I once changed planes in Dallas. It's the only time I've ever been to Dallas. Here's my review of the inner workings of Dallas society and culture....
....
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So in essence the only way combat will change in this genre is if the AI also changes with it. I would love to see a group based PVE heavy mmo that doesn't rely on heavy class composition in most facets of content but for higher level areas it does. A game that focuses on player groups vs. NPC groups, with a new approach to the trinity gameplay model that provides tactical strategy of your group composition with adaptable AI.
Even without dipping heavily into complex AI, the simplest of changes could drastically improve current PVE combat.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
In ESO the NPC's actually do that. That's where snares and roots come in and why mob gathering and holding is an essential tanking skill that all good tanks use.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
In ESO the NPC's actually do that. That's where snares and roots come in and why mob gathering and holding is an essential tanking skill that all good tanks use.
yeah i just started playing ESO and noticed that, and sometimes they're jumping over you to get behind you.. that's pretty neat.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
In ESO the NPC's actually do that. That's where snares and roots come in and why mob gathering and holding is an essential tanking skill that all good tanks use.
yeah i just started playing ESO and noticed that, and sometimes they're jumping over you to get behind you.. that's pretty neat.
There's also a difference between humanoid/daedra and beasts. It's only the humanoids and daedra that will try to flank you, use stealth, get behind you, etc. Beasts act like the typical brainless MMO NPC.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
PvP focused adjustments to combat and "balancing" classes has lead the combat to be genericish between classes. Bored. . .try another class. . button 2 does the same thing but is a fireball instead of an arrow. With PvE one class can be OP in one area and another class in another area. "balancing" is what has ruined MMOs for me most of all. I love PvP but don't care about balance. I used to play a balance druid (oh the irony) on a PvP server in vanilla wow.
Some games try to get around this by disabling some skills in PvP, but basically this is the answer. You don't have any stand out skills because they are unfair in PvP, so everything is homogenized so that all classes are equally competitive. This makes PvE combat just tripe.
Having difficult, hard NPC's to fight always sound good at first. That's until you have to do the same fight 1000 times just to gain a level or complete a quest, then it becomes tedious. Combat in MMO's have evolved over the years, it's so much better than the old school stand & cast system. GW2, BDO, ESO, etc.. all have adopted action combat. They make MMO combat much more fun and engaging. Even Blizzard noticed the trend and have tried to incorporate more action combat, which unfortunately doesn't work well as WoW at core is still a stand & cast game.
OP brought up auto attack, EQ was the most boring auto attack game of all the MMO's mentioned. Just because they made it so mobs hit you harder, or summon you, doesn't mean the combat in EQ was hard or challenging. Melees in EQ had to face tank & pretty much auto attack with some ability triggers here & there. Casters in EQ had to cast, then sit to med for mana, only to stand up cast dump again, then sit again.
In games like GW2 & BDO, especially during the later parts of character progression, if you don't actively dodge/evade, and you don't utilize more than auto attack, you simply won't do well. And this is PvE I'm taking about. At least OP clearly stated he never got far in those games, which explains his views.
Anyways PvE in MMO's today are designed for solo progression for the first 80% or so of a character's level cap. Expect fairly easy combat engagements aside from more challenging rares/elites/named. But once you get up there, you'll be expected to do a lot more than auto attack. In games like GW2 & BDO, you are expected to evade/dodge while pulling off combo chains. Even in stand & cast games like WoW, if you don't combo and min/max those uber dps, you might get kicked out of groups.
So my recommendation to the OP is to play further along in those games, get deeper into character progression. And of course there's always the option to play a different class. Playing a wizard in BDO then complain about PvE being too easy is kinda funny, seeing how wizzies are a top tier class for clears. Try playing one of the less popular classes (aka classes that don't clear as fast). You'll experience the challenge you're looking for. But know that there's a fine line between challenging & tedious.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
So in essence the only way combat will change in this genre is if the AI also changes with it. I would love to see a group based PVE heavy mmo that doesn't rely on heavy class composition in most facets of content but for higher level areas it does. A game that focuses on player groups vs. NPC groups, with a new approach to the trinity gameplay model that provides tactical strategy of your group composition with adaptable AI.
Even without dipping heavily into complex AI, the simplest of changes could drastically improve current PVE combat.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.
