PS2 friendly fire works just fine , if you grief your side, you will be KOS by your entire faction very quickly , I have seen it done many times . So it gets controlled , it rarely happens anymore, but the friendly fire most certainly brings a very welcome layer of strategy and tactics .. rather than something like NW where you throw yourself recklessly into the masses and it's why zergs will operate the way they do ..
Teamwork is much higher priority in a friendly fire game like PS 2 . ..
UO also has friendly fire in Fel and must always be aware of.
I guess it is down to the games you have played, I was not convinced it worked well in FPS and we did not need it in DAOC. But they need to look at anything that might help make the combat more tactical.
Friendly fire works well In PS2 , if you have not tried it you should , really fun game
I don't want for me playing a game to involve me working as hard as the character in the game theoretically does. Sure, it would be more immersive or realistic or whatever. It would also mean that I was unable to physically play a lot of games at all. I can press a button to attack. Actually swinging a big weapon hard enough to hurt combat-hardened monsters, not so much.
I actually agree with that and I never saw the appeal of all the Wii input devices nor am I crazy about standing up and stumbling around to play VR games.
I want to do it from the comfort of my gaming chair with current or future devices that realistically simulate me swinging a sword by greatly amplifying my small, simple movements... a brain interface would be best
A brain interface that also transmits pain when that archer you didn't see behind you fires a poison arrow up your ass ?
if wanted to feel pain, I would just give my wife a baseball bat and tell her all the money I spent I games.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
In my opinion, we simply lack the input devices that would make action combat immersive to me. Once we have an input device where I want actually aim my swings properly, like being able to hamstring my target, as well as do thing like block with my shield whilst also riposting, then action combat will be immersive. A mouse / keyboard cant do this. A gamepad cant do this.
Most action combat MMOs already have all this...
In New World, since it's the latest released AAA game, you have passives which allow you to do all what you listed.
The bow knee shot passive makes leg shots cause a hamstring. I find the whole bow game play, and ranged in general, WAY more immersive than the "heat seeking" arrows you have in most tab target games. And if an opponent has a shield, you can also aim body parts not protected by that shield.
There are several passives in the sword/shield tree that are reactive to successful blocks.
Most of weapon trees have passives which react to successful dodging too.
Even with 6 skills total, 3 per weapon, combat is way more complicated than just spamming a button. The button spam will work against weak targets, of course, just like in all other games including tab target games, but versus strong foes, if you just stand there spamming, it will get you killed.
Passives do NOT make combat complicated , and in NW it barely makes the choice of passives even thought provoking as there very few and very limited and very obvious which choices should be made ... Now they have a decent start , with it but ALOT needs to be added to this system.
A mature player community needs to be fostered. This is the responsibility of the developer and who hosts the game.
Which games had a mature audience? They universally have similar conditions which includes smaller populations all playing on the same shard. Some even ensured that player accountability was bound to account and not anonymous characters.
Jumping from shard to shard for both pve and pvp? Players don't form communities and the "modern gamer" excuse is weak because the modern gamer was created by industry bulking everyone into one sales bracket and destroying genre gaming (and enforced by social media).
There is a harsh truth inside all of this: Not every player was meant to play every game. This is reality. We all have different interests. Pretending we are all the same is not only politically toxic, it is socially toxic, because you are ignoring interests. You can't preach diversity while stripping away variety and choice.
Games use to be like a house party. You invite those with similar, shared interests and intent to gather and have fun. The moment that party is crashed by outsiders, toxicity ensues. This is universal human psychology and will never change.
Toxicity exists, because the entire system right now is geared to create conflict. If community was fostered, you gain far better cooperation from that community and we get to see fun game systems. Until then, we get watered down games with protections targeting the lowest common denominator. We get dumb games.
You're basically saying that the way to foster a good community is to be a commercial failure with a small community. I'd bet that most game developers don't find that particularly appealing.
While developers do have a responsibility to foster a good community if their game relies on it, the way to do that is to make their game appeal to mature players and not to griefers. If griefing is boring because you can't really mess up other people that much, then the griefers will move on.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to make griefing impossible by making the game purely cooperative with absolutely no way to hurt other players. It does mean that you have to make doing things that hurt other players also hurt the griefers--as measured by what the griefers value, not by what normal players value.
Small community models made money before. They launched the entire industry.
