I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Wow! So excited about this game! The atmosphere is superb to my liking at least. The only thing I didn't care for too much is the guard npc's seem out of place ( they look like the belong in a more barren setting) probably just placeholders tho.
Combat is a tad slow but thats okay it looks alot like vanguard which to me had a very cool combat system minus a few flaws. Over all very very excited about the game.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
No combat system by itself is immersive, it's how the whole package flows together that matters in that regard. I'll use Chivalry as an example, while the combat system is fun and gets the feels of swinging a sword, the overall package put together is very arcade-like. Which kills any immersive feeling of actually being there. Another example for me would be pre-cu SWG, that whole package including combat felt very immersive and gave a realistic feel of being in the Star Wars universe.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If they get the Tank, DPS, CC, Heals down right it will be plenty immersive. I find Twitch combat to repetitive to get immersed. With Twitch combat I'm pressing dodge and block 30-40% of the time. It's to much spamming one skill. At that point I have lost immersion. My point, in a MMO it takes different things to get that feeling for different people. I will know if Pantheon does it for me the first time I'm doing a dungeon crawl with my Bard or Enchanter.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
No combat system by itself is immersive, it's how the whole package flows together that matters in that regard. I'll use Chivalry as an example, while the combat system is fun and gets the feels of swinging a sword, the overall package put together is very arcade-like. Which kills any immersive feeling of actually being there. Another example for me would be pre-cu SWG, that whole package including combat felt very immersive and gave a realistic feel of being in the Star Wars universe.
I get that, but it's not the point.
If the base mechanic for your combat system is something you can teach a toilet-trained gorilla in five seconds or less, then you're going to have to go the extra mile to add in features that elevates combat up to something interesting/exciting/immersive to make it worthwhile.
I clearly don't see that happening based on what I've read and no indication it will.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
No combat system by itself is immersive, it's how the whole package flows together that matters in that regard. I'll use Chivalry as an example, while the combat system is fun and gets the feels of swinging a sword, the overall package put together is very arcade-like. Which kills any immersive feeling of actually being there. Another example for me would be pre-cu SWG, that whole package including combat felt very immersive and gave a realistic feel of being in the Star Wars universe.
I get that, but it's not the point.
If the base mechanic for your combat system is something you can teach a toilet-trained gorilla in five seconds or less, then you're going to have to go the extra mile to add in features that elevates combat up to something interesting/exciting/immersive to make it worthwhile.
I clearly don't see that happening based on what I've read and no indication it will.
EverQuest, in all it's simplicity, was still my favorite mmorpg combat. Distinct roles, powerful abilities, resource management that required strategy and communication, a greater need for situational awareness, crowd control, and heavily cooperative assisting. Add in a little more flavor via "mob dispositions" (AI), combos and sympathetics, and it's exactly what an mmorpg should be.
You can have dancing around telegraphs and teleporting around the screen.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Monk is one of the classes I'm most excited about. Cannot wait for the stream.
However, I don't quite understand the Part 1 and Part 2 aspect though. Are they filming the entire stream one day and releasing it in two separate parts? Or are they live streaming on two different days?
Two separate streams on two separate dates as per the newsletter announcement, we will do two shorter streams that each focus on different progress and changes instead of a big monster 2-3 hour one that is tough to watch for a lot of people.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
No combat system by itself is immersive, it's how the whole package flows together that matters in that regard. I'll use Chivalry as an example, while the combat system is fun and gets the feels of swinging a sword, the overall package put together is very arcade-like. Which kills any immersive feeling of actually being there. Another example for me would be pre-cu SWG, that whole package including combat felt very immersive and gave a realistic feel of being in the Star Wars universe.
I get that, but it's not the point.
If the base mechanic for your combat system is something you can teach a toilet-trained gorilla in five seconds or less, then you're going to have to go the extra mile to add in features that elevates combat up to something interesting/exciting/immersive to make it worthwhile.