Sure you can ad in those combat elements like GW2 did to make things more twitched/action based. From my perspective that still wasn't enough to alter combat. Over time, the combat became super stale. The only really interesting part was your 2 dodges that you could use with your stamina bar.
There are 3 facets that go into developing combat.
1. Combat Mechanics 2. NPC AI Combat Mechanics 3. Class Design
I think before we even consider specific mechanics for combat, the first thing that has to change is the approach to combat. Since I am a fan of tab targetting, not so much twitch, that is were I am coming from. The current approach to the trinity model has ran it's course and provided one dimensional/stale gameplay. I believe there needs to be a new approach to the trinity model without sacrificing the traditional elements. Instead of the 'tank & spank' by focusing on 1 NPC or mindlessly AoE a pack of NPCs, I think it would be more interesting if a Group of Players fought a Group of NPC's. Let me expand on that.
You would still have your traditional roles, tank, dps, healer, with added secondary roles of cc, debuffing, buffing. The only way for the trinity model to change without sacrificing the classic roles is to simply reinvent the tank role.
The tank role is the crux to the trinity model as the tank is the focal point of it. So what if we reinvent what the tank role means. What if the tank role isn't necessarily a defensive role anymore but rather jumps to the melee archetype of classes. So that changes the strategem of melee class design. What if melee classes have unique ways to defend themselves against attacks? Of course there would be varying degrees of defensive abilities per class. What if melee class roles were not distinguished by tank or dps? But rather the type of fighter they are? Actually take in account parrying, countering, striking.
To go back to the overall picture, I think that if you treat a battle of a player group vs. npc group and discern the funniest way to implement that. For me, I think it makes sense that melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster. Essentially, there would be 1v1 fights in the encounter. Think of it like American Football.
[i]The game of American Football is a team sport but with
individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks)
while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There
are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your
Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually
but when executed correctly it's a team effort.[/i]
Before a player group engages into an NPC group, the players discern the best strategy for victory based off their current class/role composition. This also creates community. If there are 3 melee players and 4 NPC melees, then 1 NPC melee is not accounted for. So then if you have ranged casters in your group, depending on other various such as, race, class and NPC AI rank, the caster classes could either cc the unaccounted for melee npc or kill it quickly, if there are no other caster npc's in the encounter.
To me, I think the strategy of the approach of how you fight a group of npc's would be very rewarding. It would provide depth for combat mechanics and class design. That is 3 layers of depth. Sure, this style may not be for the super casual, but I feel like there would be enough players that would at least try it to justify such a system.
EQ was boring for classes like Warrior and Rogue in EQ, but they did have to move around quite a bit and keeping aggro not getting aggro was a challenge for most people. Healers timing was critical even though they spend most of the time meditating. The CC was also critical in terms of timing as things could go wrong fairly quickly. The puller was constantly on the move. It was not a job that many people enjoyed and took skill to perform. Usually, it was a Bard or Monk. Sometimes it was a Ranger if outdoors. Kiting as a Bard solo was no easy task.
I don't think the dodge mechanics in modern games is much better than what we had in the past if it is indeed better. It's easier for people because they generally only need to focus on themselves and spam a rotation. There is no need to time things other than your own fake dodges (which are still turn-based behind the scenes). That might be more fun for melee classes when soloing, but in a group situation, it provides mostly the same experience as soloing. This opens things up for the masses as they don't have to learn to work with others in a group, but it also isn't an interesting IMO. A direct result of this is having an extremely limited amount of abilities, shortening of their durations, and having abilities that are only related to combat. Generally, all utility is shared amount the classes and has become rather boring.
To answer the OP quickly and easily. MMOs have drifted from using your intelligence to using your dexterity when it comes to combat. It's more about twitch now than thinking and I can see why that can be a problem for older players who have more wits than finger finesse. Me being one of them.
When they started adding action combat to mmo's it was all over for me. Do you notice now along with action combat comes the limited hotbars for your skills too. I loved how the older mmo's were and would still play them if i could. Its just most of then run badly on modern PC's. Playing ESO for me is horrible. The game was made for the console generation. I miss the days of AO,AC,DAOC and any mmo's pre Wow.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
In ESO the NPC's actually do that. That's where snares and roots come in and why mob gathering and holding is an essential tanking skill that all good tanks use.
yeah i just started playing ESO and noticed that, and sometimes they're jumping over you to get behind you.. that's pretty neat.
