How to: Engaging combat within the constraints of the MMO genre

[Aquilus]

So, as per this post we can be certain that technical constraits and market potential makes "twitch"-based combat with manual aiming undesirable to Goblinworks. However, this does not mean that the combat needs to be as detached as what has been the standard since Everquest. The popularity of games like Guild Wars 2 and TERA show that this isn't just the desires of a small niche, but rather the direction the genre is taking.

Traditionally, MMO combat is very distant from the player. It works more like giving orders to a person than being in control of its actions, and the success of said actions are mostly based on the characters inherent statistics coupled with some randomness. The opposite of this is would be FPS games, where the player is fully in control, and what determines success is the players reactions and a steady mouse-arm, as well as skill-based movement such as the concept of "Strafe Jumping" in Quake.

So, how can combat be engaging without the concept of twitch? The answer is fairly obvious, by transferring the chance-based elements to the player. This provides a consistent behaviour that allows for both more tactical play while also providing a more engaging experience. This especially goes for the defensive aspects of combat, which is highly automated in traditional MMOs. Instead of having a 23% chance to dodge, your Rogue has the ability to Tumble out of the way. The same can be applied to blocking, parrying, and so forth. Note that this doesn't have to deviate from the "hotkey bar and tab-targetting" control scheme, it is merely about moving the defensive capabilities from the realm of chance to a consistent result based on player input. These defensive measures would of course need to be limited by a resource such as Stamina, and suffer from diminishing returns to encourage tactical and well-timed use. Guild Wars 2 is a good example of this kind of gameplay, and while the input is essentially identical to your traditional MMO, the feel of combat is completely different, just from these minor changes.

For the offensive side of combat, things aren't as bad. Players are mostly fully in control of when to execute their attacks, with even World of Warcraft moving away from the "auto-attack" mechanic that has been a staple of the genre for ages. As previously mentioned, the problematic aspect of offensive combat is the lack of player impact on the outcome of attacks. The player selects a target, presses an attack button, which results in damage being done. If no target is selected, or the target is out of range, nothing happens. Allowing attacks to be fired whether or not they are capable of hitting the target may sound insignificant, but it makes a large difference to the feel of the combat. For melee attacks, this could also include the addition of tactical depth, by adding the concept of reach (which is also a core aspect of D&D tactics), making positioning important, both because of long edged weapons being able to hit multiple foes with a single sweep, and by making use of reach to hit your opponent while he is unable to retaliate. Age of Conan is an example of this being implemented successfully. Ranged combat is more difficult to improve without implementing manual aiming, which is unfeasible as per the developer post, but solutions could include making attacks miss based on the vector of the target in relation to the shot. From my limited playtime, Guild Wars 2 seems to be based around something like this.

So, I'm curious about what you, the rest of the potential playerbase think about these ideas, especially the ones who have tried games that explore similar concepts, such as Age of Conan, TERA, Guild Wars 2, and Dungeons & Dragons Online. Do people want to see something like this in Pathfinder Online, or would you rather have the more traditional MMO combat we see in titles such as Everquest or World of Warcraft? Additionally, a system like this could be made fast-paced and exhilarating or slow-paced and tactical, simply by tweaking the pace. Which option do you think is preferable for a game like this? Personally, I'm partial to the latter, but I definitely see the appeal of both. I would also love some brainstorming about possible mechanics to emphasize the aspects I've mentioned, as this is just what came off the top of my head, so it's probably flawed in some way I haven't thought of, or missing factors which could improve it further.

[DendasGarrett]

SQUARE TURN BASED COMBAT FTW!!!

no, not really....

I've heard good things about TERA, and I would prefer a more action-oriented, twitch based, tactile combat like you find in Mount and Blade. That being said, I also do not mind tactical combat.

Pathfinder RPG is not twitch or tactile combat, but it is very tactical. While I am sure more players would be attracted to a fast pace, action oriented type of combat, I would not mind seeing a half-and-half turn based - real time combat engine. Think along the lines of Knight of the Old Republic (the original games, that the crappy MMO.) Where combat was still fairly quick and in real time, but you could issue orders which were then carried out. This preserves the combat feel of Pathfinder RPG but makes it quicker.

It also makes fighting animations much easier.

[Morgen]

The Monster Hunter games have a very fun and interesting combat system too which I personally wouldn't mind seeing more of. Especially when it comes to the larger monsters in the game. TERA also is a good amount of fun. Just being able to dodge attacks seems to bring a lot to a game compared to the more static MUD like MMO's.

There is also something to be said for keeping the turn based combat of the table top. Not sure if that appeals to the wider audiences but I do so enjoy the table top game. ;)

[Andius]

The more fast paced the better IMO. I like combat that is simple to learn, difficult to master, and fast paced enough to draw you in to the action.

Personally Freelancer remains the game with the best combat system I've ever used despite the few flaws it had.

