Can't magically shoehorn in a mechanic for a game not designed for it. But then I'm sure some still think there is time or that SOE should just scrap it all and start over again, not going to happen.

Well if you have played GW2 then you would know that it really has nothing to do with the details you mentioned. This was a simple discussion where the question is Reticle or Auto-target. GW2 offers a hybrid system that you choose between. 

edit: there are some features in games that don't automatically make them clones to WoW. Targeting an enemy is not cloning WoW because every game requires doing it. /shrug 

Does GW2 have skill shot reticle aiming? Haven't played in a while so my memory might be fuzzy, but isn't it tab target + aiming with GTOE/AOE/Cones? Which many games utilize, but GW2 and a few others added more movement (most fire and forget) stuff.

Not exactly the same as skill shot aiming in games like TERA, EQN, SMITE, FPS, etc.

My point which probably wasn't clear is that people seem to miss that games are a sum of their parts, not the individual features/mechanics. Can't just cherry pick X from a game and force it into a completely different game, especially when the other game is fundamentally different from the ground up.

GW2's combat works because everything that I listed plays nicely together.

For EQN to use something like GW2's hybrid design, they would have to build all systems around it and discard all the systems they've already made. Basically copy GW2.

You are correct that having tab or aiming or anything else doesn't make a clone by default, but to once you start building upon that base, the closer it starts to look like another game.

EQN for example looks/functions similar to several other games, but still has enough different that it isn't a copy of the total package, just superficial similarities.

I personally liked GW2's combat and wouldn't mind seeing it in other games, but I think the design EQN is going with will be fine without having to be a hybrid or make compromises so that some players don't have to try, learn, enjoy/hate something new.

Considering that more/most games are going for action combat with some form of aiming these days, I believe EQN taking it further won't be too crazy except for those that only want tab/auto-aim. GW2 is what seems to have started the outrage against action combat and having to move/aim at things. So while I think "most" wouldn't mind a hybrid or even what EQN has, some are really stuck in their ways and only X will do. As in the OP who appears to want to travel back in time and wants EQ reborn, which is not EQN at all. Assuming OP doesn't like GW2's system either.

Rydeson

Originally posted by Allein

I agree that both can exist in the same game, but it is entirely dependent on how combat is designed. When mobs/AI just stand there and let you attack them, either works no problem. When mobs/AI moves around, auto target has an automatic advantage. Aiming becomes pointless and counterproductive. They aren't using aiming because of preference, but because of the overall design. Question I have then is..  I can understand some preferring free-aim reticle in PvP games such as WoT or CoD, etc.. By why demand it in a PvE setting?  Are you so competitive that you have to apply a PvP mechanic in a PvE realm?

While PVP is an obvious area where there would be an issue (Aimbot  is a cheat/hack for a reason in FPS games), PVE is no different.  I take it you never played World of Tanks.. WoT allows for both auto-aim and free aim..  Both have pro's and con's.  In WoT auto-aim always shoots for center of tank, which normally is not a vital area that suffers critical damage..  Free-am allows others to target critical areas of the tank such as ammo storage or tracks.. etc etc.. You could still do the same in EQN for example, by removing or greatly reducing "critical damage" using auto-aim..  Now the choice is up to the players.. Do I want a 20% chance of critical hit, or none? 

Beyond really getting a kick out of aiming, if someone can just hit tab or click and all skills from there on magically hit the target, why would someone aim and handicap themselves? Look at this way.. 3 mobs almost on top of each other killing your teammate.. You want to assist, and the best way is to use some crowd control feature of "sleep" arrow for a distance (since I'm a ranger).. My target is that mob in the middle (healer), but in reticle aiming it is virtually impossible to target him, however with tab targeting, I can cycle thru the mobs and auto target him..  Can you now see how tab targeting has it's purpose and advantage over free aim.. This is why most free aim games use AOE combat, and virtually NO crowd control skills..

I believe the issue is that we simply haven't seen the AI in action yet. So don't have a lot to go on. From my time with FPS games, I know that when Bots/AI are on hard, it is basically like giving them Auto-Target and isn't fun. It is very easy to make AI too hard this way. Works in reverse if we can never miss as well. Again, you assume that auto-aim (tab targeting) = 100% auto hit.. That is not the case, again I wonder if you ever truly played EQ original in the past.. Caster or Melee, it didn't matter, but there was always a chance to MISS or RESIST the target.. Nothing was 100% hit..   You can easily program hit/miss variables in any game..  Even in World of Tanks using reticle targeting.. YOU can sight dead on to the fuel tanks, and POOF, you miss..  Sometimes the RNG just laughs at you..

Again, this is all dependent on combat design, not personal preference. Just so happens that some might prefer or dislike one system or the other. It works fine in WoT and receives no attention or cries from the playerbase..

They've said that player "skill" is part of the design. Hopefully it doesn't require pro level twitch wrists to play, but with the basic combat shown in Landmark, I highly doubt it will be impossible for a tab fan to enjoy or play EQN. But it isn't simply a matter of adding tab as an option, aiming is part of the design from the start. Classes, skills, gear, etc all revolve around movement and aiming, tab does not fit at all.

With all that said. Aiming can be done many different ways and doesn't have to be precision only. Soft locks, fire and forget, large hit boxes, AOE, GTAOE, Cone, delayed hits, etc can all be utilized. So far at least, doesn't look like EQN will be filled with machine guns, head shots, and spraying. 