There's also a difference between humanoid/daedra and beasts. It's only the humanoids and daedra that will try to flank you, use stealth, get behind you, etc. Beasts act like the typical brainless MMO NPC.
Usually "boss" beast have a tendency to walk outside of AOE.
Bosses are a special case in ESO. Most of them, whether in instances or in the open world, have their own unique AI scripts that do things like ignore taunts for part of the fight, target and charge the player farthest away from them, heal themselves if you stand in their AOE, teleport, etc.
The ones that you can just tank and spank are actually rare.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
So in essence the only way combat will change in this genre is if the AI also changes with it. I would love to see a group based PVE heavy mmo that doesn't rely on heavy class composition in most facets of content but for higher level areas it does. A game that focuses on player groups vs. NPC groups, with a new approach to the trinity gameplay model that provides tactical strategy of your group composition with adaptable AI.
Even without dipping heavily into complex AI, the simplest of changes could drastically improve current PVE combat.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.
To go back to the overall picture, I think that if you treat a battle of a player group vs. npc group and discern the funniest way to implement that. For me, I think it makes sense that melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster. Essentially, there would be 1v1 fights in the encounter. Think of it like American Football.
[i]The game of American Football is a team sport but with
individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks)
while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There
are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your
Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually
but when executed correctly it's a team effort.[/i]
Before a player group engages into an NPC group, the players discern the best strategy for victory based off their current class/role composition. This also creates community. If there are 3 melee players and 4 NPC melees, then 1 NPC melee is not accounted for. So then if you have ranged casters in your group, depending on other various such as, race, class and NPC AI rank, the caster classes could either cc the unaccounted for melee npc or kill it quickly, if there are no other caster npc's in the encounter.
To me, I think the strategy of the approach of how you fight a group of npc's would be very rewarding. It would provide depth for combat mechanics and class design. That is 3 layers of depth. Sure, this style may not be for the super casual, but I feel like there would be enough players that would at least try it to justify such a system.
Well, to continue your football analogy:
I think something else that is missing in most games is the concept of blocking. By and large, MMOs have all but eliminated the use of collision detection(largely due to players trying to annoy each other I'm sure).
When we start talking about combat strategy, I feel like we haven't even bothered to mention the most obvious and theoretically, the most influential, aspect of any kind of combat -- the terrain. Tanks would be far more interesting if they were actually able to get between an enemy and his flimsy allies and use his body to protect them rather than smashing a taunt key.
I don't think "taunt" should even exist, honestly. Tanks should be more of a hands-on role where they have to actually maneuver and physically stand in an enemy's way. I guess that may run counter to your dislike for more action-oriented combat, but I tend to think of melee classes as typically being more action-based(even in the older MMOs, Rogue types and such had to position and flank).
I'd love to see the actual world again actually, you know, impact the world. Positioning and controlling the battlefield seem far more interesting concepts to me for battle strategy, particularly in the instance of group vs. group fights, such as you mention.
I've thought for a long time that mmorpg need to go back to really slow tactical strategical rounds-based combat that takes into account character skills, position and environment. away from the hack' slash combat. I'm not a fan of classes either. Classes often tend to build different combat rules for themselves making them all play the same with a different flavor.
I understand that people want pve and pvp to be interesting, for every encounter to be different and require different tactics according to the situation. I really don't think this too hard of a goal for an mmorpg accomplish.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
So in essence the only way combat will change in this genre is if the AI also changes with it. I would love to see a group based PVE heavy mmo that doesn't rely on heavy class composition in most facets of content but for higher level areas it does. A game that focuses on player groups vs. NPC groups, with a new approach to the trinity gameplay model that provides tactical strategy of your group composition with adaptable AI.
Even without dipping heavily into complex AI, the simplest of changes could drastically improve current PVE combat.
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks. Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.
To go back to the overall picture, I think that if you treat a battle of a player group vs. npc group and discern the funniest way to implement that. For me, I think it makes sense that melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster. Essentially, there would be 1v1 fights in the encounter. Think of it like American Football.