That said Freelancer is manual aim, and space based, two things this game is not. But I would certainly rather see something more akin to Guild Wars than WoW.

[Coldman]

My years in MMORPGs have always taught me one thing; it's not how you fight, it's what your fighting for. Immerse me and give me a purpose and I'd quite happily fight a battle with a match of rock, paper, scissors. I recently played Tera Online and can honestly say the combat is the most fun in any game MMORPG I have ever played; am I playing it? No. Guild Wars 2 combat was also a great deal of fun; not gonna play that either. I remember when I first played Assassins Creed and was blown away by the combat system, equally, played it for maybe a few days. Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

My personal preference for a game such as Pathfinder Online, one which will apparently offer a rich sandbox experience, is to keep it simple. In my own personal preference, sandbox games should not strive to achieve twitch based combat, nor should combat be something explosive with 101 moves and backflips. I played the Dawntide beta (before it went boom) and Dawntide offered nothing more than tab targeting, auto attack and a few basic attacks such as stun etc. Did it matter? Not remotely, the scope and vastness of possibilities and purpose to be found in the game made combat no more a tool than chopping wood or mining rock.

If the River Kingdoms has a pulse, if the sandbox elements are there, keep combat simple, balanced and solid. Good animations and intuitive combat speaks volumes; flashy twitch based combat often ends up looking stupid, gets boring and in almost all cases turns a sandbox game into a repetitive action game. I'm not saying you can't have both, I'm just saying I've never seen it happen.

I would honestly simply leave combat at tab targeting, HP/MP/Stamina bar and a relatively small selection of melee combat skills which eat a constantly replenishing stamina pool and are used to cause an effect, rather than that of skills which would be constantly cycled to cause max damage. Perhaps even skills which are conditional, such as a counterattack following a successful parry etc. Having loved playing my Lancer in Tera, manual parrying using say the right mouse button is endlessly awesome, however this deploys hit boxes and the whole premise of my preference here is to not over complicate game design for little pay off. Dodging, as you mentioned, is something doable and would be welcome. Auto attack is fine for me, I actually miss it. Level up to 60 in Tera and tell me that you're not bored of clicking/tapping/caring. I leveled my lancer 90% of his levels using a xbox 360 controller for no other reason than being incensed at how stressful it was trying to kickback with a mouse and keyboard.

[Nihimon]

Coldman wrote:

Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

Man, I almost want that in my signature.

[starspun]

Would absolutely love to see the dodge, parry and block actions left up to the player, rather than random chance. After having played GW2 (and TERA, though I'm not very fond of their combat beyond the way they handle avoidance), going back to percentage-based avoidance is just a letdown, and it doesn't feel immersive - or fun - in the slightest.

[Marou_]

Having fun core combat gameplay means tons. Yeah, a game can play well without it, but it's so much more with it. Some games have it *good core combat* but lack everything else.

WoW combat isn't the way to go. However, Darkfall style combat has many shortcomings as well. I'm interested to see what they cook up, and hope they keep in mind that most people are tired of the EQ/WoW standard.

The more *skillful* combat is, the less players are inclined to cry about insurmountable gear gaps/level gaps/etc.

[Shawn S.]

What I DON'T want to see if a click-fest, twitch based combat system mostly because it suffers MUCH more from a poor connection or a poorly performing system.

People can trash-talk WoW combat all they want but many people still play that game because it is much easier to have a computer that can still run it without much of a problem. Also, the WoW combat system is much more forgiving on lag spikes and poor connections. I used to happily play that game with a frequent lag problem and it was tolerable because of how the combat system was designed to handle it.

That being said, I do think that WoW's combat is extremely simplistic and a lot could be done to add skill into a combat system without making it system/connection dependent (at least not unreasonably so). I have confidence that the Goblin Works folks are up to the task. If I find any awesome combat systems or suggestions I'll be sure to post them!

[Valkenr]

Combat is more than control, it is also objectives. I cant stand deathmatch style fighting, you should never get a kill and see an instant reward. PvP encounters need a string of objectives tied to them. I never want to see war involving a giant zergling battle, there should be many things that need to be accomplished surgically. I never want to see combat involving more than 15 people on each side, grunt soldiers should only be NPC's, players should be more like officers. Warhammer Online tried to do simulated warfare, but failed, players should never be the grunts. The majority of PvP should be handled like special ops teams competing for opposite goals, and should never be over when one side dies. If someone raids a caravan, they still have to get that caravan back to their hideout before retaliation, The game then becomes a tug-o-war style conflict.

The 'Enemy Territory' franchise of FPS games is by far my favorite. You have a team of differing 'classes' and you have to work towards an objective. No one has done it right sense, Global agenda came close, but it was over simplified. I find other fps games get boring fast. I played the same 10 maps for 4 years in RtCW:ET and never got bored.