All I can say is..  WORLD OF TANKS.. If EQN devs can't borrow that feature, then EQN truly has some inept programmers.. Seriously, it isn't that hard to program combat to allow both, and in fact I believe it would enhance the combat even more.. It would allow players to take advantage of "PROs" on both sides at once.. There are times in WoT, I'm switching back and forth from auto-aim to free aim while fighting the same tank.. It is just that easy.. 

YashaX

Originally posted by Rydeson

Originally posted by Allein

I agree that both can exist in the same game, but it is entirely dependent on how combat is designed. When mobs/AI just stand there and let you attack them, either works no problem. When mobs/AI moves around, auto target has an automatic advantage. Aiming becomes pointless and counterproductive. They aren't using aiming because of preference, but because of the overall design. Question I have then is..  I can understand some preferring free-aim reticle in PvP games such as WoT or CoD, etc.. By why demand it in a PvE setting?  Are you so competitive that you have to apply a PvP mechanic in a PvE realm?

For me free-aim combat is especially enjoyable for pve because it makes every encounter more exciting. I don't see it as a "pvp mechanic", all action/rpg type games I have played use some form of free aim combat and are completely pve. But at any rate our individual preferences have little relevance in terms of why it is difficult to mix tab targeting and free aim combat.

 

Beyond really getting a kick out of aiming, if someone can just hit tab or click and all skills from there on magically hit the target, why would someone aim and handicap themselves? Look at this way.. 3 mobs almost on top of each other killing your teammate.. You want to assist, and the best way is to use some crowd control feature of "sleep" arrow for a distance (since I'm a ranger).. My target is that mob in the middle (healer), but in reticle aiming it is virtually impossible to target him, however with tab targeting, I can cycle thru the mobs and auto target him..  Can you now see how tab targeting has it's purpose and advantage over free aim.. This is why most free aim games use AOE combat, and virtually NO crowd control skills..

You have just hit on a prime example of why it would be almost impossible to allow players to choose between action and tab-targeting combat. By the way plenty of free aim games have crowd control.

 

 

Rydeson

Originally posted by YashaX

Originally posted by Rydeson

     Question I have then is..  I can understand some preferring free-aim reticle in PvP games such as WoT or CoD, etc.. By why demand it in a PvE setting?  Are you so competitive that you have to apply a PvP mechanic in a PvE realm?       For me free-aim combat is especially enjoyable for pve because it makes every encounter more exciting. I don't see it as a "pvp mechanic", all action/rpg type games I have played use some form of free aim combat and are completely pve. But at any rate our individual preferences have little relevance in terms of why it is difficult to mix tab targeting and free aim combat.

     Look at this way.. 3 mobs almost on top of each other killing your teammate.. You want to assist, and the best way is to use some crowd control feature of "sleep" arrow for a distance (since I'm a ranger).. My target is that mob in the middle (healer), but in reticle aiming it is virtually impossible to target him, however with tab targeting, I can cycle thru the mobs and auto target him..  Can you now see how tab targeting has it's purpose and advantage over free aim.. This is why most free aim games use AOE combat, and virtually NO crowd control skills..    You have just hit on a prime example of why it would be almost impossible to allow players to choose between action and tab-targeting combat. By the way plenty of free aim games have crowd control.

      Maybe I shouldn't of said PvP mechanic, but say it's an Esport mechanic.. It is just another variable that comes into play that separates the player base into skilled and unskilled groups.. Bragging rights? Ego?   See for me, I take joy in finding ways to bring players together, to unite a community.. This does not mean everyone wins, what it means is that the gap between skilled and unskilled players are reduced..  In a PvE setting, the goal is for the player community to defeat the environment is it not?  Or is the goal to be "better" then your neighbor using the backdoor instead of straight up PvP? 

      I don't see how you using free-aim interferes with my enjoyment of using auto aim, or vice versa.. This is no more different then some players prefer being range combat, vs those that prefer in your face combat..  What is next, no one is allowed to use bow and arrows anymore?  and YES, that topic has come up many times on forums.. 

     Prime example, do tell.. You didn't clearify yourself there..  And for the crowd control part.. Which game allows for SINGLE TARGET crowd control in a crowded area.. I would love to see that in action.. Personally, that is why I think way too many games focus on AOE combat..  Aren't you sick and tired of always mowing down 3,4 and more mobs at a time?  I know I am.. It used to be that if you got adds, you died (hense: crowd control), but nowadays, it's just another mob in the pack to AOE down.. Zzzzzz

Allein

Originally posted by Rydeson

Question I have then is..  I can understand some preferring free-aim reticle in PvP games such as WoT or CoD, etc.. By why demand it in a PvE setting?  Are you so competitive that you have to apply a PvP mechanic in a PvE realm?

If the AI is challenging, yes I do not want the advantages of auto-aim, nor do I want the mobs to have it either. Has zero to do with PVP competitiveness. Has to do with immersion, realism, and challenge for me personally. Hitting tab and everything magically hitting my target is not exciting or challenging for me, even if I have to move out of the way of their attacks like some games. I find it very gamey and takes away a lot of potential. 