[i]The game of American Football is a team sport but with
individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks)
while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There
are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your
Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually
but when executed correctly it's a team effort.[/i]
Before a player group engages into an NPC group, the players discern the best strategy for victory based off their current class/role composition. This also creates community. If there are 3 melee players and 4 NPC melees, then 1 NPC melee is not accounted for. So then if you have ranged casters in your group, depending on other various such as, race, class and NPC AI rank, the caster classes could either cc the unaccounted for melee npc or kill it quickly, if there are no other caster npc's in the encounter.
To me, I think the strategy of the approach of how you fight a group of npc's would be very rewarding. It would provide depth for combat mechanics and class design. That is 3 layers of depth. Sure, this style may not be for the super casual, but I feel like there would be enough players that would at least try it to justify such a system.
Well, to continue your football analogy:
I think something else that is missing in most games is the concept of blocking. By and large, MMOs have all but eliminated the use of collision detection(largely due to players trying to annoy each other I'm sure).
When we start talking about combat strategy, I feel like we haven't even bothered to mention the most obvious and theoretically, the most influential, aspect of any kind of combat -- the terrain. Tanks would be far more interesting if they were actually able to get between an enemy and his flimsy allies and use his body to protect them rather than smashing a taunt key.
I don't think "taunt" should even exist, honestly. Tanks should be more of a hands-on role where they have to actually maneuver and physically stand in an enemy's way. I guess that may run counter to your dislike for more action-oriented combat, but I tend to think of melee classes as typically being more action-based(even in the older MMOs, Rogue types and such had to position and flank).
I'd love to see the actual world again actually, you know, impact the world. Positioning and controlling the battlefield seem far more interesting concepts to me for battle strategy, particularly in the instance of group vs. group fights, such as you mention.
I agree with blocking. This makes more sense for Melee classes. However, collision detection is rather challenging to implement for an mmorpg for various reasons. The number one reason is latency. I believe collision detection has to be accurate to register to the system. I suppose the work around would put a hidden hit box around each weapon that would be close enough to at least give the illusion for collision detection and also account for the latency.
I really think you would like my melee combat mechanics I came up with. I typically stick with caster DPS because I don't find melee combat intriguing at all. This new Guard system I came up with for Melee classes makes me want to make a ton of melee alts. If you're interested, send me a PM, I can add you on discord.
I don't have taunting mechanics in my Guard System, rather I have engage and disengage mechanics that make more sense.
To answer the OP quickly and easily. MMOs have drifted from using your intelligence to using your dexterity when it comes to combat. It's more about twitch now than thinking and I can see why that can be a problem for older players who have more wits than finger finesse. Me being one of them.
To answer the OP quickly and easily. MMOs have drifted from using your intelligence to using your dexterity when it comes to combat. It's more about twitch now than thinking and I can see why that can be a problem for older players who have more wits than finger finesse. Me being one of them.
In games like ESO the “wits” is in your build.
I would argue that active blocking, dodging, sprinting, and aiming all while trying to execute your rotation takes much more wit than pressing buttons in a certain order.
That is literally tab-target combat. Get onto the right target and push buttons in the right order to win.
Dark Souls games have realistic combat, but I don't see how it would happen in an MMO with client-server software. I'm fairly sure most MMOs still use some type of real-time turn-based combat regardless of whether or not you are pushing dodge at x time. Having the tank block is a good idea though. I do believe too much emphasis is put on combat in these games though. Having fun utility is where it's at IMO. Without it, PvE combat gets really dull. Being able to levitate, breath underwater, run faster, mesmerize things, root things, cast illusions, turn into animals, etc. is great fun IMO.
Dark Souls games have realistic combat, but I don't see how it would happen in an MMO with client-server software. I'm fairly sure most MMOs still use some type of real-time turn-based combat regardless of whether or not you are pushing dodge at x time. Having the tank block is a good idea though. I do believe too much emphasis is put on combat in these games though. Having fun utility is where it's at IMO. Without it, PvE combat gets really dull. Being able to levitate, breath underwater, run faster, mesmerize things, root things, cast illusions, turn into animals, etc. is great fun IMO.
Dragon's Dogma Online has a similiar type of combat (to Dark Souls) so it's possible.