[Forencith]

Valkenr wrote:

I never want to see combat involving more than 15 people on each side, grunt soldiers should only be NPC's, players should be more like officers. Warhammer Online tried to do simulated warfare, but failed, players should never be the grunts.

I must admit I am torn on this...on one hand I would enjoy a Wuxia genre type game with massive NPC battles in which the PC champions destroy the NPCs hundreds at a time, then occasionally meeting to battle it out Athenian style. On the other, I like the idea of blurring the line between PvE/PvPas much as possible...including the role of NPCs versus PCs in the world.

[Andius]

Coldman wrote:

My years in MMORPGs have always taught me one thing; it's not how you fight, it's what your fighting for. Immerse me and give me a purpose and I'd quite happily fight a battle with a match of rock, paper, scissors. I recently played Tera Online and can honestly say the combat is the most fun in any game MMORPG I have ever played; am I playing it? No. Guild Wars 2 combat was also a great deal of fun; not gonna play that either. I remember when I first played Assassins Creed and was blown away by the combat system, equally, played it for maybe a few days. Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

I highly disagree. A well built engaging world is important. Combat is equally important. If a game were a weapon I would compare the world, sandbox elements, and crafting system too the weapons design. I would compare the combat, graphics, and character customization to the metal it is forged from.

Guild Wars is an engaging game with great combat, some awesome graphics, and decent character customization. It's crafting, and sandbox elements are non-existent with a world that while beautiful and interesting is linear and not at all open.

Wurm Online is a game with AMAZING crafting, second to none sandbox elements, and an open world that gives a real feeling of exploration, allows you to truly get lost, terraform it, and put your survival skills to the test. It's graphics are tolerable but the lack of animations really hurts immersion. The combat is horrid... Runescape level bad. And the extent of character customization is /gofemale.

Both games really feel like they are lacking, and ultimately can't hold my attention for long. Though Wurm is the more enjoyable of the two of them... I don't like either model.

I don't want a poorly sharpened hunk of damascus steel. Nor do I want a finely made copper blade. I want a katana. A finely made blade of damascus steel.

I'm here, because I think PFO can deliver that to me.

[Coldman]

NPC hirelings imo would be a great edition to combat, especially territorial combat. Paying to employ and arm an NPC militia makes too much sense. It would need to be made very much situational however, that or perma zerg of hirelings.

[Forencith]

Andius wrote:

Coldman wrote:

My years in MMORPGs have always taught me one thing; it's not how you fight, it's what your fighting for. Immerse me and give me a purpose and I'd quite happily fight a battle with a match of rock, paper, scissors. I recently played Tera Online and can honestly say the combat is the most fun in any game MMORPG I have ever played; am I playing it? No. Guild Wars 2 combat was also a great deal of fun; not gonna play that either. I remember when I first played Assassins Creed and was blown away by the combat system, equally, played it for maybe a few days. Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

I highly disagree. A well built engaging world is important. Combat is equally important. If a game were a weapon I would compare the world, sandbox elements, and crafting system too the weapons design. I would compare the combat, graphics, and character customization to the metal it is forged from.

Guild Wars is an engaging game with great combat, some awesome graphics, and decent character customization. It's crafting, and sandbox elements are non-existent with a world that while beautiful and interesting is linear and not at all open.

Wurm Online is a game with AMAZING crafting, second to none sandbox elements, and an open world that gives a real feeling of exploration, allows you to truly get lost, terraform it, and put your survival skills to the test. It's graphics are tolerable but the lack of animations really hurts immersion. The combat is horrid... Runescape level bad. And the extent of character customization is /gofemale.

Both games really feel like they are lacking, and ultimately can't hold my attention for long. Though Wurm is the more enjoyable of the two of them... I don't like either model.

I don't want a poorly sharpened hunk of damascus steel. Nor do I want a finely made copper blade. I want a katana. A finely made blade of damascus steel.

I'm here, because I think PFO can deliver that to me.

*laugh* I actually agree with both of you...I cannot see the contradiction.

[DeciusBrutus]

Valkenr wrote:

Combat is more than control, it is also objectives. I cant stand deathmatch style fighting, you should never get a kill and see an instant reward. PvP encounters need a string of objectives tied to them. I never want to see war involving a giant zergling battle, there should be many things that need to be accomplished surgically. I never want to see combat involving more than 15 people on each side, grunt soldiers should only be NPC's, players should be more like officers. Warhammer Online tried to do simulated warfare, but failed, players should never be the grunts. The majority of PvP should be handled like special ops teams competing for opposite goals, and should never be over when one side dies. If someone raids a caravan, they still have to get that caravan back to their hideout before retaliation, The game then becomes a tug-o-war style conflict.

The 'Enemy Territory' franchise of FPS games is by far my favorite. You have a team of differing 'classes' and you have to work towards an objective. No one has done it right sense, Global agenda came close, but it was over simplified. I find other fps games get boring fast. I played the same 10 maps for 4 years in RtCW:ET and never got bored.

