Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Questions about... Targeting Mechanics, Equipped Items, and Kill Trading
reb007
Member UncommonPosts: 613
Class mechanics depend on targeting mechanics
Arguably the most intriguing healing class of any MMORPG I have played is the Blood Mage from Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. If it weren't for the Primary and Secondary targeting mechanics in Vanguard, then the Blood Mage wouldn't have been the same.
Warhammer Online had similar targeting mechanics with Offensive and Defensive targets. As a Warrior Priest, I could attack my offensive target, while my defensive target received buffs/heals from my attacks.
I'm not sure what the intention is for CU's targeting mechanics, but I'd love to see an Offensive and Defensive target system. It really opens up a whole new range of class mechanics that just couldn't be accomplished with the standard Single Target and Target of Target mechanics.
Any news on targeting mechanics in CU?
Or should we expect aim-based combat instead of lock-on targeting combat?
Equipped item visibility
I remember in DAoC, I could see every equipped weapon at all times. I could have 2 one-handed weapons equipped, and a two-hander equipped at the same time. All three of those weapons would be visible on my character. That was just one of the many small things I liked about DAoC.
In other games, I hate it when I have several items equipped, but they're invisible until I use them or enter combat. There was a recent game where your shield was invisible until you used a block skill or attacked with your main-hand weapon. Literally, your shield would magically appear on your arm as soon as you attacked or blocked. Certainly not game-breaking, but it just added to my frustration I was already experiencing with that particular game.
Anyone know what we can expect for equipped item visibility in CU?
Kill Trading
In my most humble opinion, this is the bane of PvP in MMOs. Kill trading occurs when two or more opposing teams find it more convenient to "trade kills" rather than play the game as it was intended. Usually this occurs because there is a substantial amount of reputation, experience, or resource grind needed to achieve a specific goal.
Apparently this happened in SWTOR on Illum. I can't speak for that, because I never made it to Illum. However, I did experience this a few days ago in WAR (I returned recently for the free 14 days re-enlistment). Some higher level players arranged a Kill Trading session with the enemy faction. All the players from both factions were standing in a circle in a RvR lake, and they took turns killing each other. I imagine they were doing this because it's easier than actually fighting to gain renown or experience.
I was disgusted when I saw this in WAR. For a game focused on PvP, it's very discouraging when this happens.
Has Mark commented on how he intends to discourage players from Kill Trading?
Comments
Nothing has been announced about mechanics (as far as I know).
Keep checking the blogs and journals.
It's still very early.
Edit: spelling
I, personally, am a fan of simple targeting mechanics like WoW has, without all of the /target macros and stuff. If I want to cast a spell on something, I target it and cast the spell. I wouldn't be objected to other ideas or implementations, but I think this would be ideal for me.
I am right there with you in being able to see what the enemy player has equipped. I am not a fan of cosmetic armors that hide the armor that actually provides your stats, like transmogging in WoW, or that cosmetic armor slot in EQ2. If I am wielding a rusty shovel, I want to see that I am wielding a rusty shovel.
Not really sure what to say about kill trading. It sucks that it happens. It seems like NPCs will be pretty rare, so hopefully there is no way or reason for things like that to happen in this game.
Kill trading doesn't need a single NPC to happen. It happens if there is something to gain from killing the enemy and nothing to lose by being killed by the enemy. I.e. if you put a big enough death penalty into the game, kill trading will not exist.
After rereading what I wrote, I'm not really sure why I excluded anything about kill trading actual players. My bad. So to kind of amend my other post, I am pretty happy with the fact that Mark has said, more than once, that there won't be death without meaningful consequnces. It's a foundational principle (#2). So at the very least, it's something they're aware of and will build the system around.
The Offensive and Defensive targeting system is almost identical to WoW's Single target system in every way. The only difference: instead of having a single Target frame, you have two seperate target frames (Offensive frame and Defensive frame).
You don't have to do anything special or learn completely new mechanics. You just select a target like you would in WoW, and the game automatically checks if the target is friend or foe. If it's a friend, they become your Defensive target, if it's a foe, they become your Offensive target.
Casting spells or using abilities works just like in WoW. If you have a Defensive target and you cast a heal, then the Defensive target gets healed. If you have an Offensive target and you cast a damage spell, then the Offensive target takes damage.
Since you can have both Offensive and Defensive targets selected at the same time, you can cast a single spell that would steal health from your offensive target, and automatically give it to your defensive target. It's really as simple as that.On the equipped item visibility, I don't have any issues with cosmetic items. That's not really what I was getting at. It's difficult to explain how it works in DAOC without seeing it in action. What I was getting at is: if I have a bow equipped, I want to see it at all times. If I have a bow and a dagger equipped, I want to see the bow on my back and the dagger hanging from my belt.
Kill Trading is another difficult one to understand without experiencing it or watching others do it.