Probably one of the reasons I really hope it eventuall comes to the west.
I'd love to have a more Dark Souls, slow but you have to pay attention, combat.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The old MMO combat that was more or less created for Meridian 59 and perfected in EQ was only really made for PvE, PvP was just an afterthought which is why PvE and PvP group mechanics are so different. It made for rather terrible PvP.
The modern action combat is made so it should be fun in both playstyles, problem is that it doesn't work as good as intended because the group mechanics isn't as good as it needs to be for fun PvE, that part needs more work.
But saying that GW2s combat system sucks since you can kill everything with autoattack is rather silly, you do several times the damage if you manage your skills well. So basically, that is due to modern MMOs pathetically low difficulty, and there are actually rather much content you can't win with autoattack. Try to just solo a HoT hero challenge monster yourself on autoattack (I can actually solo most of them with my thief but only if I max my damage and don't get hit by the mob).
Same thing with FF XIV, difficulty and combat system is 2 very different things that OP seems to mix together. And some really load people whine like there is no tomorrow whenever something slightly challenging comes out.
Anyone who played GW2 at the first beta weekend remember how it actually were with a good level of difficulty, people who played poorly died in stacks even in the starting DEs (like saving Queensdalkes water supply). It was awesome and the combat system worked fine even if the group dynamic still sucked.
My point is that I think the combat systems are fine, the group dynamic is poorly and the difficulty makes most content boring. It is not the combat system that needs the fixing.
Nothing wrong with having abilities you only use in PvP, it eschews the problem of a class with powers that work well in PvE but not PvP.
Combat has become more of a action mash up; mostly not as good as FPS, turn based strategy or trinity MMO stylie. It is neither one thing or the other and seems rather unsatisfying to me.
Dark Souls games have realistic combat, but I don't see how it would happen in an MMO with client-server software. I'm fairly sure most MMOs still use some type of real-time turn-based combat regardless of whether or not you are pushing dodge at x time. Having the tank block is a good idea though. I do believe too much emphasis is put on combat in these games though. Having fun utility is where it's at IMO. Without it, PvE combat gets really dull. Being able to levitate, breath underwater, run faster, mesmerize things, root things, cast illusions, turn into animals, etc. is great fun IMO.
Dragon's Dogma Online has a similiar type of combat (to Dark Souls) so it's possible.
Probably one of the reasons I really hope it eventuall comes to the west.
I'd love to have a more Dark Souls, slow but you have to pay attention, combat.
That would be great. I'd love to see things like armor weight, length, of weapon, line of sight, speed, etc. affecting combat. I could see people coming up with a lot of different builds that are effective.
To answer the OP quickly and easily. MMOs have drifted from using your intelligence to using your dexterity when it comes to combat. It's more about twitch now than thinking and I can see why that can be a problem for older players who have more wits than finger finesse. Me being one of them.
In games like ESO the “wits” is in your build.
I would argue that active blocking, dodging, sprinting, and aiming all while trying to execute your rotation takes much more wit than pressing buttons in a certain order.
That is literally tab-target combat. Get onto the right target and push buttons in the right order to win.
I would disagree.
Action combat games typically have few active skills available, so you just don't need to engage your brain. Like in ESO, you have attack, power attack, 5 skills plus your ultimate (iirc, haven't played in ages). Do you really need much "wit" to choose what to do next? Most of your skills form part of your rotation, so your decision making comes down to:
Do I continue with rotation?
Do I block?
Do I dodge / move?
Do I use my 1 situational ability?
I don't know about you, but making a choice between 4 possible choices is pretty easy. Compare that to a well designed tab-target system. You lose the active blocking from the decision making, but that last choice (the 1 situational) becomes a choice of lots of situational abilities. So, instead of choosing between 4 options, you're now choosing between 20 options.....that requires more "wit".
Of course, implementation is the key. LotRO had tons of "depth" i.e. it required intelligence to master a class, because every class had a great mix of solo abilities (for your rotation), situational abilities plus group abilities, so the harder the content the harder the decision making became. SW:TOR, conversely, was shallow as fuck despite being the same sort of combat system. Pretty much every skill was just something to add to your rotation so you only had to make a choice between your rotation, or a couple of situational abilities. It was too easy to master, the only time it had any depth was in PvP where all the CC actually became useful.