I'd love to see W:ET style objectives with SGW pre-CU style combat. It wouldn't work for PFO, unless it could make those objectives be emergent instead of static. Then again, the premise of "use a small group to destroy the emplaces fortifications before the massive battle starts" is pretty much a staple of handling tabletop games once armies get involved.

[Andius]

Valkenr wrote:

Combat is more than control, it is also objectives. I cant stand deathmatch style fighting, you should never get a kill and see an instant reward. PvP encounters need a string of objectives tied to them. I never want to see war involving a giant zergling battle, there should be many things that need to be accomplished surgically. I never want to see combat involving more than 15 people on each side, grunt soldiers should only be NPC's, players should be more like officers. Warhammer Online tried to do simulated warfare, but failed, players should never be the grunts. The majority of PvP should be handled like special ops teams competing for opposite goals, and should never be over when one side dies. If someone raids a caravan, they still have to get that caravan back to their hideout before retaliation, The game then becomes a tug-o-war style conflict.

The 'Enemy Territory' franchise of FPS games is by far my favorite. You have a team of differing 'classes' and you have to work towards an objective. No one has done it right sense, Global agenda came close, but it was over simplified. I find other fps games get boring fast. I played the same 10 maps for 4 years in RtCW:ET and never got bored.

PVP that limited the amount of people on both sides would be a deal-breaker for me. That is not sandbox. You cannot make a game that you claim is a sandbox and limit each side to 15 players.

If I build a large clan, and convince a few other large clans to ally mine, and convince many more small clans to ally mine, and get some freelancers to join in, and a ton of neutrals decide to support us for this battle, and I hire all the mercenaries in the game and we show up on the battlefield with FIVE THOUSAND players, the only limitation I will accept is that it crashed the game server.

People should be able to join ANY fight they wish to do so. Period. That is the nature of a sandbox.

Requiring objectives to be met to capture a fort or settlement, and NPC allies are all good ideas IMO though.

I am an alliance builder and diplomat first. I am a fighter and tactician second. What you are suggesting would entirely KILL the role I like to serve in these kind of games.

[Coldman]

Forencith wrote:

Andius wrote:

Coldman wrote:

My years in MMORPGs have always taught me one thing; it's not how you fight, it's what your fighting for. Immerse me and give me a purpose and I'd quite happily fight a battle with a match of rock, paper, scissors. I recently played Tera Online and can honestly say the combat is the most fun in any game MMORPG I have ever played; am I playing it? No. Guild Wars 2 combat was also a great deal of fun; not gonna play that either. I remember when I first played Assassins Creed and was blown away by the combat system, equally, played it for maybe a few days. Games are not defined by their combat but by the outcome of combat.

I highly disagree. A well built engaging world is important. Combat is equally important. If a game were a weapon I would compare the world, sandbox elements, and crafting system too the weapons design. I would compare the combat, graphics, and character customization to the metal it is forged from.

Guild Wars is an engaging game with great combat, some awesome graphics, and decent character customization. It's crafting, and sandbox elements are non-existent with a world that while beautiful and interesting is linear and not at all open.

Wurm Online is a game with AMAZING crafting, second to none sandbox elements, and an open world that gives a real feeling of exploration, allows you to truly get lost, terraform it, and put your survival skills to the test. It's graphics are tolerable but the lack of animations really hurts immersion. The combat is horrid... Runescape level bad. And the extent of character customization is /gofemale.

Both games really feel like they are lacking, and ultimately can't hold my attention for long. Though Wurm is the more enjoyable of the two of them... I don't like either model.

I don't want a poorly sharpened hunk of damascus steel. Nor do I want a finely made copper blade. I want a katana. A finely made blade of damascus steel.

I'm here, because I think PFO can deliver that to me.

*laugh* I...

I agree with him too. Andius I am confused how I gave the impression that I wanted anything different?

My point that I'd accept any form of combat was an over exaggeration to stress the point that combat doesn't make or break sandbox games, it's just an element to them as you said. Almost every sandbox release I've played to date has utterly failed with combat centric gameplay, falling short in almost every other area. You raise the point about Wurm and Runescape, they are sandbox games which totally lack any form of enjoyable combat, yet funnily enough I'd be more inclined to play them than a themepark/poor sandbox.

I feel much older a gamer than my years would suggest. I can't pick up a conventional single player action game and stomach it for more than a few hours at best. I guess my initial point was just stressing the fact that in a sandbox MMORPG, in tune with my own preferences, combat is not the predominant factor and the development process would benefit as a whole if it avoided development time and money on risky innovative combat mechanics. Why do I think this? Sandbox games still thrive in cases in which combat is well below par; in contrast, sandboxes die if anyone one of the crafting system, economy, community or world design is well below par. I understand the general consensus for combat to be 'good', I just sincerely hope that the game is designed with a priority to establish functional, simple and quality features than trying to build an innovative combat system. Were in an age where MMORPGs are realizing the technology to start implementing action rich combat mechanics into our MMO games; they're also completely omitting the breadth and depth of rich sandbox content which I personally miss, a lot. I'd take fisty cuffs for a well rounded game.

