Originally posted by Rendso Was looking forward to this game. Now, not so much. This action combat is for consoles, and it's trash.
Your opinion is not the truth. Please consider changing your post to reflect you own opinion instead of belittling personal preferences of others. Action is not trash, and does not belong only on consoles.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
All this talk about action combat replacing tab target combat. I just had a conversation with my eldest daughter who'd grown up playing Wizard101. I never really got into that game, but both my kids play it actively and love it. My daughter had recently switched to playing WoW a couple months prior to WoD and leveled up a hunter. Spent most of that time in PVP and LFR and was respectably geared by the time WoD dropped. She preceded to level to 100 and quit soon after. She's back to playing Wizard101.
I asked her why, Isn't the Turn Based Combat annoying? She said, it wasn't and that it was better than WoW's because there is a much deeper strategy that requires you to really think moves ahead, something WoW (and action combat) doesn't.
I'll never really enjoy that kind of combat, but it did make me think about it and I can see it being more cerebral.
nothing what you mentionned can be soley related to either one - its a matter of implementation...action combat can be very strategic or it can be button mashing...same goes for tab target - it can be good or it can be totally boring such as wow (sorry but wow is boring, most people watch tv while they play)
i like action combat because it gives me the feel that i have a) more control over my character and over the outcome of the fight and b) more impact - and thats what i like, i need to enjoy the animation, i need to feel the impact of my hits - if i dont get that im not gonna enjoy the combat... thats why i think dragon age inquisition does a pretty good job with the impact - at least for warrior classes...(even if its not an mmo but could be one the way the system is set up)
No, Action Combat is not strategic. No matter how you implement it. Turn Based Combat is cerebral and Action Combat is visceral. That's the way it works.
Why they appeal and to who is obviously very different. But so is how they operate.
All this talk about action combat replacing tab target combat. I just had a conversation with my eldest daughter who'd grown up playing Wizard101. I never really got into that game, but both my kids play it actively and love it. My daughter had recently switched to playing WoW a couple months prior to WoD and leveled up a hunter. Spent most of that time in PVP and LFR and was respectably geared by the time WoD dropped. She preceded to level to 100 and quit soon after. She's back to playing Wizard101.
I asked her why, Isn't the Turn Based Combat annoying? She said, it wasn't and that it was better than WoW's because there is a much deeper strategy that requires you to really think moves ahead, something WoW (and action combat) doesn't.
I'll never really enjoy that kind of combat, but it did make me think about it and I can see it being more cerebral.
nothing what you mentionned can be soley related to either one - its a matter of implementation...action combat can be very strategic or it can be button mashing...same goes for tab target - it can be good or it can be totally boring such as wow (sorry but wow is boring, most people watch tv while they play)
i like action combat because it gives me the feel that i have a) more control over my character and over the outcome of the fight and b) more impact - and thats what i like, i need to enjoy the animation, i need to feel the impact of my hits - if i dont get that im not gonna enjoy the combat... thats why i think dragon age inquisition does a pretty good job with the impact - at least for warrior classes...(even if its not an mmo but could be one the way the system is set up)
No, Action Combat is not strategic. No matter how you implement it. Turn Based Combat is cerebral and Action Combat is visceral. That's the way it works.
Why they appeal and to who is obviously very different. But so is how they operate.
What? Action combat isn't strategic? You mean in general or how they've been implemented in MMOs? That statement reads so ignorant (wish to use a more colorful word here).
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I disagree. Whether a combat system is strategic, cerebral, visceral, etc. isn't solely determined by its targeting system. It's how the game is designed for that system that determines it. In a turn based system you may have more time to think but that doesn't mean having to think to a greater degree.
No, Action Combat is not strategic. No matter how you implement it. Turn Based Combat is cerebral and Action Combat is visceral. That's the way it works.
Why they appeal and to who is obviously very different. But so is how they operate.
So taking one example of an action game that people like to hate on, there is no strategy or thought involved in a GW2 PVP match? Simply hitting buttons or going by what the gut says will win the day? Tic Tac Toe requires more strat or cerebral power?