You confuse maximum short term earnings with a sustained profit model balanced on the project. The later has been complete abandoned.
It baffles me that people complain about the direction the industry has gone, and then support the models implemented that destroyed choice in gaming.
This is just the natural evolution of trying to increase your market share.
No it isn't, and that is where your logic fails. That's venture capitalism, which is what ruined the gaming industry ... because it turned into a corporate industry constantly looking for growth for investment return to people who have NOTHING to do with the gamers or games.
The US was not built on this type of capitalism. It just turned into it. It's not healthy. It does not created variety of product. It's a corruption of the capitalism that built the US and every products you use today. Companies use to make a product for a niche market, and profited from providing a service driven by market needs.
There are still MANY businesses running this way and sustain themselves perfectly fine. They only need to have greater profits than costs. They are NOT bound to constant growth to feed investors. They listen react to the needs of their customers and budget accordingly.
I'm a small business owner and a manufacturer in Canada. I'm a job shop (I do have a few of my own products), I mainly make metal parts for other peoples products.
Business per se didn't push people in directions, people pushed and push business in directions.
My business is quite old now, been around for a few decades. I do the things I've always done, I try to satisfy and please my customers and my market, I do what I think I need to do to increase or maintain sales. Only time will tell if I made the right choices, the choices I do make come from my experience.
The thing about all of this and where I'm going is, that's its my company and I only have to satisfy me. Now if I have partners, investors or stockholders it complicates matters. I have to please more people than just me. Some of those might want to see results in certain areas which might force my hand in certain matters. The bigger things get, the more people get involved, the more this rings true.
I don't know, I'm trying to explain what I meant by the natural evolution but I don't think I'm doing a very good job
boom - mic drop.
Really? There is an argument here?
They're BOTH right. In Laserit's case, their small business has to satisfy them and only them (ans their customers). Djijin is talking about MMORPGs, which are made by massive companies owned and operated by stockholders, board members, and venture capitalists.
Djijin is also correct about "real capitalism" and "venture capitalism." There is a difference when one is ruled by customers and the other by market only.
Mic drop? C'mon man! lol
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
As far as "friendly Fire" goes, I harken back to EQ and CoX days. Crowd Control.
It wasn't friendly fire per se, but it could mess up a battle plan. AoE's messed up sleeping, mesmerized, stun enemies, which in turn (should have) made AoE attackers think first, before letting their attacks loose. It didn't always work, but the CC players would let them know of their displeasure with them
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
As far as "friendly Fire" goes, I harken back to EQ and CoX days. Crowd Control.
It wasn't friendly fire per se, but it could mess up a battle plan. AoE's messed up sleeping, mesmerized, stun enemies, which in turn (should have) made AoE attackers think first, before letting their attacks loose. It didn't always work, but the CC players would let them know of their displeasure with them
... usually after the enchanter was rezzed.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
As far as "friendly Fire" goes, I harken back to EQ and CoX days. Crowd Control.
It wasn't friendly fire per se, but it could mess up a battle plan. AoE's messed up sleeping, mesmerized, stun enemies, which in turn (should have) made AoE attackers think first, before letting their attacks loose. It didn't always work, but the CC players would let them know of their displeasure with them
... usually after the enchanter was rezzed.
or the bard.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ESO certainly is/has Tab Target.. You can Tab and shoot bow/spell and it will curve trajectory to target.. You can put 4 players standing in a line Tab Target the 3rd and that's who the arrow will hit passing right thru the first 2 targets and hitting the 3rd ignoring the 4th .. That is 100% Tab target...now of course it is possible to dodge an arrow. But that rarely rarely ever happens ...
Hmm, yes but it still seems a tad hybrid to me but heavily leaning to tab, we need one of those mash up words like sandpark which is not that helpful. How about tab-action?
I guess it is down to the games you have played, I was not convinced it worked well in FPS and we did not need it in DAOC. But they need to look at anything that might help make the combat more tactical.
Friendly fire works well In PS2 , if you have not tried it you should , really fun game
I am a vet of PS2, though it has been years since I played, it did work but MMOs don't have a setup like PS so still not sure, but like I said worth a go. The idea of having a "flying boat" pilot who collects his guild to go and fight in a RvR MMORPG is appealing.
Does anyone remember a game from a few decades ago titled Die by the Sword?
It had quite an interesting and challenging action combat system.