I clearly don't see that happening based on what I've read and no indication it will.
The problem with the premise you're putting forth is it could apply to just about any combat system in RPGS. At the base level they're all simple. The complexity comes in the form of an underlying expansion of mechanics. Ways in which damage can be mitigated, ways in which it can't, knowing damage types and defensive types, number of effective skills as well as mobs with ways to mitigate them. All combat systems are essentially made up of these types of factors. Action, tab, turn based or otherwise. Looking at any on the surface level is nothing but a glimpse at their true strategic deepness. You have to dig in to know how deep they truly go.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
Well, 1, " how about" asking the developers and 2, the game isn't even in alpha yet, I think maybe you should at least wait until beta to assess what they have done with combat.
Your definition of "immersion" pretty much fits the defintion "being aborbed by an activity".
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
Well, 1, " how about" asking the developers and 2, the game isn't even in alpha yet, I think maybe you should at least wait until beta to assess what they have done with combat.
Your definition of "immersion" pretty much fits the defintion "being aborbed by an activity".
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Asking a developer about their game is the same as asking a dog owner if his dog bites. You will get the same answer. Believing either developer or dog owner is your prerogative, but it isn't a universal approach. I am not going to take a developer at their word without some collaborating 3rd party evidence.
The game mechanics shown so far are nothing but a re-wash of the EQ1 paradigm, a bunch of players standing around whacking a single mob, with some specialized duties. There isn't anything new or innovative in the primary activity of any MMORPG -- fighting enemies. The specific combat model that Pantheon has shown to date has been around since EQ1, maybe Meridian.
Isn't it time to experience something new and different?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The monk looks good so far, but I hope the kicking animations are more situational or on a longer cool down. Any toon regardless of class would be annoying if they used a round house kick or quick kick to the face constantly.
I'll be honest that I am looking forward to the game because of their promise of hard difficulty and how they are developing systems to force players to interact with one another. Finally it seems like we will be getting an MMO that harkens back to what MMOs are meant for...aka not for playing solo.
That being said....the combat looks meh. It's doesn't have to be action combat to have much better animations. I know its super alpha right now, but I wouldn't have displayed anything on a stream if my animations looked like that. It is very circa 1999-2002 with those animations. All it serves is to make the game look more and more dated even before it even launches.
Its not even Alpha, its pre-pre-alpha. Pre-Alpha starts soon. They are showing stuff way sooner then you used to typically see a company do.
The downside of crowdfunding is that you have to prove your progress to the donors, hence videos of content in its very early and primitive stages. I agree with a previous poster in that you can have active and convoluted animations without having action combat. Especially for a class like the monk which could be doing crouching tiger / hidden dragon moves
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
Well, 1, " how about" asking the developers and 2, the game isn't even in alpha yet, I think maybe you should at least wait until beta to assess what they have done with combat.
Your definition of "immersion" pretty much fits the defintion "being aborbed by an activity".
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Asking a developer about their game is the same as asking a dog owner if his dog bites. You will get the same answer. Believing either developer or dog owner is your prerogative, but it isn't a universal approach. I am not going to take a developer at their word without some collaborating 3rd party evidence.
The game mechanics shown so far are nothing but a re-wash of the EQ1 paradigm, a bunch of players standing around whacking a single mob, with some specialized duties. There isn't anything new or innovative in the primary activity of any MMORPG -- fighting enemies. The specific combat model that Pantheon has shown to date has been around since EQ1, maybe Meridian.
Isn't it time to experience something new and different?
Well, I would think that any developer is going to be proud of his or her work. More like asking a person how their kids are and they go on and gush and gush. It's understandable but the consumer needs to take more measured approach to understanding these games.
I'm very sure that the Star Wars/Old Republic Dev really thought the combat was "epic". You kind of have to take out the adjectives and look for specifics that resonate with you in order to make an informed decision.
As far as "something new and different"; one's mileage is going to vary on that. To me, it's the world and lore and exploration and freedom that matter most. Then art design.