I take it you never played World of Tanks.. WoT allows for both auto-aim and free aim..  Both have pro's and con's.  In WoT auto-aim always shoots for center of tank, which normally is not a vital area that suffers critical damage..  Free-am allows others to target critical areas of the tank such as ammo storage or tracks.. etc etc.. You could still do the same in EQN for example, by removing or greatly reducing "critical damage" using auto-aim..  Now the choice is up to the players.. Do I want a 20% chance of critical hit, or none?

I have not played WoT, but that is actually a good design. If there were pros/cons to using the different systems, then yes I wouldn't mind so much. But it simply being an option to flip on or off wouldn't work. The difference would need to be fairly significant though, as I've been saying, EQN is being designed from the ground up with the concept of everyone moving around and aiming, if all of a sudden someone can just lock on with arrows or fireballs, would need to take a big hit some how.

I'm not Anti-Tab, Pro-Aim, I'm simply looking at the game being developed and what they are planning. I would never suggest Blizzard add in Aiming to WoW just because. Or that COD have Auto-Aim or whatever. The target system needs to work with the combat system which works with the overall game systems.

Look at this way.. 3 mobs almost on top of each other killing your teammate.. You want to assist, and the best way is to use some crowd control feature of "sleep" arrow for a distance (since I'm a ranger).. My target is that mob in the middle (healer), but in reticle aiming it is virtually impossible to target him, however with tab targeting, I can cycle thru the mobs and auto target him..  Can you now see how tab targeting has it's purpose and advantage over free aim.. This is why most free aim games use AOE combat, and virtually NO crowd control skills..

Yes, but that is an issue with design and execution. Something like collision would make it much easier to target someone/something. Also all about how skills are created. Could have some sort of AOE CC arrow that knock back-dwon-up, or stun all enemies from the target hit. Why are all the mobs on one player to begin with? Without context, we can do what ifs forever, but it is pointless. Also, I've never struggled to hit a target in other games with similar setups. AOEs also aren't evil by default, some games (GW2) heavily overuse them, but again that is a design issue, not an issue with the targeting itself.

Again, you assume that auto-aim (tab targeting) = 100% auto hit.. That is not the case, again I wonder if you ever truly played EQ original in the past.. Caster or Melee, it didn't matter, but there was always a chance to MISS or RESIST the target.. Nothing was 100% hit..   You can easily program hit/miss variables in any game..  Even in World of Tanks using reticle targeting.. YOU can sight dead on to the fuel tanks, and POOF, you miss..  Sometimes the RNG just laughs at you..

Yes but then that is just gamey RNG, beyond players stacking +hit or whatever, it takes control away from the player. EQN is going to be skill based, they've said this. Which means relying on the game to do the work for you is't going to happen, at least not on the scale of other games. You want to hit something, then aim and hit it. Don't pray to the RNG gods to give you a good roll. It is more challenging and requires more from the player, but what's wrong with that? Why do you want the bar to be set so low?  I don't play LoL/Dota/COD because the pace is too fast for me. Assuming this is the case for you and EQN. It is what it is. Play games that fit your needs/wants.

It works fine in WoT and receives no attention or cries from the playerbase..

WoT is also not a fantasy mmorpg as far as I know. Don't see many complaining about the targeting system in COD or Dota or insert whatever. Why? Doesn't make any sense to dislike or argue that a game should have something different simply because it is what you prefer.

Unless I'm missing something, Tab adds absolutely nothing to a fantasy mmorpg that aiming can't do the same or better. Correct me if I'm wrong. Beyond some not being able to handle it or just dislike it out of principal, not sure what the cons are.

Can give me 5 reasons or advantages that Tab provides over Aiming? Beyond someone not have super twitchy skills can play? What tactical, engaging, challenging differences can be added thanks to Tab? You've given the "I can't see the target" example before, but that isn't an issue in other games. It might be an issue if you designed a game for Tab then added Aim in randomly, but that isn't the case here.

All I can say is..  WORLD OF TANKS.. If EQN devs can't borrow that feature, then EQN truly has some inept programmers.. Seriously, it isn't that hard to program combat to allow both, and in fact I believe it would enhance the combat even more.. It would allow players to take advantage of "PROs" on both sides at once.. There are times in WoT, I'm switching back and forth from auto-aim to free aim while fighting the same tank.. It is just that easy.. 

Do you honestly not see the difference between WoT and EQN and why mechanics might not work the same? That isn't even apples to oranges, it's apples to tanks.

As I asked above, what are the Pros for Tab for a game designed with movement as a focus?

 

Allein

Originally posted by Rydeson

      Maybe I shouldn't of said PvP mechanic, but say it's an Esport mechanic.. It is just another variable that comes into play that separates the player base into skilled and unskilled groups.. Bragging rights? Ego?   See for me, I take joy in finding ways to bring players together, to unite a community.. This does not mean everyone wins, what it means is that the gap between skilled and unskilled players are reduced..  In a PvE setting, the goal is for the player community to defeat the environment is it not?  Or is the goal to be "better" then your neighbor using the backdoor instead of straight up PvP? 

I see your goal to bring folks together, but what percent of the gaming population, or those that might possibly play EQN do you think that can't handle aiming? Children grow up playing COD these days, MOBA/FPS are huge, even games like WoW that have Tab rely on loads of skills which require just as much twitchy hand-eye skill as aiming. You seem to be trying to save some demographic from missing out on EQN, but do they exist? If someone truly can't handle it, I feel for them, but if it is just a matter of preference, that's just how it goes. Pick a game that is designed the way you like. Someone that doesn't like FPS, doesn't play them. Someone that doesn't like Tab, doesn't play them. 