I think the problem with it was that it was a little too tough to master for the general gamer.
Try Kingdom Come Deliverance. I got it free from the Epic store and I had quite a blast playing it, the combat system is very interesting. Not a MMO though
I've played it, put about 40hrs into it. I found the combat in that game to be a little frustrating. I was never sure I knew what I was doing
They're BOTH right. In Laserit's case, their small business has to satisfy them and only them (ans their customers). Djijin is talking about MMORPGs, which are made by massive companies owned and operated by stockholders, board members, and venture capitalists.
Djijin is also correct about "real capitalism" and "venture capitalism." There is a difference when one is ruled by customers and the other by market only.
Mic drop? C'mon man! lol
People are people. There's this weird sort of "gamers against the world" mentality that in the old days, games were made by gamers but now evil corporations have zoomed in and taken over and we no longer have games made with passion blah blah blah.
Games are made by people who are passionate about games. they might not be the most professional at times, depending on the studio, but I have yet to meet a developer who was solely in it for a lazy paycheck.
It just so happens that making games costs a lot of money. And as small studios grow they have to think more like large studios. They get purchased by large corporations or become large corporations. And corporations have a lot of money. But they aren't going to part with that money unless they can get some return. Makes sense to me.
So they are developers, work with/hire, developers and hopefully a game is created that can make some money but still be fun.
And "yes" these game companies are made up of passionate gamers who eventually want to be successful, want to keep their doors open so they do what they can.
There's a certain level of back seat driving when it comes to some people on forums. They think they know better. And then when a few break off and actually make the game they want we get "why are they doing that? They should know better, why is it taking so long, they had ample opportunity to get this out the door."
I mean, the people who are making Mortal Online 2 are passionate about what they make but they can't win in the eyes of many. It's understandable, but they are the small underdog trying to make that game. Pantheon is the same way. Camelot Unchained the same way.
Or, we can get companies that grow and have to be large companies. They can eithe stay small with all the issues that has or they can grow and act like large companies with all the issues that has..
I'd like to point out there's not one game company now, that I can think of, that isn't in someone's doghouse for not being what that person thinks they should be.
We had CD Projekt Red but "oh well." Seems to me maybe being a game company is just hard no matter the size.
So yeah, massive companies make mmporpg's and they have rules they have to follow because stock holders. or they can be small companies and get crap from gamers because of issues.
It's the natural evolution of studios that want to do bigger and better games.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There are still plenty of no-budget indie developers that consist of one or a few people making things in their free time. If that's what you want, then you're free to go buy their games. If you think that their games aren't as good as the ones made on larger budgets, then that's why larger game developers do things the way that they do them.
There are still plenty of no-budget indie developers that consist of one or a few people making things in their free time. If that's what you want, then you're free to go buy their games. If you think that their games aren't as good as the ones made on larger budgets, then that's why larger game developers do things the way that they do them.
The other problem with those low budget games is that they rarely succeed.
A few years ago, I was following an indie MMO called "Dawntide".
The graphics where not that great but 3D, but the gameplay was really akin to a new UO and I loved it.
The game shut down without coming back because of the lack of money.
Yeah, I had high hopes for Dawntide because it was very much like UO. Money is a critical factor. If you can't pay to make a game full of interesting content, it's just not going to do well at all. The PvP games like Darkfall can get away with it because they are PvP focused and content comes via the players themselves, but a game that needs PvE content has to build all of that themselves.
The more jumping, dodging, and rolling around I have to do, the less I will like the combat.....
This is was something Eternal Crusade did well, was Shield and Armor value.
You could Block with your Shield, and that would take incoming damage from you were facing for as much as the shield could endure, IE: The Shield has a HP value, Once the opponent broke through the shield's HP's you could not use it till it regenerated.
DDO also has shield blocking, but it works different.
In any case, Shield Blocking is a feature I have not seen other games.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
The more jumping, dodging, and rolling around I have to do, the less I will like the combat.....
This is was something Eternal Crusade did well, was Shield and Armor value.
You could Block with your Shield, and that would take incoming damage from you were facing for as much as the shield could endure, IE: The Shield has a HP value, Once the opponent broke through the shield's HP's you could not use it till it regenerated.
DDO also has shield blocking, but it works different.
In any case, Shield Blocking is a feature I have not seen other games.