I use my experience beta testing Dawntide in validifying this argument in my head. Dawntide, may it rest in peace, had combat on par with runescape, yet I could have played that game for ever.

[Andius]

As a sandbox with open world PVP there is only one form of play EVERY player is almost guaranteed to take part in. Combat. As such I expect it to be emphasized. I don't want it to be Runescape level. I don't want it to be WoW level. I want it to be REALLY friggin good.

It doesn't have to be super complicated. It just has to be good. Darkfall makes the perfect example that the most complicated combat system isn't always the best. Guild Wars(The Original) and Freelancer make the example that a relatively simple combat system can be AMAZING.

They need to put as much time as is necessary into their combat to make it good. I don't want to see corners cut just to deliver more sandbox content. Sandbox content is easier to put in after the fact. If we start without fishing, or boat building, or only one type each for wood metal and stone... You can always add more as things progress. Hard to redo the entire combat system partway through.

Wurm and Runescape will never be the games I wish they were because they launched with terrible combat systems due to high emphasis on crafting and sandbox content. Now they have items and game systems built around those terrible combat systems. I don't want to see that happen here.

[Fire Bud]

The ability to dodge & block (with shield or weapon) attacks is a must, always been a game breaker to me in mmorpgs that I couldn't dodge or block things and after playing GW2 & Tera recently I have to admit it was something that should have been in the genre half a decade ago if not longer.

If they can find a combat style that can in a way be semi-twitch with tactical thinking they'll be able to pull off something amazing.

Agreed with Andius as well, never limit pvp (specially open world sandbox pvp). That's the most suicidal thing this game could do in regards to pvp. Sure you'll get the zergers, the conquers and the tyrants but that's what makes sandbox games great is that things that can happen will happen and players have to accept them or rise up to overcome them.

[Marou_]

On the upside I've been playing around with the Hero Engine (SWTOR/TES:O, etc) in my spare time since a cloud dev license only cost $99, and even full fps combat with location damage is natively supported; complete with demo projects you can download to see how it works.

The problem with Hero Engine without source access is running a bunch of complex scripts is much slower and more demanding than running native C++ code, so you end up with weird input lag. It works fine, but the controls feel a little *off*. I think you'd need to implement your combat directly into the game code to get the type of tight experience needed. After playing with the engine, I'd blame the "input lag" in SWTOR on them implementing the combat through Heroscript instead of hacking it into the source, but that's pure speculation by me, I could be wrong.

[Altearia]

Coldman wrote:

I agree with him too. Andius I am confused how I gave the impression that I wanted anything different?

My point that I'd accept any form of combat was an over exaggeration to stress the point that combat doesn't make or break sandbox games, it's just an element to them as you said. Almost every sandbox release I've played to date has utterly failed with combat centric gameplay, falling short in almost every other area. You raise the point about Wurm and Runescape, they are sandbox games which totally lack any form of enjoyable combat, yet funnily enough I'd be more inclined to play them than a themepark/poor sandbox.

I feel much older a gamer than my years would suggest. I can't pick up a conventional single player action game and stomach it for more than a few hours at best. I guess my initial point was just stressing the fact that in a sandbox MMORPG, in tune with my own preferences, combat is not the predominant factor and the development process would benefit as a whole if it avoided development time and money on risky innovative combat mechanics. Why do I think this? Sandbox games still thrive in cases in which combat is well below par; in contrast, sandboxes die if anyone one of the crafting system, economy, community or world design is well below par. I understand the general consensus for combat to be 'good', I just sincerely hope that the game is designed with a priority to establish functional, simple and quality features than trying to build an innovative combat system. Were in an age where MMORPGs are realizing the technology to start implementing action rich combat mechanics into our MMO games; they're also completely omitting the breadth and depth of rich sandbox content which I personally miss, a lot. I'd take fisty cuffs for a well rounded game.

I use my experience beta testing Dawntide in validifying this argument in my head. Dawntide, may it rest in peace, had combat on par with runescape, yet I could have played that game for ever.

It doesn't need to be innovative, it just needs to be good, and both WoW and SWToR both have less than desirable combat systems, so if that is what is planned Goblinworks better think again. I personally will find it very hard to go back to tab targeting after all the time I have spent in TERA, where my skills actually have a large impact on the outcome of combat, rather than it being purely about numbers.