      I don't see how you using free-aim interferes with my enjoyment of using auto aim, or vice versa.. This is no more different then some players prefer being range combat, vs those that prefer in your face combat..  What is next, no one is allowed to use bow and arrows anymore?  and YES, that topic has come up many times on forums.. 

Has nothing to do with esport or preference, it is the game design. The game simply can not be designed with Aiming in mind which allows for more complex challenges, if Tab is part of the system. As I said, it isn't just a matter of allowing Tab or not, it impacts combat entirely.

     Prime example, do tell.. You didn't clearify yourself there..  And for the crowd control part.. Which game allows for SINGLE TARGET crowd control in a crowded area.. I would love to see that in action.. Personally, that is why I think way too many games focus on AOE combat..  Aren't you sick and tired of always mowing down 3,4 and more mobs at a time?  I know I am.. It used to be that if you got adds, you died (hense: crowd control), but nowadays, it's just another mob in the pack to AOE down.. Zzzzzz

This again goes back to the design. Why do you need to single target CC? Why does 1+ enemy need to be removed totally from the equation? Why not just cut to the chase and have one mob at a time (EQ pulling, hello). Single target CC that you seem to want takes the potential for massive combat challenges and waters them down to 1 vs 1, 10 vs 1, 20 vs 2, or whatever. If mobs roam and can add, let them in on the fight and make it harder, not "No worries guys"...1 click....mob no longer matter... Ya it worked in EQ for what it was, but basically putting mobs/danger on time out is silly to me. I want a challenge.

It is why CC usually works differently in PVP then PVE. No one wants to be completely removed from the battle for extended periods of time just because some random player CC them with no way to stop it. It is just as unfair to mobs, they deserve a right to kick our butts just as much as we do theirs. What if Mobs could CC players the same way (Mobs will have access to player class/skills in EQN). Would you want your party of 5 to be CC down to 1 as the mobs stomp you 1 by 1?

Again this shows that you are trying to shoehorn in mechanics from other games (EQ) into a totally different game and design. I would love to see a massive LOTR style battle in EQN (which they've alluded to). Pulling 3 mobs, CC 2, and going 5 vs 1 on repeat is not challenging anymore. Doesn't need to be mindless AOE overkill, swinging blindly and swatting 20 mobs like flies, but trying to micromanage combat down to nothing isn't exciting for me.

There are plenty of ways to still have support/CC classes/roles/skills that don't heavily rely on single target and or long duration CC. Much rather focus on pulls, knock back/down/up, disarming, blinding, snaring, rooting, stunning, silencing, etc that can happen actively without totally removing a percent of the challenge from the challenge. 

You seem to totally ignore what they are saying about Storybricks. Obviously we have to see it still, but if it is real, old mechanics don't work.

 

Rydeson

Originally posted by Allein

I see your goal to bring folks together, but what percent of the gaming population, or those that might possibly play EQN do you think that can't handle aiming?   That largely depends on the difficulty of hitting the target.. We all know that at point blank range, which a warrior most likely will be at, he'll seldom miss.. However, at range with a ranger type class, that hit target is much smaller and requires MORE skill..  (FACT, so lets not pretend that isn't so) The problem will then come down to how liberal will you make that "hit box" so that a majority of your players will HIT the target and not be gimped, or at a disadvantage against other player or mob.. If that hit box is the size of a truck to where you'll hit 95% of the time, then WHY even bother having free aim when you are shooting at barns and trucks..

 Has nothing to do with esport or preference, it is the game design. It has everything to do with Esport.. The only people I hear that are against players having a choice are those that want to be BETTER then other players..  You want free aim, then GO FOR IT.. Why does my choice of auto aim effect you? It doesn't.. If a spreadsheet shows that combat results can be the same regardless of choice, why are you concerned?  Is it because YOU want other players to be at a disadvantage so you be boost your ego?

This again goes back to the design. Why do you need to single target CC? Why does 1+ enemy need to be removed totally from the equation? Why not just cut to the chase and have one mob at a time (EQ pulling, hello). Single target CC that you seem to want takes the potential for massive combat challenges and waters them down to 1 vs 1, 10 vs 1, 20 vs 2, or whatever. If mobs roam and can add, let them in on the fight and make it harder, not "No worries guys"...1 click....mob no longer matter... Ya it worked in EQ for what it was, but basically putting mobs/danger on time out is silly to me. I want a challenge.  Seriously? You don't see the hypocrisy here?  You claim that you want mobs on equal levels of players.. How often do you fight 4 players at once and win?   NEVER.. Why do you need massive 10 mobs vs 1 fight?  Does that sound fair to the mobs?  Ha Ha .. Do you know how effective AOE combat is in PvP fights?   NOT effective at all.. As for CC being an option in combat, I seriously have to question your experience in good combat designs.. Moroes raid fight in Kara is an excellent example on why you need to remove 1 or more mobs from the equation..  You want to go into Crushbone and work your way to the big guy, then you better learn to how to strategically pick your fights and cc some of the extras..  OH WAIT, you want mobs to be carebear minions that can be wiped out 6 at a time..  I prefer mobs that can WIPE the floor with me by themselves..  You want fair???? Makes mobs just as strong as a player 1 vs 1.. 