So I don't really care "too much" about a combat model that's been around since EQ 1. Oh sure, I'd prefer a more "mount and blade" type combat but it's not a deal breaker.
The most important thing is whether or not there are fans of this game. You see, there's no reason to make "new and different" if the developers are engaged with their creation AND their consumer base WANTS this type of game.
For those who don't want this type of game, you are not the target base. That's pretty much it. Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
I think you are wrong. There is a large and solid audience that prefers slower, more tactical combat over twitch when it comes to RPG's and I'm one of them. You have a plethora of action games on the market, don't understand why guys like you have to begrudge us one of the few games that caters to us.
I'll be positive though. Maybe those are just the "starter" combat styles and they'll allow us to buy additional combat styles in the cash shop, once it goes live.
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
Since when does a 3rd person view designed for a cinematic trailer mean combat isn't going to be immersive? They have specifically said they're bringing back active combat elements from Vanguard, requiring tanks and other classes to react, forcing you to recognize certain attack animations/formations from enemy NPCs and quickly use the relative skill, among many other aspects of combat (such as the 3 different stances everyone or at least melee classes will have which can be seen in the December stream, more advanced NPC AI than ever seen before, need to use very different spells/abilities correctly for fights as opposed to having 5 hotbars, special weapons/armor and environmental resistances that also affect combat, etc). They probably don't even have animations in for all of the reactive abilities etc, but moral of the story this won't just be a tab target, press A for auto attack, go afk game. It's going to be fun, reactive, and strategic.
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Not disagreeing with you here. I have no problem with tab targeting. However, there better be something more to combat that sets Pantheon apart from other games, otherwise there is no motivation to move to a new game, when an existing game does the same and already has a community, longevity, and engaging lore.
Sovrath said: Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
Vorthanion said: I think you are wrong. There is a large and solid audience that prefers slower, more tactical combat over twitch when it comes to RPG's and I'm one of them. You have a plethora of action games on the market, don't understand why guys like you have to begrudge us one of the few games that caters to us.
Unless you've been in a coma, you would know that games like this have been catering to you for decades. Stop trying to pretend Pantheon is some kind of savior for "slower, more tactical combat", devised to usurp the action combat majority. Until recently, it's been the other way around.
These are the kinds of statements that crack me up. If a person criticizes a pre-release game, all the fanboys come out in droves to chant the usual "it's not done yet" and "it's still alpha" mantras. Yet these very same people will make blanket statements like the one above, conveniently ignoring the fact that it is indeed, still in alpha. So, you're telling me my prediction that the game may not have great combat is incorrect because they "said" it would be different, yet you expect me to believe it WILL be different because they "said" so? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Not disagreeing with you here. I have no problem with tab targeting. However, there better be something more to combat that sets Pantheon apart from other games, otherwise there is no motivation to move to a new game, when an existing game does the same and already has a community, longevity, and engaging lore.
Sovrath said: Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
Vorthanion said: I think you are wrong. There is a large and solid audience that prefers slower, more tactical combat over twitch when it comes to RPG's and I'm one of them. You have a plethora of action games on the market, don't understand why guys like you have to begrudge us one of the few games that caters to us.
Unless you've been in a coma, you would know that games like this have been catering to you for decades. Stop trying to pretend Pantheon is some kind of savior for "slower, more tactical combat", devised to usurp the action combat majority. Until recently, it's been the other way around."One of the few games..." /facepalm
These are the kinds of statements that crack me up. If a person criticizes a pre-release game, all the fanboys come out in droves to chant the usual "it's not done yet" and "it's still alpha" mantras. Yet these very same people will make blanket statements like the one above, conveniently ignoring the fact that it is indeed, still in alpha. So, you're telling me my prediction that the game may not have great combat is incorrect because they "said" it would be different, yet you expect me to believe it WILL be different because they "said" so? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Lol. You literally took (out of context) the shortest sentence in a paragraph that specifically describes what you're asking about and supports the concluding sentence you quoted. I laid out the differences (which they have either done in Vanguard or already have on a stream that's 6 months old).