As has already been said, you can fix and add sandbox elements post launch, but you cannot fix the combat, what you launch with is what you get for the rest of the game's life-time, and assuming this game lives for the next 10 years I would really like to have something more alined with TERA, than with WoW, it is just more fun. If you omit making the combat both good and fun then you risk a wide range of negatives, from being labeled 'yet another tab target WoW-clone' in an era that is shifting to systems with more user input, to outright killing the game through lack of fresh blood to the game. The new players will only experience combat for their first weeks of the game, they won't be building a town, they won't see many of the positive elements of a sandbox till they have progressed more into it, so if the first thing they think based on the combat is 'man, this game plays just like SWToR, and I don't want to play that again' they will just quit, and without enough new people to replace the old people, who move on to other things, your game just dies.

But all that said I don't want another themepark, I want something more to my game, I want to build a town and burn my enemies to the ground, I'm tired of being just another [insert class here] in [insert game here]. I will just be extremely put out if they just give me a Sandbox WoW.

[AvenaOats]

It's practical to try to discount what is not wanted or possible. Current trend in mmorpg for more actiony combat because 10yrs of tab-wow style is beyond tolerance now (imo). So there is a shift AWAY from that style towards actiony which is partly technology dependent. If it's sandbox, then with lots of players possible in a battle and all that jazz, then that would preclude going more actiony as well as probably being beyond GW's technical ability anyway (mentioned somewhere about that).

So, the other direction is a possible way for depth of combat: Tactical skill use requiring logical decision-making ability. Just how to implement that, so it aligns with some of the pathfinder "vital statistics" of character generation and skill training progression is the next $$,$$$$$$ question. But state again I'd be quite cautious of tab-run-o-the-mill combat lasting another x number of years especially as development time will be at least >2yrs min.

[Hudax]

no one in particular wrote:

WoW combat sucks.

How hipster of you to say. Last time I checked, WoW still had almost half the MMO market share. Meaning well over half of people interested in MMOs enjoy that style of combat (read: the MMO style) just fine.

TERA will dig its own grave. It only has appeal to people who are interested in both MMOs and FPSs, so right off the bat they are narrowing their appeal. As the game matures and their player base becomes more competitive and more skilled at playing TERA, it will lose players due to an intolerably high threshold of skill required to play the game.

Quote:

twitch o.O

Twitch based design is the opposite of skill based design. Any twitch based mechanic implemented in PFO will mean a whole gamut of skills they cannot implement. If dodging is based on your real life skill, then any in game skills that increase your baseline dodge/pary/block rate or activated dodge/parry/block cooldowns are wasted. Or worse, mean that one person has a huge skill gap over another. I don't think Goblinworks is going to shoot its own design in the foot like that.

[Nihimon]

AvenaOats wrote:

... development time will be at least >2yrs min.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Keep in mind, there is no possibility that anyone will reach level cap in the opening weekend, so they really only need to launch with enough to keep people busy during the early stages of the game (no Settlements, etc.).

They will probably also not be doing a lot of custom changes to the engine.

[insorrow]

I have played several mmo games , including sandbox titles such as eve online and darkfall . TAB targeting combat needs to go away .I cannot stretch how old it looks .it is probably the only reason i am not playing archeage atm. It is also the most boring part of EVE which admittedly is the most successful sandbox atm.

As previously mentioned , the combat system pretty much defines the game.You cannot go back and revisit combat .you can go back and revisit the way crafting works ,or kingdom management works etc , but i have never seen a game rework combat.

that being said , i have played darkfall a lot ,and although it is fun , fps combat simply doesnt feel right in a fantasy mmo.i know traditional rpg like might and magic , eye of the beholder and elder scrolls were first person , but even bethesda now made skyrim fully playable in 3rd person.

in my humble opinion the best way to go would be something similar to tera or mount and blade .the games are 3rd person ,and their combat systems do not scare customers away .you can manually dodge and you "aim" at a general direction.

As far as technology goes .Tera did it ( 3rd person, manual dodging , partial aiming ), mount&blade did it (3rd person ,manual blocking-dodging ,aiming , weapon reach) ,darkfall did it (open world pvp of more than 500 players simultaneously ,front and back hitbox ,fps aiming). It can be done .I am not sure how much extra that might cost , but i am sure it will be worth it

[Drejk]

Hudax wrote:

Twitch based design is the opposite of skill based design. Any twitch based mechanic implemented in PFO will mean a whole gamut of skills they cannot implement. If dodging is based on your real life skill, then any in game skills that increase your baseline dodge/pary/block rate or activated dodge/parry/block cooldowns are wasted.

It could be possibly combined by making the character dodge skill decrease the hit box and thus increasing the margin of error for the player performing the twitch-based dodge. Parry/block skills could increase effective cover provided by shield and weapon while defending oneself, etc.

[AvenaOats]

Hudax wrote:

twitch o.O

As said, twitch sounds less likely.

Hudax wrote:

no one in particular wrote:

WoW combat sucks.