It is why CC usually works differently in PVP then PVE. No one wants to be completely removed from the battle for extended periods of time just because some random player CC them with no way to stop it. OH well, stuff happens.. Sometimes you are the bug, and sometimes you are the windshield..  It is just as unfair to mobs, they deserve a right to kick our butts just as much as we do theirs. What if Mobs could CC players the same way (Mobs will have access to player class/skills in EQN). Would you want your party of 5 to be CC down to 1 as the mobs stomp you 1 by 1? Again here is just another example why I believe you NEVER played original EQ.. Have you never fought an evil eye beholder?  Ha Ha..  Yeah.. they charm players for LONG periods of time and NO WAY to break it.. My screen goes black and I'm attacking my own party members.. 

There are plenty of ways to still have support/CC classes/roles/skills that don't heavily rely on single target and or long duration CC. Much rather focus on pulls, knock back/down/up, disarming, blinding, snaring, rooting, stunning, silencing, etc that can happen actively without totally removing a percent of the challenge from the challenge. So it's ok for a rogue to STUN LOCK you, but casters can't CC? So it's also ok to ROOT a mob away from everyone, but no CC?  /boggled.. I"m questioning if you know what crowd control actually means and how it is used.. As a druid in EQ, I could snare and kite a mob around in circles if needed while my group fights another mob.. I just CC'd a mob..

You seem to totally ignore what they are saying about Storybricks. Obviously we have to see it still, but if it is real, old mechanics don't work. Storybricks has nothing to do with combat design, especially in the PvP arena. Storybricks is just an AI that manages likes/dislikes, it doesn't simulate combat strategy.. FYI

 

alyndale

I am torn with which style I prefer. I have tried both and each has their merits. Hopefully, and this may be wishing "upon a star", but maybe Sony studios could be working towards something a bit more unique. One of the reasons I am beginning to feel the entire process of development on EQ: N seems so "cloke 'n dagger", could be that there are several difficult concepts that are being attempted. I just hope that there is success at implementing these ideas.

I also am hoping that if they are having difficulties, that they take a wise approach go back to a more traditional mechanic that we all know and understand. They should come forward and be transparent about why some aspects of their plans may not have worked. Many, of course will chide them and scoff, but more would take a more adult stance in that they tried and going back to some standard or classical mechanics is fine and can be accepted.

Just keep it honest Sony and many of us will hang with you...

Alyn

Rydeson

Originally posted by alyndale

I am torn with which style I prefer. I have tried both and each has their merits. Hopefully, and this may be wishing "upon a star", but maybe Sony studios could be working towards something a bit more unique. One of the reasons I am beginning to feel the entire process of development on EQ: N seems so "cloke 'n dagger", could be that there are several difficult concepts that are being attempted. I just hope that there is success at implementing these ideas.

I also am hoping that if they are having difficulties, that they take a wise approach go back to a more traditional mechanic that we all know and understand. They should come forward and be transparent about why some aspects of their plans may not have worked. Many, of course will chide them and scoff, but more would take a more adult stance in that they tried and going back to some standard or classical mechanics is fine and can be accepted.

Just keep it honest Sony and many of us will hang with you...

Alyn

     Excellent post..  I wish I had said it first..  lol   I too feel EQN is very cloak and dagger, and more so then not, I feel they are unsure and struggling to produce what they want..  I've played Tera and similar games that use reticle free aim combat and they are leaps ahead of SOE's attempt to replicate it..    From what I've seen so far in all the combat videos is very unattractive, and the "work in progress" excuse isn't going to fly with most of us.. 

     This is why I brought up the auto target option.. It gives SOE that scape goat option they may need.. I see nothing wrong with keeping a classical mechanic as you call it, and also allowing an experimental targeting as well, for those that wish to dabble with it.. I just feel that SOE is so focused on their desires in combat, they are forcing a round peg into a square hole..

    

Allein

Originally posted by Rydeson

That largely depends on the difficulty of hitting the target.. We all know that at point blank range, which a warrior most likely will be at, he'll seldom miss.. However, at range with a ranger type class, that hit target is much smaller and requires MORE skill..  (FACT, so lets not pretend that isn't so) The problem will then come down to how liberal will you make that "hit box" so that a majority of your players will HIT the target and not be gimped, or at a disadvantage against other player or mob.. If that hit box is the size of a truck to where you'll hit 95% of the time, then WHY even bother having free aim when you are shooting at barns and trucks..

I'd assume and hope that it is balanced so that a Warrior doesn't hit like a truck easily and a Ranger shoots tickle arrows that have a higher chance at missing. As you said after playing Tera, it isn't that hard to use aiming in of itself.

I think the hitbox size could be linked to the Tiers and difficulty. Tier 1 content is easier to hit, Tier 5 is harder. Taking it further, Tier 5 mobs use more individual and group strategy by utilizing skills/combos better while exploiting player weakness as well.

Why go with aiming if it isn't hard to hit? Because it allows for more freedom and creative challenges that Tab can not do by design. You seem to be implying that if they go with aim it has to require super twitch skills and therefore will be too hard for some. Which isn't the only way to do it obviously. They can balance it out.