If a game requires no strategy, it is simply a poorly designed game. No matter if it is action or turn based. A well designed action game should require the same amount of whatever as turned based, plus more since you don't have X amount of time to make decisions. You are required to fire off more actions quicker. Frequency doesn't completely remove quality.
Speed Chess vs regular Chess for example. Played different, but not a huge difference if you really break it down. Some people might not be able to think several moves a head, but I'm assuming that's what separates the poor-average to the above and beyond.
I won't deny that much of the AI or PVE side of games can be pretty mindless, but going into the PVP vs intelligent opponents requires strat and thinking multiple steps ahead along with being able to adapt on the fly. Maybe those that don't like or can't handle action and or PVP types of combat, aren't able to make this quick decisions and jump to the conclusion that those that do are just button mashing. Because there's no way it could require anything of substance.
Originally posted by Rendso Was looking forward to this game. Now, not so much. This action combat is for consoles, and it's trash.
Your opinion is not the truth. Please consider changing your post to reflect you own opinion instead of belittling personal preferences of others. Action is not trash, and does not belong only on consoles.
It is obviously my opinion. You'd have to be pretty thick to need a clarification on that.
No, Action Combat is not strategic. No matter how you implement it. Turn Based Combat is cerebral and Action Combat is visceral. That's the way it works.
Why they appeal and to who is obviously very different. But so is how they operate.
So taking one example of an action game that people like to hate on, there is no strategy or thought involved in a GW2 PVP match? Simply hitting buttons or going by what the gut says will win the day? Tic Tac Toe requires more strat or cerebral power?
If a game requires no strategy, it is simply a poorly designed game. No matter if it is action or turn based. A well designed action game should require the same amount of whatever as turned based, plus more since you don't have X amount of time to make decisions. You are required to fire off more actions quicker. Frequency doesn't completely remove quality.
Speed Chess vs regular Chess for example. Played different, but not a huge difference if you really break it down. Some people might not be able to think several moves a head, but I'm assuming that's what separates the poor-average to the above and beyond.
I won't deny that much of the AI or PVE side of games can be pretty mindless, but going into the PVP vs intelligent opponents requires strat and thinking multiple steps ahead along with being able to adapt on the fly. Maybe those that don't like or can't handle action and or PVP types of combat, aren't able to make this quick decisions and jump to the conclusion that those that do are just button mashing. Because there's no way it could require anything of substance.
You ask about strategy in GW2 as if it was something so obvious. I played GW2 quite a bit and I liked it's combat for what it was, but it certainly was not strategic. Not in the way I made my example by comparing to Turn Based. Sorry, but in that regard, GW2 is where the majority of the participants follow the zerg spamming DPS against walls and doors but in actual zerv v zerg combat, only spam their AOE if not autoattack mindlessly hoping they score enough hits on someone who might eventually die to get credit? Rinse and repeat. And how does this video look any different? Your argument may hold water if we were talking about all the realms of possibilities, but what about Landmark?
I disagree. Whether a combat system is strategic, cerebral, visceral, etc. isn't solely determined by its targeting system. It's how the game is designed for that system that determines it. In a turn based system you may have more time to think but that doesn't mean having to think to a greater degree.
this
but the more dynamic a game is the more challenging good teamwork and strategic decision making is - its just harder and requires more team coordination (look at team fps etc.)... thats what makes it exciting
You ask about strategy in GW2 as if it was something so obvious. I played GW2 quite a bit and I liked it's combat for what it was, but it certainly was not strategic. Not in the way I made my example by comparing to Turn Based. Sorry, but in that regard, GW2 is where the majority of the participants follow the zerg spamming DPS against walls and doors but in actual zerv v zerg combat, only spam their AOE if not autoattack mindlessly hoping they score enough hits on someone who might eventually die to get credit? Rinse and repeat. And how does this video look any different? Your argument may hold water if we were talking about all the realms of possibilities, but what about Landmark?
PVE wise, GW2 skill bar isn't too high if you have a general grasp on how to play a class. Still requires that grasp and an idea of when and how to use skills and what not. Is it a deep game of chess? Not really, but which games are in this genre?