The state of MMOs is based on a couple factors but here is why it's dying:
1. The core content of every MMO developed on a AAA budget is the same core content of every other MMO developed on a AAA budget. 2. That core content is grinding. First quest grinding for levels. And then raid/arena/dungeon grinding for gear.
People are tired of it. It's not fun to the vast majority of gamers to play this same model over and over and over. And even less fun to people who never really liked that model to begin with.
As my signature says. It's time for MMOs to move past stat grinding as "content".
To answer the OP quickly and easily. MMOs have drifted from using your intelligence to using your dexterity when it comes to combat. It's more about twitch now than thinking and I can see why that can be a problem for older players who have more wits than finger finesse. Me being one of them.
In games like ESO the “wits” is in your build.
I would argue that active blocking, dodging, sprinting, and aiming all while trying to execute your rotation takes much more wit than pressing buttons in a certain order.
That is literally tab-target combat. Get onto the right target and push buttons in the right order to win.
I would disagree.
Action combat games typically have few active skills available, so you just don't need to engage your brain. Like in ESO, you have attack, power attack, 5 skills plus your ultimate (iirc, haven't played in ages). Do you really need much "wit" to choose what to do next? Most of your skills form part of your rotation, so your decision making comes down to:
Do I continue with rotation?
Do I block?
Do I dodge / move?
Do I use my 1 situational ability?
I don't know about you, but making a choice between 4 possible choices is pretty easy. Compare that to a well designed tab-target system. You lose the active blocking from the decision making, but that last choice (the 1 situational) becomes a choice of lots of situational abilities. So, instead of choosing between 4 options, you're now choosing between 20 options.....that requires more "wit".
Of course, implementation is the key. LotRO had tons of "depth" i.e. it required intelligence to master a class, because every class had a great mix of solo abilities (for your rotation), situational abilities plus group abilities, so the harder the content the harder the decision making became. SW:TOR, conversely, was shallow as fuck despite being the same sort of combat system. Pretty much every skill was just something to add to your rotation so you only had to make a choice between your rotation, or a couple of situational abilities. It was too easy to master, the only time it had any depth was in PvP where all the CC actually became useful.
I think to become complicated you would also need to add things like the weight of armor and weapon, durability, poise, distance, whether the attack is actually making contact, full dodging control, and a few other factors I'm sure I'm missing.
Comments
....
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Take, for example, games like ESO and GW2: Players have stamina/endurance for blocking/dodging and can "see" AoE attacks.
Something as simple as supplying the NPCs limited stamina to use with the ability to dodge out of an AoE or put up a block when a player is charging up a big attack would drastically alter combat.
Player casts a bonfire in the middle of a group, maybe they could have enough sense to try and spread out instead of all piling into the fire like lemmings.
But, developers aren't often even using simple strategies like that -- the most basic of awareness.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I had fun once, it was terrible.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Some games try to get around this by disabling some skills in PvP, but basically this is the answer. You don't have any stand out skills because they are unfair in PvP, so everything is homogenized so that all classes are equally competitive. This makes PvE combat just tripe.
OP brought up auto attack, EQ was the most boring auto attack game of all the MMO's mentioned. Just because they made it so mobs hit you harder, or summon you, doesn't mean the combat in EQ was hard or challenging. Melees in EQ had to face tank & pretty much auto attack with some ability triggers here & there. Casters in EQ had to cast, then sit to med for mana, only to stand up cast dump again, then sit again.
In games like GW2 & BDO, especially during the later parts of character progression, if you don't actively dodge/evade, and you don't utilize more than auto attack, you simply won't do well. And this is PvE I'm taking about. At least OP clearly stated he never got far in those games, which explains his views.
Anyways PvE in MMO's today are designed for solo progression for the first 80% or so of a character's level cap. Expect fairly easy combat engagements aside from more challenging rares/elites/named. But once you get up there, you'll be expected to do a lot more than auto attack. In games like GW2 & BDO, you are expected to evade/dodge while pulling off combo chains. Even in stand & cast games like WoW, if you don't combo and min/max those uber dps, you might get kicked out of groups.