NW uses stamina, the harder the block, the more the stamina, when your stamina is gone you can’t block until you catch your breath ie regain stamina.
Really not much different when you think about it.
The more jumping, dodging, and rolling around I have to do, the less I will like the combat.....
This is was something Eternal Crusade did well, was Shield and Armor value.
You could Block with your Shield, and that would take incoming damage from you were facing for as much as the shield could endure, IE: The Shield has a HP value, Once the opponent broke through the shield's HP's you could not use it till it regenerated.
DDO also has shield blocking, but it works different.
In any case, Shield Blocking is a feature I have not seen other games.
NW uses stamina, the harder the block, the more the stamina, when your stamina is gone you can’t block until you catch your breath ie regain stamina.
Really not much different when you think about it.
Same in ESO. Most new MMOs with active blocking have some way to prevent perma-block.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
It seems to me that we get two dissatisfied groups of players whenever a action combat MMO launches. The first want to stick to proper tab targeting, sequences and so on, the second wants better action combat.
Old school tab combat has been refined over decades, it is tried and trusted and has been used to deliver combat with varying degrees of complexity, it favours strategy and teamwork. It does not work as well in large scale battles but it works better than an action combat zerg.
New school action combat looks better and is still finding its feet, but it has an albatross around its neck that will never go away. MMO action combat is not as good as what you find in co-op and FPS games, players do not seem to compare new action combat mmo's to previous ones, they compare them to the best there is. When you read negative comments about the action combat (in mostly recently New World), players do not say "compared to this MMO, the action combat was not as good", what they do is speak in general terms which shows that they are not comparing like with like.
So I am asking why bother? If players insist on comparing MMO action combat with games where is works far better will they ever find it satisfying? Several years have past since we first saw action combat in MMOs and it does not seem to have significantly advanced, I presume for the technical issues of being a Massively Multiplayer. If MMOs can't get over that hurdle, action combat will always seem a poor mans choice and MMOs might as well stick to tab targeting.
Personally that's not where I want MMOs to be, I had always hoped we would see some fusion of the two styles or action combat would develop complexity and strategy. But it looks stuck where it is now and I don't see that changing.
I believe the strategy and teamwork you feel tab-target provides is more due to the constraint of characters to narrow roles that often comes along with them. If your character can effectively only perform one role you are dependent on others to provide the rest regardless of combat system.
People are comparing like to like, just not on the criterion of your preference. The like being compared is MMORPG rather than the style of combat they have.
The reason to have action based combat in MMORPGs is though such may work better in other genres, which is itself contestable, those other genres aren't MMORPGs and will do little to nothing for those looking for action combat in that context.
Action combat varies substantially between games. Tab-targeting is quite similar. When your targeting is confined to one button there is only so much that can be done with it.
One action MMORPG I play allows players to angle their melee attacks and position their shields, with those choices affecting combat resolution. The game also considers the reach of weapons and the consequence of opponents getting closer than their minimal range of effective use. I have not seen such sophistication in any tab-target game. Perhaps such exists and I am simply unaware.
Though action combat of that detail is atypical I think it's fair to say the development of it isn't as limited as you seem to believe.
It seems to me that we get two dissatisfied groups of players whenever a action combat MMO launches. The first want to stick to proper tab targeting, sequences and so on, the second wants better action combat.
Old school tab combat has been refined over decades, it is tried and trusted and has been used to deliver combat with varying degrees of complexity, it favours strategy and teamwork. It does not work as well in large scale battles but it works better than an action combat zerg.
New school action combat looks better and is still finding its feet, but it has an albatross around its neck that will never go away. MMO action combat is not as good as what you find in co-op and FPS games, players do not seem to compare new action combat mmo's to previous ones, they compare them to the best there is. When you read negative comments about the action combat (in mostly recently New World), players do not say "compared to this MMO, the action combat was not as good", what they do is speak in general terms which shows that they are not comparing like with like.
So I am asking why bother? If players insist on comparing MMO action combat with games where is works far better will they ever find it satisfying? Several years have past since we first saw action combat in MMOs and it does not seem to have significantly advanced, I presume for the technical issues of being a Massively Multiplayer. If MMOs can't get over that hurdle, action combat will always seem a poor mans choice and MMOs might as well stick to tab targeting.