How hipster of you to say. Last time I checked, WoW still had almost half the MMO market share. Meaning well over half of people interested in MMOs enjoy that style of combat (read: the MMO style) just fine.-snip-

However to drill deeper into the tab-combat question, there are evidently advantages for developers to design something "similar to wow":

1. It's proven it works in practice in mmos (scalable).
2. Players are familiar with these controls so less "relearning" required for a new game.
3. As you say it appears popular in WoW something like 12m players therefore so many of the people that play these games enjoy it.

That all said, I think some sort of shift away from tab target 1,2,3 wait for cooldown, repeat, type of user input might be needed? Also if players have played wow using this sytem for x number of years, there's every chance a new game that repeats the same combat "played for 2-3,4... years & counting" there's going to be a reaction: "I've already played this game before [for years!]"?

Part of the fun of games is learning new systems especially if those systems are going to keep entertaining for years to come. Also I wonder what sort of system would appeal MORE to the PnP, TT RPG'er but in video-game form? That would be the angle I hope to see Pathfinder look at.

That MORE THAN what's been seen a lot already with Warhammer or Star Wars licence approach to combat with tab-targetting and apply as you said:

Quote:

that style of combat (read: the MMO style)

So, not the twitch/greater actiony direction, but also imo not standing still in the Tab-target positon, but moving towards some sort of interesting decision making process direction, is best I could put it.:)

Tab-target has it's advantages, but if the combat leads to those comments I see in "same old, same old" from recent tab-target mmos that is perhaps a game I might wonder if it's better and different from other mmorpgs on the market, even with the sandbox context, afterall.

Nihimon wrote:

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Maybe considering the release vision, but even 2yrs would be lightening fast, I was thinking for a mmorpg to be released? :)

[Hudax]

AvenaOats wrote:

what sort of system would appeal MORE to the PnP, TT RPG'er

My assumption is one with no twitch. PnP is about as non-twitch as it gets. (Pre mountain dew, of course.)

Quote:

there's going to be a reaction: "I've already played this game before [for years!]"?

An interesting point. However, people who played EQ for years didn't have that reaction when they started playing WoW. No one in their right mind called WoW an "EQ clone."

I think it's just about accepting the fundamental mechanics of the genre. No one is complaining that Pathfinder PnP still uses d20 mechanics, even though we've played those for decades.

I get the desire to see something new. But there's newness and there's reinventing the wheel.

[insorrow]

Hudax wrote:

no one in particular wrote:

WoW combat sucks.

How hipster of you to say. Last time I checked, WoW still had almost half the MMO market share. Meaning well over half of people interested in MMOs enjoy that style of combat (read: the MMO style) just fine.

Quote:

twitch o.O

Twitch based design is the opposite of skill based design.. Or worse, mean that one person has a huge skill gap over another.

Last time i checked wow was a theme park mmo that has 12 million players. maybe we should copy its combat style , its battlegrounds and its dungeons but we will license a brand . lets say conan online , or lord of the rings online , or star wars , or warhammer or pathfinder or , or or .

i think you get the point.many studios tried to copy wow.they all failed miserably. blizzard has a single approach to the games they make.The common denominator. make the game so easy that a 5years old can play it.their games offer you convenience , ease and product quality.they can play in the most humble pc ,by any person , with the least amount of time .Anyone can be a "hero " with 11euro/month as long as you do your daily quest.

there is nothing wrong with doing casual games.i have a real life too.But simplistic game design is the wrong direction in a sandbox game. press tab to target a monster and now press 3 , 3, 3 until it is dead.

As far as skil cap goes. I am not sure what is your gaming experience on open-world games.this game is e.g about territorial control , diplomacy politics etc .You should be prepared to lose , lose often .you cannot always win in sandbox games , this is not a themepark where you always win the big bad dragon and get a token .the opponent is usually another person. A clan that wants the same mine as your clan , a smith that offers a better deal that you.In these kind of games everything goes , you can be outskilled , outsmarted , or outnumbered. having a huge skill-cap is what makes chess a great game and tic-tact-toe a not so great one .

[AvenaOats]

Hudax wrote:

AvenaOats wrote:

what sort of system would appeal MORE to the PnP, TT RPG'er

My assumption is one with no twitch. PnP is about as non-twitch as it gets. (Pre mountain dew, of course.)

Quote:

there's going to be a reaction: "I've already played this game before [for years!]"?

An interesting point. However, people who played EQ for years didn't have that reaction when they started playing WoW. No one in their right mind called WoW an "EQ clone."

I think it's just about accepting the fundamental mechanics of the genre. No one is complaining that Pathfinder PnP still uses d20 mechanics, even though we've played those for decades.

I get the desire to see something new. But there's newness and there's reinventing the wheel.

Yes, it's probably true, the engine they pick for making an mmorpg will limit the amount of differences possible.