So my recommendation to the OP is to play further along in those games, get deeper into character progression. And of course there's always the option to play a different class. Playing a wizard in BDO then complain about PvE being too easy is kinda funny, seeing how wizzies are a top tier class for clears. Try playing one of the less popular classes (aka classes that don't clear as fast). You'll experience the challenge you're looking for. But know that there's a fine line between challenging & tedious.
Played: EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-LOTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO-BDO
Waiting For: CU & Vanilla WoW
Sure you can ad in those combat elements like GW2 did to make things more twitched/action based. From my perspective that still wasn't enough to alter combat. Over time, the combat became super stale. The only really interesting part was your 2 dodges that you could use with your stamina bar.
There are 3 facets that go into developing combat.
1. Combat Mechanics
2. NPC AI Combat Mechanics
3. Class Design
I think before we even consider specific mechanics for combat, the first thing that has to change is the approach to combat. Since I am a fan of tab targetting, not so much twitch, that is were I am coming from. The current approach to the trinity model has ran it's course and provided one dimensional/stale gameplay. I believe there needs to be a new approach to the trinity model without sacrificing the traditional elements. Instead of the 'tank & spank' by focusing on 1 NPC or mindlessly AoE a pack of NPCs, I think it would be more interesting if a Group of Players fought a Group of NPC's. Let me expand on that.
You would still have your traditional roles, tank, dps, healer, with added secondary roles of cc, debuffing, buffing. The only way for the trinity model to change without sacrificing the classic roles is to simply reinvent the tank role.
The tank role is the crux to the trinity model as the tank is the focal point of it. So what if we reinvent what the tank role means. What if the tank role isn't necessarily a defensive role anymore but rather jumps to the melee archetype of classes. So that changes the strategem of melee class design. What if melee classes have unique ways to defend themselves against attacks? Of course there would be varying degrees of defensive abilities per class. What if melee class roles were not distinguished by tank or dps? But rather the type of fighter they are? Actually take in account parrying, countering, striking.
To go back to the overall picture, I think that if you treat a battle of a player group vs. npc group and discern the funniest way to implement that. For me, I think it makes sense that melee vs. melee and caster vs. caster. Essentially, there would be 1v1 fights in the encounter. Think of it like American Football.
[i]The game of American Football is a team sport but with individual responsibilities. Your Quarter Back distributes the ball (Attacks) while your Offensive line blocks and protect (support) your Quarter Back. There are other different types of attackers that complement your QB such as your Running Back and Wide Receivers. Each player on the team performs individually but when executed correctly it's a team effort.[/i]
Before a player group engages into an NPC group, the players discern the best strategy for victory based off their current class/role composition. This also creates community. If there are 3 melee players and 4 NPC melees, then 1 NPC melee is not accounted for. So then if you have ranged casters in your group, depending on other various such as, race, class and NPC AI rank, the caster classes could either cc the unaccounted for melee npc or kill it quickly, if there are no other caster npc's in the encounter.
To me, I think the strategy of the approach of how you fight a group of npc's would be very rewarding. It would provide depth for combat mechanics and class design. That is 3 layers of depth. Sure, this style may not be for the super casual, but I feel like there would be enough players that would at least try it to justify such a system.
I don't think the dodge mechanics in modern games is much better than what we had in the past if it is indeed better. It's easier for people because they generally only need to focus on themselves and spam a rotation. There is no need to time things other than your own fake dodges (which are still turn-based behind the scenes). That might be more fun for melee classes when soloing, but in a group situation, it provides mostly the same experience as soloing. This opens things up for the masses as they don't have to learn to work with others in a group, but it also isn't an interesting IMO. A direct result of this is having an extremely limited amount of abilities, shortening of their durations, and having abilities that are only related to combat. Generally, all utility is shared amount the classes and has become rather boring.
The ones that you can just tank and spank are actually rare.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think something else that is missing in most games is the concept of blocking. By and large, MMOs have all but eliminated the use of collision detection(largely due to players trying to annoy each other I'm sure).
When we start talking about combat strategy, I feel like we haven't even bothered to mention the most obvious and theoretically, the most influential, aspect of any kind of combat -- the terrain.
Tanks would be far more interesting if they were actually able to get between an enemy and his flimsy allies and use his body to protect them rather than smashing a taunt key.