I feel like Dent in Dark Knight: trolls in this town used believe in things...honor, respect...they used to have standards, be creative...
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
Not disagreeing with you here. I have no problem with tab targeting. However, there better be something more to combat that sets Pantheon apart from other games, otherwise there is no motivation to move to a new game, when an existing game does the same and already has a community, longevity, and engaging lore.
Sovrath said: Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
Vorthanion said: I think you are wrong. There is a large and solid audience that prefers slower, more tactical combat over twitch when it comes to RPG's and I'm one of them. You have a plethora of action games on the market, don't understand why guys like you have to begrudge us one of the few games that caters to us.
Unless you've been in a coma, you would know that games like this have been catering to you for decades. Stop trying to pretend Pantheon is some kind of savior for "slower, more tactical combat", devised to usurp the action combat majority. Until recently, it's been the other way around.
These are the kinds of statements that crack me up. If a person criticizes a pre-release game, all the fanboys come out in droves to chant the usual "it's not done yet" and "it's still alpha" mantras. Yet these very same people will make blanket statements like the one above, conveniently ignoring the fact that it is indeed, still in alpha. So, you're telling me my prediction that the game may not have great combat is incorrect because they "said" it would be different, yet you expect me to believe it WILL be different because they "said" so? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
VR has stated, well I have read many places. 25'000 is all they need to keep this game going. So that target is not unreachable. As to lots of games like this... Last quality trinity game to come out was FF, before that was WoW. Most new MMOs are twitch, you know that and most people with 2 brain cells know that. As to your statement being wrong and Zuljans hitting the mark. Yours is a guess. People following this game are not new to Brads type of combat. I trust he can hit the mark on what he did for combat in EQ1 and VG. If it comes to 75% I will be happy as a fat kid in a candy store and so will many. Immersion is his ballpark.
EDIT: Also last quality MMO to come out with Tank, DPS, Support, CC, that was DAoC and before that, EQ1. Ya we have been waiting a long time for a new MMO.
Sovrath said: Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
I completely agree and it goes without saying. "Sometimes" developers really don't hit the mark when it comes to assessing how many people are interested in their product.
But that goes for any game, whether it's a small indy project or a mega AAA crowd pleasing game.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sovrath said: Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
I completely agree and it goes without saying. "Sometimes" developers really don't hit the mark when it comes to assessing how many people are interested in their product.
But that goes for any game, whether it's a small indy project or a mega AAA crowd pleasing game.
I am sure they wont tell us but I would be interested to know how many people backed the game over the years.
Comments
Well, now wait a minute, let's not fall into that old trap where a developer uses an adjective and the player then uses their own idea of what that really means and when the developer's idea doesn't match what's in the player's head they start pointing fingers.
It's like that guy who got all pissy because the Star Wars/Old Republic guys said the combat would be epic and he didn't think it was "epic" once the game was released.
"Immersive" can mean many things in its implementation and it's better to understand how they plan on bringing a sense of immersion into their game. You might not like what they do but at least there won't be any misunderstandings. Especially because "immersive" doesn't necessarily mean "realistic".
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
Combat is a tad slow but thats okay it looks alot like vanguard which to me had a very cool combat system minus a few flaws. Over all very very excited about the game.
I think you would be hard pressed to find too many people who consider tab-targeting or auto-attack as immersive combat. Unless they offer up something to counter balance a mechanic that effectively amounts to a game playing itself (in the case of auto-attack), it's going to be the same old tedious mechanic.
So far, there's no indication it will be much different.
~~ postlarval ~~
No combat system by itself is immersive, it's how the whole package flows together that matters in that regard. I'll use Chivalry as an example, while the combat system is fun and gets the feels of swinging a sword, the overall package put together is very arcade-like. Which kills any immersive feeling of actually being there. Another example for me would be pre-cu SWG, that whole package including combat felt very immersive and gave a realistic feel of being in the Star Wars universe.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I get that, but it's not the point.