Zerging with numbers or spamming DPS is a downfall of GW2, PVE or PVP. Sadly they designed the classes for 1 vs 1 and small scale esport PVP.
If you played any competitive or simply played against others that knew what they were doing, there is no way you could just spam or even zerg. Like most PVP games, an organized group could easily take out larger numbers of the zerg zombies. In sPVP, you can not just go down the row and blow cooldowns carelessly unless the class was unbalanced at the time (looking at you Thief!). Not to say that GW2 is the top of strategy games or anything, but there are areas that require it.
As you said though, a majority do follow the herd and mash buttons. Which is why I think so many anti-action folks think that is the limit of possibilities. This is an issue with fundamental game design, not if it is tab vs action or aim or insert system.
The video in the OP is from August. While the game hasn't done a 180 or huge advancements overall, the small changes and additions have made a difference. Movement has been adjusted, skills/weapons/gear have been added, improved, and balanced, and overall it is starting to look like a real mmo experience instead of mash buttons and see stuff happen.
Many like to down talk MOBAs and those that play them as if they take zero skill. Is there some twitchyness to the gameplay style, ya, but quite a lot of it is team work and strategy. Watch a pro team pick their "classes" for example. They don't just go "meh whatever" and grab one. They have to know the possibilities of every choice on their team and the enemy, what each can do individually and as part of a group. I suck at MOBAs because I simply don't have the time or just plain skill to learn it all. If I could just run in to a championship, hit some buttons, collect a check for a couple million, and go home, I would.
I agree that Turn Based is all about the mind game. That's the point. You can't do anything else. It's why so many love Hearthstone and MTG. For me though, there is no reason a more active game can't require the same if not more mentally. When given decent tools and an opponent that is on equal footing (a door doesn't really fight back well), there is challenge. I'm hoping Storybricks can bring back the PVE challenge for me as no games out really do it for me. As much as I love PVP and the thrill of real intelligence, I still enjoy playing a game vs the AI. Multi-classing and the open character system allows for experimenting and creating builds for particular challenges, not unlike card games. Then it's a matter of utilizing all the tools along with some hand eye skills.
Might be a difference of what we want or take away from gaming, but I've found plenty of strategy when I go looking for it.
Comments
Your opinion is not the truth. Please consider changing your post to reflect you own opinion instead of belittling personal preferences of others. Action is not trash, and does not belong only on consoles.
Sandbox means open world, non-linear gaming PERIOD!
Subscription Gaming, especially MMO gaming is a Cash grab bigger then the most P2W cash shop!
Bring Back Exploration and lengthy progression times. RPG's have always been about the Journey not the destination!!!
No, Action Combat is not strategic. No matter how you implement it. Turn Based Combat is cerebral and Action Combat is visceral. That's the way it works.
Why they appeal and to who is obviously very different. But so is how they operate.
What? Action combat isn't strategic? You mean in general or how they've been implemented in MMOs? That statement reads so ignorant (wish to use a more colorful word here).
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I disagree. Whether a combat system is strategic, cerebral, visceral, etc. isn't solely determined by its targeting system. It's how the game is designed for that system that determines it. In a turn based system you may have more time to think but that doesn't mean having to think to a greater degree.
So taking one example of an action game that people like to hate on, there is no strategy or thought involved in a GW2 PVP match? Simply hitting buttons or going by what the gut says will win the day? Tic Tac Toe requires more strat or cerebral power?
If a game requires no strategy, it is simply a poorly designed game. No matter if it is action or turn based. A well designed action game should require the same amount of whatever as turned based, plus more since you don't have X amount of time to make decisions. You are required to fire off more actions quicker. Frequency doesn't completely remove quality.
Speed Chess vs regular Chess for example. Played different, but not a huge difference if you really break it down. Some people might not be able to think several moves a head, but I'm assuming that's what separates the poor-average to the above and beyond.