Personally that's not where I want MMOs to be, I had always hoped we would see some fusion of the two styles or action combat would develop complexity and strategy. But it looks stuck where it is now and I don't see that changing.
I believe the strategy and teamwork you feel tab-target provides is more due to the constraint of characters to narrow roles that often comes along with them. If your character can effectively only perform one role you are dependent on others to provide the rest regardless of combat system.
People are comparing like to like, just not on the criterion of your preference. The like being compared is MMORPG rather than the style of combat they have.
The reason to have action based combat in MMORPGs is though such may work better in other genres, which is itself contestable, those other genres aren't MMORPGs and will do little to nothing for those looking for action combat in that context.
Action combat varies substantially between games. Tab-targeting is quite similar. When your targeting is confined to one button there is only so much that can be done with it.
One action MMORPG I play allows players to angle their melee attacks and position their shields, with those choices affecting combat resolution. The game also considers the reach of weapons and the consequence of opponents getting closer than their minimal range of effective use. I have not seen such sophistication in any tab-target game. Perhaps such exists and I am simply unaware.
Though action combat of that detail is atypical I think it's fair to say the development of it isn't as limited as you seem to believe.
Well i do think action combat is far better in other genres, I don't think I need to defend that to be honest it is pretty obvious. I would think it quite normal that action combat works better in some MMOs than others and you are right, tab combat is not consistently good. Maybe you are pointing a way forward for action combat in MMOs, what one where you thinking of?
But I still think we may already be seeing where action combat is always going to be in the future, I am not sure there is any desire on developers part to make it better or at least that's what each subsequent release seems to suggest.
It seems to me that we get two dissatisfied groups of players whenever a action combat MMO launches. The first want to stick to proper tab targeting, sequences and so on, the second wants better action combat.
Old school tab combat has been refined over decades, it is tried and trusted and has been used to deliver combat with varying degrees of complexity, it favours strategy and teamwork. It does not work as well in large scale battles but it works better than an action combat zerg.
New school action combat looks better and is still finding its feet, but it has an albatross around its neck that will never go away. MMO action combat is not as good as what you find in co-op and FPS games, players do not seem to compare new action combat mmo's to previous ones, they compare them to the best there is. When you read negative comments about the action combat (in mostly recently New World), players do not say "compared to this MMO, the action combat was not as good", what they do is speak in general terms which shows that they are not comparing like with like.
So I am asking why bother? If players insist on comparing MMO action combat with games where is works far better will they ever find it satisfying? Several years have past since we first saw action combat in MMOs and it does not seem to have significantly advanced, I presume for the technical issues of being a Massively Multiplayer. If MMOs can't get over that hurdle, action combat will always seem a poor mans choice and MMOs might as well stick to tab targeting.
Personally that's not where I want MMOs to be, I had always hoped we would see some fusion of the two styles or action combat would develop complexity and strategy. But it looks stuck where it is now and I don't see that changing.
I believe the strategy and teamwork you feel tab-target provides is more due to the constraint of characters to narrow roles that often comes along with them. If your character can effectively only perform one role you are dependent on others to provide the rest regardless of combat system.
People are comparing like to like, just not on the criterion of your preference. The like being compared is MMORPG rather than the style of combat they have.
The reason to have action based combat in MMORPGs is though such may work better in other genres, which is itself contestable, those other genres aren't MMORPGs and will do little to nothing for those looking for action combat in that context.
Action combat varies substantially between games. Tab-targeting is quite similar. When your targeting is confined to one button there is only so much that can be done with it.
One action MMORPG I play allows players to angle their melee attacks and position their shields, with those choices affecting combat resolution. The game also considers the reach of weapons and the consequence of opponents getting closer than their minimal range of effective use. I have not seen such sophistication in any tab-target game. Perhaps such exists and I am simply unaware.
Though action combat of that detail is atypical I think it's fair to say the development of it isn't as limited as you seem to believe.
Well i do think action combat is far better in other genres, I don't think I need to defend that to be honest it is pretty obvious. I would think it quite normal that action combat works better in some MMOs than others and you are right, tab combat is not consistently good. Maybe you are pointing a way forward for action combat in MMOs, what one where you thinking of?
But I still think we may already be seeing where action combat is always going to be in the future, I am not sure there is any desire on developers part to make it better or at least that's what each subsequent release seems to suggest.