I suppose I should have worded the OP differently. I was trying to provoke discussion about these topics, rather than ask for definitive answers.
People will never understand simple is better, the complications come naturally don't over complicate abilities and mechanics
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
Offensive / Defensive targetting has its place for sure in the MMO genre. However the way DAoC mechanics and class composition worked, it didn't make sense. I assume if Mark decides to go the same route it won't work in CU either. When I talk of class composition I mean the spells itself. Dedicated healers like the Cleric-players really do enjoy the focused style healing gameplay rather than have heal as a 'defensive' component of their offensive or other spells.
I personally enjoyed playing the clerics and other healer archtypes in DAoC even though it was simple target healing. The decision-making on which heal ability to use at what time based on cast times, throwing in stuns, instas and other things made it dynamic enough to be quite enjoyable.
I'm pretty sure we'd be able to see the armor/weapons equipped as we did in DAoC, no reason I can think of to not have them except for lag/fps issues.
I think Kill Trading is a problem in every PvP game, but to different extents in each game. CU will definitely have a relatively high death consequence but if there are classes that can ressurect then that means nothing. As long as the RvR mechanics are built properly, the extent to which this would happen would be quite minimal.
Besides, as the community of the game we can always hunt them down and wipe them out while they do it! Make a guild called Knights of the Order and have under-cover soldiers snooping them out and organizing raids! ;-) This would only work in games like this with death consquences. Fun fun.
I think the kill trading problem is a problem in using simple kills as the metric. Up the RVR to more than just killing.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Just make it if the same player kills the same player within a certain amount of time they get zero RP. Keeping the normal the longer someone stays alive the more they are worth. Even if you had a couple people trading back and forth it probably would not be worth the effort.
I do agree RvR should be more than just killing. The fabled gank squads for DAoC came to be because they were very good at farming RP. They very rarely ever took over keeps. I think the keeps should have different stages and each stage should grant experience whened attacked or defended. Damage to keep doors should grant points, as should repairing. Once the door is knocked down attacksers nearby should get a boost. Likewise, if the door is repaired to 100% all defenders should get points. Continue through the entire process of capture as opposed to just giving a bonus when teh capture is complete. Makes it easier to balance attacking and defending. Have enough NPCs around to avoid "Capture Trading" or damage/repair trading.
A couple doors, to break down and repair and a couple different NPC leaders to kill/rez, points to capture or uncapture, there can be nearly endless options. At least when I played DAoC very rarely did people really care about taking keeps unless there was going to be a Relic Raid.
It get the RVR moving in the right direction. It won't stop keep trading, but if you make keep trading a push (no net gain) then no advantage. There needs to be something to win and the gain should not be permanent (because you only need to win once).
Then we talk about realm ranks, which I feel the game should have, and benefits. Long ago I got this idea from the Erol Flynn Robin Hood movie. You got the small band out pacing the government. They seem to be able to hit and run away with ease. So I came up with this idea for a 3 realm game.
Top Realm get base movement in RVR zones. Middle Realm gets double movement speed in RVR zones. Bottom Realm gets quadruple movement in RVR zones. I think it can add some interesting challenges to the Top Realm IF zones are designed to make a movement difference interesting.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
Make it so kills don't count and taking keeps is the main metric. Speed won't help you take a castle directly.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Have you ever played a game with Offensive and Defensive targeting?
Yea I understand where you're coming from. The idea wouldn't be to make ALL spells do damage and heal, rather to open up the possiblity to have those types of spells.
With the standard single-target mechanics, it's just not possible (unless you use a system like the Defiler's buffs from Rift, which is not nearly as good as Offensive/Defensive targeting). By implementing Offensive and Defensive target mechanics, the developers have the option to create spells that do more than just heal or deal damage exclusively.
You could have a cleric whose spells do massive heals, and no damage. Then you could have a blood mage type healer whose spells deal low damage, and moderate heals.
It really boils down to implementing a system which provides more freedom and possiblities. The traditional single-target mechanics are severely limiting compared to offensive/defensive target mechanics.
I think the source of the problem is having a progression-based goal which can only be achieved with a substantial amount of grind in PVP (like RR100).
If the grind is too intense, then players will resort to cheap tricks and kill trading in order to surpass the grind.
Either the grind needs to be reduced, or the PVP activities need to be altered in a way that can't be exploited. You might be on the right track with assigning points based on stages of keep capture.
I see where you're going with that, but like Niix_Ozek said, your example might be a bit OP.
I agree that the dominant team should get some form of handicap, or the opposing teams should get some form of buff. But I'm not sure if stat boosts or speed boosts is the way to go.
Maybe by owning a keep on a map, your faction will become stretched thin in some way. Your faction would have to maintain a certain amount of resources in order to hold a keep. The more keeps your faction owns, the harder you have to work in order to hold the keeps. This sounds a lot like GW2's WvWvW, but there has to be a better way to do it.