I won't deny that much of the AI or PVE side of games can be pretty mindless, but going into the PVP vs intelligent opponents requires strat and thinking multiple steps ahead along with being able to adapt on the fly. Maybe those that don't like or can't handle action and or PVP types of combat, aren't able to make this quick decisions and jump to the conclusion that those that do are just button mashing. Because there's no way it could require anything of substance.
It is obviously my opinion. You'd have to be pretty thick to need a clarification on that.
Meanwhile, the combat looks absolutely terrible.
You ask about strategy in GW2 as if it was something so obvious. I played GW2 quite a bit and I liked it's combat for what it was, but it certainly was not strategic. Not in the way I made my example by comparing to Turn Based. Sorry, but in that regard, GW2 is where the majority of the participants follow the zerg spamming DPS against walls and doors but in actual zerv v zerg combat, only spam their AOE if not autoattack mindlessly hoping they score enough hits on someone who might eventually die to get credit? Rinse and repeat. And how does this video look any different? Your argument may hold water if we were talking about all the realms of possibilities, but what about Landmark?
this
but the more dynamic a game is the more challenging good teamwork and strategic decision making is - its just harder and requires more team coordination (look at team fps etc.)... thats what makes it exciting
PVE wise, GW2 skill bar isn't too high if you have a general grasp on how to play a class. Still requires that grasp and an idea of when and how to use skills and what not. Is it a deep game of chess? Not really, but which games are in this genre?
Zerging with numbers or spamming DPS is a downfall of GW2, PVE or PVP. Sadly they designed the classes for 1 vs 1 and small scale esport PVP.
If you played any competitive or simply played against others that knew what they were doing, there is no way you could just spam or even zerg. Like most PVP games, an organized group could easily take out larger numbers of the zerg zombies. In sPVP, you can not just go down the row and blow cooldowns carelessly unless the class was unbalanced at the time (looking at you Thief!). Not to say that GW2 is the top of strategy games or anything, but there are areas that require it.
As you said though, a majority do follow the herd and mash buttons. Which is why I think so many anti-action folks think that is the limit of possibilities. This is an issue with fundamental game design, not if it is tab vs action or aim or insert system.
The video in the OP is from August. While the game hasn't done a 180 or huge advancements overall, the small changes and additions have made a difference. Movement has been adjusted, skills/weapons/gear have been added, improved, and balanced, and overall it is starting to look like a real mmo experience instead of mash buttons and see stuff happen.
Many like to down talk MOBAs and those that play them as if they take zero skill. Is there some twitchyness to the gameplay style, ya, but quite a lot of it is team work and strategy. Watch a pro team pick their "classes" for example. They don't just go "meh whatever" and grab one. They have to know the possibilities of every choice on their team and the enemy, what each can do individually and as part of a group. I suck at MOBAs because I simply don't have the time or just plain skill to learn it all. If I could just run in to a championship, hit some buttons, collect a check for a couple million, and go home, I would.
I agree that Turn Based is all about the mind game. That's the point. You can't do anything else. It's why so many love Hearthstone and MTG. For me though, there is no reason a more active game can't require the same if not more mentally. When given decent tools and an opponent that is on equal footing (a door doesn't really fight back well), there is challenge. I'm hoping Storybricks can bring back the PVE challenge for me as no games out really do it for me. As much as I love PVP and the thrill of real intelligence, I still enjoy playing a game vs the AI. Multi-classing and the open character system allows for experimenting and creating builds for particular challenges, not unlike card games. Then it's a matter of utilizing all the tools along with some hand eye skills.
Might be a difference of what we want or take away from gaming, but I've found plenty of strategy when I go looking for it.
its good to know that a few people can remain logical on the subject.
Aelious and Allein
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Even TERA had a more direct/less spammy attack setup than this seems to. I really hope they change it a bit though. Does not look good in the video.
I have faith.
Sharess Dragonstar - Midgard
Grievance is recruiting.
IMO, it's just an experimental stage of EQN, so I don't get much upset.
For PvP and combat in LM, I don't think this is the final version of the combat.
Since the game planed to be complicated they might just want to try something brand new.
A good said about combat http://www.everquestnextguide.com/gameplay/the-guide-to-landmark-pvp/