I expect one is likely to find better action combat in other genres, but if one is looking for action combat in an MMORPG how good it is otherwise isn't going to be their focus. Rather, it will be how good of an action combat system do the games they are considering have.
The system I described exists in Gloria Victis, a primarily PvP MMORPG in early access (for quite some time now.) One may be inclined to dismiss it based on that alone, but development is quite active compared to many such titles.
What would likely prevent use in most MMORPGs is that the system is best suited to combat between humans and the like. Enemies in most MMORPGs are typically far more diverse making a more abstract system a better fit probably.
I agree we are likely already where action combat is going and it is a path of diversity. Those that I have played were quite different one to the other in how the active elements were implemented. However, they also shared a tendency to have less concurrent abilities slotted to hot bars than most tab-target games I've played.
Though smaller hot bars sound confining this is somewhat countered by differences in how slotted abilities tend to work between action and tab-target games. One game I played came up with a further way to mitigate this constraint that I personally found quite clever and effective. I'm getting a bit tired though so further describing that would probably be best delayed until I have some rest. I can then later append it to this post or make another devoted to that purpose if either interests you.
I expect one is likely to find better action combat in other genres, but if one is looking for action combat in an MMORPG how good it is otherwise isn't going to be their focus. Rather, it will be how good of an action combat system do the games they are considering have.
The system I described exists in Gloria Victis, a primarily PvP MMORPG in early access (for quite some time now.) One may be inclined to dismiss it based on that alone, but development is quite active compared to many such titles.
What would likely prevent use in most MMORPGs is that the system is best suited to combat between humans and the like. Enemies in most MMORPGs are typically far more diverse making a more abstract system a better fit probably.
I agree we are likely already where action combat is going and it is a path of diversity. Those that I have played were quite different one to the other in how the active elements were implemented. However, they also shared a tendency to have less concurrent abilities slotted to hot bars than most tab-target games I've played.
Though smaller hot bars sound confining this is somewhat countered by differences in how slotted abilities tend to work between action and tab-target games. One game I played came up with a further way to mitigate this constraint that I personally found quite clever and effective. I'm getting a bit tired though so further describing that would probably be best delayed until I have some rest. I can then later append it to this post or make another devoted to that purpose if either interests you.
Post at your own pace, either here or in your own if you think it will get the interest. I don't think any of us are nailed to the mast when it comes to hotbars, we just want more complexity than is typical for action combat now. I think players realise that what created complexity in tab may not work well in some styles of action combat, we just want more than a zerg really.
I see you point about the range of mobs we get in MMOs, that is more than most action games have to tailor to. It rather restricts MMOs when it comes to animations but not hotbars, defined roles, friendly fire and so on.
I never dismiss games in EA, but I don't play them until launch, GV does give a little hope of where some action combat MMOs might go.
As someone that plays mmorpg as heavy support (healer) primarily for group and raid content I find that action combat has very little to offer. Most of them just cut the role straight away, others simplify down the healing part since its hard to implement good healing in action combat games.
The only game that actually came close to things was tera online, but that was due to the constraits of healing in action combat games than it was about actual conscious decisions i made as a player. With a tab target interface healing would have been ridiculously simplistic.
As someone that bashed blizzards decision to make classic wow and repeatedly said it would just be a nostalgia trip, tbc classic proved how wrong I was.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
The more jumping, dodging, and rolling around I have to do, the less I will like the combat.....
This is was something Eternal Crusade did well, was Shield and Armor value.
You could Block with your Shield, and that would take incoming damage from you were facing for as much as the shield could endure, IE: The Shield has a HP value, Once the opponent broke through the shield's HP's you could not use it till it regenerated.
DDO also has shield blocking, but it works different.
In any case, Shield Blocking is a feature I have not seen other games.
NW uses stamina, the harder the block, the more the stamina, when your stamina is gone you can’t block until you catch your breath ie regain stamina.
Really not much different when you think about it.
Same in ESO. Most new MMOs with active blocking have some way to prevent perma-block.
In DDO you can in fact Perma-Block, but, Blocking is a DR, not a complete stop of damage. What this means, is that if you have your shield up, you can stop a % of the damage, and even a flat amount, like case in point, you can have a 50% Dr, and a 5/Epic DR.
In short, it stops 50% of all Physical Damage (Not so much if someone shoots a fireball at you), and has a 5/Epic DR, against anything other then a epic weapon or mob.