If the base mechanic for your combat system is something you can teach a toilet-trained gorilla in five seconds or less, then you're going to have to go the extra mile to add in features that elevates combat up to something interesting/exciting/immersive to make it worthwhile.
I clearly don't see that happening based on what I've read and no indication it will.
~~ postlarval ~~
EverQuest, in all it's simplicity, was still my favorite mmorpg combat. Distinct roles, powerful abilities, resource management that required strategy and communication, a greater need for situational awareness, crowd control, and heavily cooperative assisting. Add in a little more flavor via "mob dispositions" (AI), combos and sympathetics, and it's exactly what an mmorpg should be.
You can have dancing around telegraphs and teleporting around the screen.
It's important to know what "immerse" actually means. It means to be engaged, the dictionary also uses absorbed. "Immersive" combat is a combat that is engaging. Additionally, tab target combat is not about "auto attack" (though it has auto attack), it's about applying strategy, applying a variety of skills/combat moves in a particular situation.
You might not like it, and in full disclosure, I prefer "action combat" over tab targeting, but I'm not about to take anything away from it just because it's not my favorite type of combat.
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
Well, I've watched at least a dozen videos and haven't seen anything more than tab-target, button-mash, fight over combat. Offensive/defensive skills/spells and not much more. Static skills/spells and static encounters.
How about combos only available after a sequence of other spells/skills? How about reactive spells/skills, only available in certain situation? How about mobs in random locations when they spawn? Nope, it all looks very predicable.
Maybe it is just a difference in how we define immersion. To me, the dividing line between just playing a game and becoming immersed in that game is if I'm aware of sitting at a computer, playing a game.
There is not a single thing about Pantheon that leads me to believe I'll be aware of doing anything but sitting at a computer, playing a game.
~~ postlarval ~~
lol @ "button-mash"
The problem with the premise you're putting forth is it could apply to just about any combat system in RPGS. At the base level they're all simple. The complexity comes in the form of an underlying expansion of mechanics. Ways in which damage can be mitigated, ways in which it can't, knowing damage types and defensive types, number of effective skills as well as mobs with ways to mitigate them. All combat systems are essentially made up of these types of factors. Action, tab, turn based or otherwise. Looking at any on the surface level is nothing but a glimpse at their true strategic deepness. You have to dig in to know how deep they truly go.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Your definition of "immersion" pretty much fits the defintion "being aborbed by an activity".
The developers have said they will have immersive combat, as long as you are on board with tab targeting I think you can at least wait until their combat system is actually done. Now, whether or not they succeed is another thing.
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
Asking a developer about their game is the same as asking a dog owner if his dog bites. You will get the same answer. Believing either developer or dog owner is your prerogative, but it isn't a universal approach. I am not going to take a developer at their word without some collaborating 3rd party evidence.
The game mechanics shown so far are nothing but a re-wash of the EQ1 paradigm, a bunch of players standing around whacking a single mob, with some specialized duties. There isn't anything new or innovative in the primary activity of any MMORPG -- fighting enemies. The specific combat model that Pantheon has shown to date has been around since EQ1, maybe Meridian.
Isn't it time to experience something new and different?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Looking very good so far tho!
The downside of crowdfunding is that you have to prove your progress to the donors, hence videos of content in its very early and primitive stages. I agree with a previous poster in that you can have active and convoluted animations without having action combat. Especially for a class like the monk which could be doing crouching tiger / hidden dragon moves
Well, I would think that any developer is going to be proud of his or her work. More like asking a person how their kids are and they go on and gush and gush. It's understandable but the consumer needs to take more measured approach to understanding these games.
I'm very sure that the Star Wars/Old Republic Dev really thought the combat was "epic". You kind of have to take out the adjectives and look for specifics that resonate with you in order to make an informed decision.