Question: If they make aiming fairly "easy" for the average gamer and it allows for interesting content not possible with tab, what advantage would tab have beyond personal preference?

It has everything to do with Esport.. The only people I hear that are against players having a choice are those that want to be BETTER then other players..  You want free aim, then GO FOR IT.. Why does my choice of auto aim effect you? It doesn't.. If a spreadsheet shows that combat results can be the same regardless of choice, why are you concerned?  Is it because YOU want other players to be at a disadvantage so you be boost your ego?

This makes no sense at all. Who is saying they want to be better then others or for others to have a difficult time?

I want a game that allows for a wide range of difficulty. Comparing Tab vs Aim, one has an easier time pulling that off. How do you make Tab more difficult usually? Stack HP/Dmg or require perfect setups that remove option. Or go from crappy AI to PVP where players don't just stand there like punching bags, which is very similar to how Aiming impacts combat.

Aiming allows for players and mobs to utilize movement which can then use voxels/terrain which can then use skills/combos that allows for interesting team play. Unless I've missed Tab games doing this. Wildstar, TERA, GW2 had the right idea, but didn't take it far enough and still have the same crap AI that just stands around. EQN with more skill shot aiming on top of Storybricks, should take it to the next level.

Not sure what spreadsheet you speak of or combat results, but maybe you could explain.

I'm all for choice when it works with the design. You seem to lack the ability to grasp that tab and aiming allow for different types of challenges to be created. It isn't as simply as you like tab, I like aim, lets play together.

The game and combat have to be designed with the targeting system in mind. Usually this means going with Tab and RNG or Aim and Skill. One puts the outcome into the players hands, one into the hands of the RNG gods. One relies more on the UI and cycling through targets, the other relies more on using our vision, ability to point and click, and use our brains just a tad more.

There is a reason that as themepark and tab games progressed, the number of skills and UI exploded. Tab in of itself isn't very challenging. You need the added challenge of micromanaging a whole lot of skills and timers and UI as well. Aiming takes that need away. Instead of two enemies standing 10 ft away at each other throwing rocks to see who will drop first, players/mobs are able to move around, use terrain, and more tactical use of control.

In Smite for example, using a pull or barrier when an enemy is about to flee or be rescued by allies is not nearly as challenging or rewarding if it was Tab over Aiming. "Oh he's running away" click Pull which magically works because the RNG gods are happy or "He's running away" aim aim aim click, miss "NOOO!" or hit "YESS!"

Seriously? You don't see the hypocrisy here?  You claim that you want mobs on equal levels of players.. How often do you fight 4 players at once and win?   NEVER.. Why do you need massive 10 mobs vs 1 fight?  Does that sound fair to the mobs?  Ha Ha ..

Depends on the mob type. Have you read the novellas yet? Kobolds are swatted away like flies because there are swarms of them, but they are underlings. Then there are drakes, dragons, and other more vicious creatures that can stomp multiple "players" no different then most fantasy. I'm not saying I want every challenge to be 10 vs 1, but would like to see variation. Unlike EQ which didn't vary too greatly when it came to pulling and CC. Pull a couple or 1, CC whatever, go to town on what's left. Would rather see the need for more players if mobs are too difficult to handle with a certain setup instead of trivializing them with the click of a button. Encourage social grouping team work. Not, as long as we have X class, we can handle anything that might come our way because they have the magic "oh crap" button.

Do you know how effective AOE combat is in PvP fights?   NOT effective at all..

Depends on the game. AOE is very effective in certain games. Just a matter of the AOE being powerful enough or team work being utilized. DAoC for example, there were AOE bomb groups that would run in and blow mobs/players up very quickly because they fired everything they had at once. Wasn't something that could be done over and over, but when done perfectly, nothing remained.

As for CC being an option in combat, I seriously have to question your experience in good combat designs.. Moroes raid fight in Kara is an excellent example on why you need to remove 1 or more mobs from the equation..  You want to go into Crushbone and work your way to the big guy, then you better learn to how to strategically pick your fights and cc some of the extras..  OH WAIT, you want mobs to be carebear minions that can be wiped out 6 at a time..  I prefer mobs that can WIPE the floor with me by themselves..  You want fair???? Makes mobs just as strong as a player 1 vs 1.. 

Again, I have no problem with mobs being equal or greater then an individual, but this is where team work comes in. Not solo hero to the rescue. I wouldn't want the ability to reach the big guy alone or with a small group if the area is full of hordes of enemies. Again, Storybricks is supposed to be "smarter" not supposed to be able to kill/CC an enemy in clear view of others that just wait their turn. There would need to be a balance between quantity and difficulty obvious though.

This could also loop back into Tier difficulty and how the higher Tiers could have harder challenges, without requiring massive power stacking. Better builds, better team work and or group size instead of get Awesome Sword Of Godness and solo it all because it has amazing stats.

OH well, stuff happens.. Sometimes you are the bug, and sometimes you are the windshield.. Again here is just another example why I believe you NEVER played original EQ.. Have you never fought an evil eye beholder?  Ha Ha..  Yeah.. they charm players for LONG periods of time and NO WAY to break it.. My screen goes black and I'm attacking my own party members.. 