However, in a blocking stance, like real life, you can't just walk, you have to take momentary steps, or you can tumble.
Ideally, I never liked the idea of having a shield I could not use as a shield.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I expect one is likely to find better action combat in other genres, but if one is looking for action combat in an MMORPG how good it is otherwise isn't going to be their focus. Rather, it will be how good of an action combat system do the games they are considering have.
The system I described exists in Gloria Victis, a primarily PvP MMORPG in early access (for quite some time now.) One may be inclined to dismiss it based on that alone, but development is quite active compared to many such titles.
What would likely prevent use in most MMORPGs is that the system is best suited to combat between humans and the like. Enemies in most MMORPGs are typically far more diverse making a more abstract system a better fit probably.
I agree we are likely already where action combat is going and it is a path of diversity. Those that I have played were quite different one to the other in how the active elements were implemented. However, they also shared a tendency to have less concurrent abilities slotted to hot bars than most tab-target games I've played.
Though smaller hot bars sound confining this is somewhat countered by differences in how slotted abilities tend to work between action and tab-target games. One game I played came up with a further way to mitigate this constraint that I personally found quite clever and effective. I'm getting a bit tired though so further describing that would probably be best delayed until I have some rest. I can then later append it to this post or make another devoted to that purpose if either interests you.
Post at your own pace, either here or in your own if you think it will get the interest. I don't think any of us are nailed to the mast when it comes to hotbars, we just want more complexity than is typical for action combat now. I think players realise that what created complexity in tab may not work well in some styles of action combat, we just want more than a zerg really.
I see you point about the range of mobs we get in MMOs, that is more than most action games have to tailor to. It rather restricts MMOs when it comes to animations but not hotbars, defined roles, friendly fire and so on.
I never dismiss games in EA, but I don't play them until launch, GV does give a little hope of where some action combat MMOs might go.
The game with what I thought an interesting approach is DCUO. What they did is remove weapons abilities from it, which tend to eat up at least some spots in many games. On PC, every attack a weapon could make was tied to the left and right mouse buttons. To activate the attacks one had to do a series of clicks and holds using one or both buttons in the proper sequence. Each weapon was different in this regard. Though it may sound cumbersome it was quite fast and smooth.
They later expanded this system into some of the power sets, to extend the use of powers beyond what could be slotted. This was most notable were Green and Yellow Lanterns, at least when I played last. They were able to make more constructs than would fit on their power bar by using a system similar to accessing different weapon attacks.
It was definitely one of the most dynamic games I've played, and certainly the most of any superhero MMORPG to date. Too much action for many based on some of the opinions I've seen expressed about the game.
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I am a vet of PS2, though it has been years since I played, it did work but MMOs don't have a setup like PS so still not sure, but like I said worth a go. The idea of having a "flying boat" pilot who collects his guild to go and fight in a RvR MMORPG is appealing.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
People are people. There's this weird sort of "gamers against the world" mentality that in the old days, games were made by gamers but now evil corporations have zoomed in and taken over and we no longer have games made with passion blah blah blah.
Games are made by people who are passionate about games. they might not be the most professional at times, depending on the studio, but I have yet to meet a developer who was solely in it for a lazy paycheck.
It just so happens that making games costs a lot of money. And as small studios grow they have to think more like large studios. They get purchased by large corporations or become large corporations. And corporations have a lot of money. But they aren't going to part with that money unless they can get some return. Makes sense to me.
So they are developers, work with/hire, developers and hopefully a game is created that can make some money but still be fun.
And "yes" these game companies are made up of passionate gamers who eventually want to be successful, want to keep their doors open so they do what they can.
There's a certain level of back seat driving when it comes to some people on forums. They think they know better. And then when a few break off and actually make the game they want we get "why are they doing that? They should know better, why is it taking so long, they had ample opportunity to get this out the door."
I mean, the people who are making Mortal Online 2 are passionate about what they make but they can't win in the eyes of many. It's understandable, but they are the small underdog trying to make that game. Pantheon is the same way. Camelot Unchained the same way.
Or, we can get companies that grow and have to be large companies. They can eithe stay small with all the issues that has or they can grow and act like large companies with all the issues that has..
I'd like to point out there's not one game company now, that I can think of, that isn't in someone's doghouse for not being what that person thinks they should be.