I don't think "taunt" should even exist, honestly. Tanks should be more of a hands-on role where they have to actually maneuver and physically stand in an enemy's way. I guess that may run counter to your dislike for more action-oriented combat, but I tend to think of melee classes as typically being more action-based(even in the older MMOs, Rogue types and such had to position and flank).
I'd love to see the actual world again actually, you know, impact the world. Positioning and controlling the battlefield seem far more interesting concepts to me for battle strategy, particularly in the instance of group vs. group fights, such as you mention.
I understand that people want pve and pvp to be interesting, for every encounter to be different and require different tactics according to the situation. I really don't think this too hard of a goal for an mmorpg accomplish.
I really think you would like my melee combat mechanics I came up with. I typically stick with caster DPS because I don't find melee combat intriguing at all. This new Guard system I came up with for Melee classes makes me want to make a ton of melee alts. If you're interested, send me a PM, I can add you on discord.
I don't have taunting mechanics in my Guard System, rather I have engage and disengage mechanics that make more sense.
I would argue that active blocking, dodging, sprinting, and aiming all while trying to execute your rotation takes much more wit than pressing buttons in a certain order.
That is literally tab-target combat. Get onto the right target and push buttons in the right order to win.
Probably one of the reasons I really hope it eventuall comes to the west.
I'd love to have a more Dark Souls, slow but you have to pay attention, 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
The modern action combat is made so it should be fun in both playstyles, problem is that it doesn't work as good as intended because the group mechanics isn't as good as it needs to be for fun PvE, that part needs more work.
But saying that GW2s combat system sucks since you can kill everything with autoattack is rather silly, you do several times the damage if you manage your skills well. So basically, that is due to modern MMOs pathetically low difficulty, and there are actually rather much content you can't win with autoattack. Try to just solo a HoT hero challenge monster yourself on autoattack (I can actually solo most of them with my thief but only if I max my damage and don't get hit by the mob).
Same thing with FF XIV, difficulty and combat system is 2 very different things that OP seems to mix together. And some really load people whine like there is no tomorrow whenever something slightly challenging comes out.
Anyone who played GW2 at the first beta weekend remember how it actually were with a good level of difficulty, people who played poorly died in stacks even in the starting DEs (like saving Queensdalkes water supply). It was awesome and the combat system worked fine even if the group dynamic still sucked.
My point is that I think the combat systems are fine, the group dynamic is poorly and the difficulty makes most content boring.
It is not the combat system that needs the fixing.
Combat has become more of a action mash up; mostly not as good as FPS, turn based strategy or trinity MMO stylie. It is neither one thing or the other and seems rather unsatisfying to me.
Action combat games typically have few active skills available, so you just don't need to engage your brain. Like in ESO, you have attack, power attack, 5 skills plus your ultimate (iirc, haven't played in ages). Do you really need much "wit" to choose what to do next? Most of your skills form part of your rotation, so your decision making comes down to:
- Do I continue with rotation?
- Do I block?
- Do I dodge / move?
- Do I use my 1 situational ability?
I don't know about you, but making a choice between 4 possible choices is pretty easy. Compare that to a well designed tab-target system. You lose the active blocking from the decision making, but that last choice (the 1 situational) becomes a choice of lots of situational abilities. So, instead of choosing between 4 options, you're now choosing between 20 options.....that requires more "wit".Of course, implementation is the key. LotRO had tons of "depth" i.e. it required intelligence to master a class, because every class had a great mix of solo abilities (for your rotation), situational abilities plus group abilities, so the harder the content the harder the decision making became. SW:TOR, conversely, was shallow as fuck despite being the same sort of combat system. Pretty much every skill was just something to add to your rotation so you only had to make a choice between your rotation, or a couple of situational abilities. It was too easy to master, the only time it had any depth was in PvP where all the CC actually became useful.
1. The core content of every MMO developed on a AAA budget is the same core content of every other MMO developed on a AAA budget.
2. That core content is grinding. First quest grinding for levels. And then raid/arena/dungeon grinding for gear.
People are tired of it. It's not fun to the vast majority of gamers to play this same model over and over and over. And even less fun to people who never really liked that model to begin with.
As my signature says. It's time for MMOs to move past stat grinding as "content".