As far as "something new and different"; one's mileage is going to vary on that. To me, it's the world and lore and exploration and freedom that matter most. Then art design.
So I don't really care "too much" about a combat model that's been around since EQ 1. Oh sure, I'd prefer a more "mount and blade" type combat but it's not a deal breaker.
The most important thing is whether or not there are fans of this game. You see, there's no reason to make "new and different" if the developers are engaged with their creation AND their consumer base WANTS this type of game.
For those who don't want this type of game, you are not the target base. That's pretty much it. Quite frankly, I applaud any developer who knows their target audience and give them what they want as opposed to chasing some other audience just because that audience wants "new and different".
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
I think you are wrong. There is a large and solid audience that prefers slower, more tactical combat over twitch when it comes to RPG's and I'm one of them. You have a plethora of action games on the market, don't understand why guys like you have to begrudge us one of the few games that caters to us.
Since when does a 3rd person view designed for a cinematic trailer mean combat isn't going to be immersive? They have specifically said they're bringing back active combat elements from Vanguard, requiring tanks and other classes to react, forcing you to recognize certain attack animations/formations from enemy NPCs and quickly use the relative skill, among many other aspects of combat (such as the 3 different stances everyone or at least melee classes will have which can be seen in the December stream, more advanced NPC AI than ever seen before, need to use very different spells/abilities correctly for fights as opposed to having 5 hotbars, special weapons/armor and environmental resistances that also affect combat, etc). They probably don't even have animations in for all of the reactive abilities etc, but moral of the story this won't just be a tab target, press A for auto attack, go afk game. It's going to be fun, reactive, and strategic.
Not disagreeing with you here. I have no problem with tab targeting. However, there better be something more to combat that sets Pantheon apart from other games, otherwise there is no motivation to move to a new game, when an existing game does the same and already has a community, longevity, and engaging lore.
Until it comes time to pay the bills. Better hope your target audience is large enough to sustain the game.
Unless you've been in a coma, you would know that games like this have been catering to you for decades. Stop trying to pretend Pantheon is some kind of savior for "slower, more tactical combat", devised to usurp the action combat majority. Until recently, it's been the other way around.
"One of the few games..." /facepalm
Newsflash: There are Pantheon gameplay videos out in the wild. Shocking, I know.
These are the kinds of statements that crack me up. If a person criticizes a pre-release game, all the fanboys come out in droves to chant the usual "it's not done yet" and "it's still alpha" mantras. Yet these very same people will make blanket statements like the one above, conveniently ignoring the fact that it is indeed, still in alpha. So, you're telling me my prediction that the game may not have great combat is incorrect because they "said" it would be different, yet you expect me to believe it WILL be different because they "said" so? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
~~ postlarval ~~
Lol. You literally took (out of context) the shortest sentence in a paragraph that specifically describes what you're asking about and supports the concluding sentence you quoted. I laid out the differences (which they have either done in Vanguard or already have on a stream that's 6 months old).
I feel like Dent in Dark Knight: trolls in this town used believe in things...honor, respect...they used to have standards, be creative...
VR has stated, well I have read many places. 25'000 is all they need to keep this game going. So that target is not unreachable. As to lots of games like this... Last quality trinity game to come out was FF, before that was WoW. Most new MMOs are twitch, you know that and most people with 2 brain cells know that. As to your statement being wrong and Zuljans hitting the mark. Yours is a guess. People following this game are not new to Brads type of combat. I trust he can hit the mark on what he did for combat in EQ1 and VG. If it comes to 75% I will be happy as a fat kid in a candy store and so will many. Immersion is his ballpark.
EDIT: Also last quality MMO to come out with Tank, DPS, Support, CC, that was DAoC and before that, EQ1. Ya we have been waiting a long time for a new MMO.
But that goes for any game, whether it's a small indy project or a mega AAA crowd pleasing game.
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
I am sure they wont tell us but I would be interested to know how many people backed the game over the years.