We had CD Projekt Red but "oh well." Seems to me maybe being a game company is just hard no matter the size.
So yeah, massive companies make mmporpg's and they have rules they have to follow because stock holders. or they can be small companies and get crap from gamers because of issues.
It's the natural evolution of studios that want to do bigger and better games.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Money is a critical factor. If you can't pay to make a game full of interesting content, it's just not going to do well at all.
The PvP games like Darkfall can get away with it because they are PvP focused and content comes via the players themselves, but a game that needs PvE content has to build all of that themselves.
Edit to add: I tested both games. Just sayin'.
Once upon a time....
You could Block with your Shield, and that would take incoming damage from you were facing for as much as the shield could endure, IE: The Shield has a HP value, Once the opponent broke through the shield's HP's you could not use it till it regenerated.
DDO also has shield blocking, but it works different.
In any case, Shield Blocking is a feature I have not seen other games.
Really not much different when you think about it.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
People are comparing like to like, just not on the criterion of your preference. The like being compared is MMORPG rather than the style of combat they have.
The reason to have action based combat in MMORPGs is though such may work better in other genres, which is itself contestable, those other genres aren't MMORPGs and will do little to nothing for those looking for action combat in that context.
Action combat varies substantially between games. Tab-targeting is quite similar. When your targeting is confined to one button there is only so much that can be done with it.
One action MMORPG I play allows players to angle their melee attacks and position their shields, with those choices affecting combat resolution. The game also considers the reach of weapons and the consequence of opponents getting closer than their minimal range of effective use. I have not seen such sophistication in any tab-target game. Perhaps such exists and I am simply unaware.
Though action combat of that detail is atypical I think it's fair to say the development of it isn't as limited as you seem to believe.
But I still think we may already be seeing where action combat is always going to be in the future, I am not sure there is any desire on developers part to make it better or at least that's what each subsequent release seems to suggest.
What would likely prevent use in most MMORPGs is that the system is best suited to combat between humans and the like. Enemies in most MMORPGs are typically far more diverse making a more abstract system a better fit probably.
I agree we are likely already where action combat is going and it is a path of diversity. Those that I have played were quite different one to the other in how the active elements were implemented. However, they also shared a tendency to have less concurrent abilities slotted to hot bars than most tab-target games I've played.
Though smaller hot bars sound confining this is somewhat countered by differences in how slotted abilities tend to work between action and tab-target games. One game I played came up with a further way to mitigate this constraint that I personally found quite clever and effective. I'm getting a bit tired though so further describing that would probably be best delayed until I have some rest. I can then later append it to this post or make another devoted to that purpose if either interests you.
I see you point about the range of mobs we get in MMOs, that is more than most action games have to tailor to. It rather restricts MMOs when it comes to animations but not hotbars, defined roles, friendly fire and so on.
I never dismiss games in EA, but I don't play them until launch, GV does give a little hope of where some action combat MMOs might go.
/thread
The only game that actually came close to things was tera online, but that was due to the constraits of healing in action combat games than it was about actual conscious decisions i made as a player. With a tab target interface healing would have been ridiculously simplistic.
As someone that bashed blizzards decision to make classic wow and repeatedly said it would just be a nostalgia trip, tbc classic proved how wrong I was.
In short, it stops 50% of all Physical Damage (Not so much if someone shoots a fireball at you), and has a 5/Epic DR, against anything other then a epic weapon or mob.
However, in a blocking stance, like real life, you can't just walk, you have to take momentary steps, or you can tumble.
Ideally, I never liked the idea of having a shield I could not use as a shield.
The game with what I thought an interesting approach is DCUO. What they did is remove weapons abilities from it, which tend to eat up at least some spots in many games. On PC, every attack a weapon could make was tied to the left and right mouse buttons. To activate the attacks one had to do a series of clicks and holds using one or both buttons in the proper sequence. Each weapon was different in this regard. Though it may sound cumbersome it was quite fast and smooth.
They later expanded this system into some of the power sets, to extend the use of powers beyond what could be slotted. This was most notable were Green and Yellow Lanterns, at least when I played last. They were able to make more constructs than would fit on their power bar by using a system similar to accessing different weapon attacks.
It was definitely one of the most dynamic games I've played, and certainly the most of any superhero MMORPG to date. Too much action for many based on some of the opinions I've seen expressed about the game.