Which is fine for particular situations, but if mobs have access to class/skills and can utilize the same group combos, would you want to be CCed the majority of the time you are in combat with all mobs? I'm fine with being disarmed, knocked down, blinded whatever for a brief period if a mob gets a lucky shot in, but wouldn't want a mob 50 ft behind his friends to put me in time out for 5 min just because. Where is the challenge? Even worse, make it Auto-Aim and it is a sure to land most of the time. CC is one of the few things I liked about Wildstar's design, nothing to out of the ordinary, but the mechanics are fairly entertaining.

So it's ok for a rogue to STUN LOCK you, but casters can't CC? So it's also ok to ROOT a mob away from everyone, but no CC?  /boggled.. I"m questioning if you know what crowd control actually means and how it is used.. As a druid in EQ, I could snare and kite a mob around in circles if needed while my group fights another mob.. I just CC'd a mob..

I'd rather see all forms of CC be shorter duration and require active application. Diminishing returns as well. Wouldn't want to see Stun Locks or 1 min Roots/Mez/Sleep/Silence, etc. No need in a faster paced, active situation.

Kiting a mob around in circles is a perfect example of how stupid AI is for most games *Benny Hill Theme*.

I'd prefer that doing a Knock Down or Stun for example costs X% of resources. So stunning at the right moment (mob about to heal or land a killing blow on friend) would be vital, but would come at a cost. Not stun stun stun while someone else does the killing.

Which allows for managing resources and skills, not totally relying on timers and cooldowns. Heck even have long duration Root, but it has a decent cast time and drains a lot of resources, so if someone is going to pull it off and disable an enemy for a while, it has a price. Pros/Cons and strategy, not 1 click mob goes to sleep until you decide it's time to play. But like players, if a Druid player has the ability to cure Root, so should mobs. 

Storybricks has nothing to do with combat design, especially in the PvP arena. Storybricks is just an AI that manages likes/dislikes, it doesn't simulate combat strategy.. FYI

You might want to tell SOE and Storybricks that. FYI

http://www.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

Storybricks: We’re not going to talk about design specifics for EverQuest Next. However, we can say that we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs than just “kill on sight” (and a lot more varied goals, as explained in the presentation of rallying calls) and vice-versa: NPCs’ daily lives could be affected by the potential occurence of combat, either as a threat or a goal.

Terry Michaels: Both in and out of combat the characters in our world are going to be watching what the players do and reacting to them in organic ways in order to try to satisfy their current wants and needs. This isn’t so much about “learning” as it is about interacting and reacting to what’s happening around you in an understandable and smart way.

Terry Michaels: The AI we are working with Storybricks on has the potential to make many interesting and engaging decisions both in and out of combat. Our goals are to create these syststrongs to promote interesting encounters and interactions and not to “gimp” any particular type of playstyle.

Storybricks: We want the combat AI to be responsive to opportunities, exploit player mistakes, take advantage of newly created terrain, etc. Creatures are capable of gauging the “utility” of each of their activities in real time, how desirable each given action is. This means that a lot of factors can be taken into account in these calculations, emotions and pressure are just two possible examples of things they could consider.

Very true SB has nothing to do with PVP, but if the AI works as they imply, PVE combat should resemble PVP combat in certain ways. As they typically differ in most games as in skills, strategy, team work are different, I'm guessing they'll actually be more similar in EQN. Again why CC and other skills usually are much different in PVP because they are too powerful in PVE. If the AI is "smarter" the same tricks and advantages shouldn't be present.

Rydeson

Originally posted by Allein

I'd assume and hope that it is balanced so that a Warrior doesn't hit like a truck easily and a Ranger shoots tickle arrows that have a higher chance at missing. As you said after playing Tera, it isn't that hard to use aiming in of itself.  Yeah, because the mobs move so damn slow, how can you not miss a large target.. I have yet to attack a target smaller then a dog in Tera.. Tera's combat is whack a mole joke in my opinion. I find it funny you complain about static fights, but EVERY single boss fight I saw in Tera was static standing in my location..  ?????

I think the hitbox size could be linked to the Tiers and difficulty. Tier 1 content is easier to hit, Tier 5 is harder. Taking it further, Tier 5 mobs use more individual and group strategy by utilizing skills/combos better while exploiting player weakness as well.  VERTICAL PROGRESSION?  So instead of making players stronger, you make mobs harder.. STILL SAME end result

Why go with aiming if it isn't hard to hit? Because it allows for more freedom and creative challenges that Tab can not do by design. BOLOGNA... There is ONLY one difference between aim targeting and auto-lock.. The MISS variable.. To say that aim targeting gives you more challenges is poppy cock.. "To hit or not to hit" is the question..

Question: If they make aiming fairly "easy" for the average gamer and it allows for interesting content not possible with tab, what advantage would tab have beyond personal preference? DO TELL US.. what content can you get from aim reticle combat that you can't get from tab auto?  We are all ears on this one..  (besides the miss variable)

I want a game that allows for a wide range of difficulty. Comparing Tab vs Aim, one has an easier time pulling that off. How do you make Tab more difficult usually? Stack HP/Dmg or require perfect setups that remove option. Or go from crappy AI to PVP where players don't just stand there like punching bags, which is very similar to how Aiming impacts combat.  Again BOLOGNA.. The ONLY difference between free aim and auto is the miss variable.. Strategy and other challenges only exist in your opinion..

Aiming allows for players and mobs to utilize movement which can then use voxels/terrain which can then use skills/combos that allows for interesting team play. Unless I've missed Tab games doing this. Wildstar, TERA, GW2 had the right idea, but didn't take it far enough and still have the same crap AI that just stands around. EQN with more skill shot aiming on top of Storybricks, should take it to the next level. Seriously.. lol   Free aim or auto has NOTHING to do with the combat AI of rather mobs stand around or move about like PvP.. Absolutely nothing.. Not sure how many times I have to tell you.. The ONLY difference is the "miss" variable..

I'm all for choice when it works with the design. You seem to lack the ability to grasp that tab and aiming allow for different types of challenges to be created. It isn't as simply as you like tab, I like aim, lets play together. GO PLAY World of Tanks and come back to us about differences.. if anything auto targeting gives you more challenges that free aim doesn't..  Free aim ONLY adds ONE thing and ONE thing only to combat.. A Greater chance to MISS.. PERIOD.. Comprendo???

I erased and refused to continue with the wall of text that was nothing more then biased viewpoint as to why Free Aim is the ONLY option, and everything else is inferior attitude..  There is NO reason why EQN can not and should not give players the choice to use a reticle or auto-lock like other games have done.. 

Allein

Originally posted by Rydeson

I erased and refused to continue with the wall of text that was nothing more then biased viewpoint as to why Free Aim is the ONLY option, and everything else is inferior attitude..  There is NO reason why EQN can not and should not give players the choice to use a reticle or auto-lock like other games have done.. 

When a game is being developed around Aim, nothing else is an option. Could Tab/Auto-Aim work as an alternative targeting mechanic in COD, BF4, CS:GO, TF2, LoL, Dota, Smite, Tera? Would the individual using Auto have any advantage over those using Aim? Be it PVE vs AI/Bots or PVP vs humans.

Obviously we disagree at the basic level on this, so I won't continue to discuss it as you either aren't able to think outside the box or have too little experience with other types of games to understand the possibilities or at least understand differences between the two types of systems.

To think that using Auto-Aim and Aim in the same game has zero impact on what the devs are able to do is silly. You seem to totally miss the challenges that could arise from using movement and terrain along with more active skills that Auto-Aim instantly removes. Sure RNG is an option, but I'd personally prefer to have control over my character and rely on me, not lady luck. That is immersion for me, not stacking +hit gear or crossing my fingers. You use WoT as an example of where a hybrid system works, but unless SOE is willing to scrap or completely overhaul what they have to copy WoT, it doesn't work. What you want isn't impossible, simply not part of the plan set in motion.

Most of what we type is complete biased opinion, but you said this:

Storybricks is just an AI that manages likes/dislikes, it doesn't simulate combat strategy.. FYI

And I responded with this: http://www.junkiesnation.com/2013/09/10/storybricks-and-soe-answer-some-questions/

Which you are free to ignore, but that is not biased, that is straight from the devs to you. If you choose to look the other way and refuse to believe it or aren't able to understand what the implications are, not sure what else to say about it.

I don't know you gaming history, but it seems you clearly enjoyed early EQ and WoW, which have very little in common with where EQN is going. The examples and reasoning you give (CC, aiming, progression) for why something should or shouldn't be appears to revolve around the design concepts of EQ/WoW and themepark games. Again, you don't seem to get that EQN isn't going to have the traditional layout and combat mechanics.

While it's been fun going back and forth, I'm done. Sucks you want another EQ like game and EQN isn't it, but that's RNG for you. Just when I thought EQN was the only thing of interest, Crowfall comes out of no where. That's life.

Happy posting.

SlyLoK

All I know is I play RPGs and MMORPGs to have a character that possesses abilities I do not and will never have. I play to progress that character to great strengths and obtain even more abilities. I do not play so my character is hampered by my own ability to aim. If offsets what an RPG is IMO.

Rydeson

Originally posted by Allein

When a game is being developed around Aim, nothing else is an option. Could Tab/Auto-Aim work as an alternative targeting mechanic in COD, BF4, CS:GO, TF2, LoL, Dota, Smite, Tera? Would the individual using Auto have any advantage over those using Aim? Be it PVE vs AI/Bots or PVP vs humans.  From a PvE perspective there is NO DIFFERENCE.. YOU however are looking at it from a competitive point of view.. again you show your hand that you look at EQN more as esport and ego building, then community PvE fun

Obviously we disagree at the basic level on this, so I won't continue to discuss Thank you

To think that using Auto-Aim and Aim in the same game has zero impact on what the devs are able to do is silly. It all depends again what your objective is.. Do you want a separation of aim skill players (ESPORT) or do you want a fun PvE game?

Now for the rest of the readers..   I think it would be foolish of SOE to ignore the option of allowing both types of combat targeting.. They claim they want to reach a wider audience, well, what better way then to give players choices..   It is factually clear the only difference between free aim and auto-lock is the "to hit" percentage..  Any other argument is strawman distractions.. 

I can understand that those that want Free aim will feel at a disadvantage because they are believing that auto-lock is a 100% guarantee hit... NOT..  That would be just a bad assumption.. Many games in the past and current games program a reasonable RNG miss factor.. YES, even with auto-lock, you might miss your target, just like Billy Bob Free Aim will miss his..  Based on averages, it is very easy to design combat that accommodates both styles.. 

But then if SOE's secret desire is to really make the game Esport competitive, I guess auto-lock might rain on their picnic