So far, the 2 interesting references I've heard are the Mount & Blade type of combat and the SWG (pre-NGE?) combat of which I did not play. But the idea of sort of queuing skills and watching them enact, that sounds possibly really interesting for tactics/decisions and also as someone else said, for animations too? Good thinking.

[Hudax]

Quote:

make the game so easy that a 5years old can play it.... press tab to target a monster and now press 3 , 3, 3 until it is dead.

Chess is easy too, the rules are very simple. You choose your level of difficulty when you choose your opponent. Same with WoW. Questing is incredibly easy. PvP, raiding... not so much.

There's nothing "simplistic" about WoW's design. There is simple content, yes. And you have the freedom to use a one button rotation if you don't care about your performance. But the deeper you dig into the design, the more complexity you reveal. Even doing something as easy as questing, you're better off learning a little bit about your class and hitting 1,2,3 rather than 1,1,1.

A hardcore game has far less appeal than a casual one. WoW hit its stride in BC and Wrath because they figured this out. You can still offer extremely difficult content alongside casual content, and it works, and you'll have a larger player base because of it.

[insorrow]

Hudax wrote:

You choose your level of difficulty when you choose your opponent. Same with WoW. Questing is incredibly easy. PvP, raiding... not so much.

There's nothing "simplistic" about WoW's design. There is simple content, yes. And you have the freedom to use a one button rotation if you don't care about your performance.

A hardcore game has far less appeal than a casual one.

You cannot choose your opponent in sandbox games, certainly not in sandbox games made right.that is the fun part. I am not sure if you played any or if you play pnp games or if you are the Dungeon master in one. does the party of adventurers in your sessions always win the encounters? they do not have to plan ahead ? , role play a way out of a hard situation or even mess it up and start over again from scratch , naked in a cell?

is the quest always like that? kill the cultists loot the necromage ,come back to the npc and be the town hero?

I think goblinworks should aim at a target audience properly.once you decide your audience you can then make gameplay decisions.I do not think this game targets the same audience as wow , nor that it should.so far the game has

-partial looting (you die and lose your inventory other than those items you have equipped )
-2,5 years of character development to get to lvl 20. skill planning of 5 years etc

-territorial control and open world pvp.

do you think the wow crowd , will still play the game ?you read those features and "casual" is the first word that comes in mind?

wow does not have simplistic game features? really? you press a button and you teleport inside a dungeon , perfect for your equipment lvl ,where you will win the "boss" if you manage to "master " the 1-2-3 rotation? you do not even have to step out of stormwind ffs , they even teleport you back outside the AH after you complete the dungeon. it cannot get more simple than that or it will turn into a movie , you will not have to press 1-2-3 just buy snacks and enjoy the loot.

i think the game speaks for itself. Back to combat mechanics , I expect a good combat system to match the rest of the game mechanics . tab 1-2-3 was fun in 2000 when EQ was out .kill 20 goblins quests were fun in 2000 .rock paper scissors ( warrior mage rogue) classes were fun in 2000.Even blizzard tries to move away from the autohit combat .their new class the monk never autohits , you have to time every single attack . they will present it as a revolutionary feature in mist of pandaria , mark my words

[Andius]

Who is really fooled into thinking WoW-style combat can be deep or highly skill based? I tend to gravitate away from such games yet I managed to beat TOR 2 levels under and highly undergeared from 10 to 48.

I frequently had people tell me "MAN you have AWESOME heals." And in the player-run PVP duels tournament on my server I went the 2nd farthest of any healer, had several people comment during one of my major fights that it was straight up pro, and had people asking for my build afterward.

I didn't adjust my build from my regular straight up healing build for the duel, and I only had 3-4 pieces of PVP gear with an average gear rating just high enough to get accepted into lower level raids.

In Darkfall I felt the combat system was overwhelming, I could barely compete with most players, and would say I easily ranked in the bottom 30%. That is partially due to level imbalance in a game where the grind took way too damn long, but I would say it was primarily due to my lack of mastery of some advanced combat tactics such as bunny-hopping (NOT the same thing as in WoW. In Darkfall it when you aim a spell that will launch you into the air at your feet while sprinting, crouch as you cast it, and then jump as you land to propel yourself forward with a series of insanely fast long distance jumps. The timing is DIFFICULT.) Or jumping, turning 180 degrees, shooting a spell at my enemy behind me and landing facing forward again. Or blasting my enemy into the air with a fireball then hitting them with a ray (instant cast spell) while they were in the air. The tactics in that game were mind blowing.

Personally I would say the reason anyone thinks WoW combat requires much skill is that most highly skilled players have gravitated away from such games and such games are primarily inhabited by people who think time invested into game > player skill. My point of this post is not to say how awesome I was at TOR. Its to say that TOR just didn't really take that much. In games that actually take some skill, I'm not that exceptional of a player.

I personally would really NOT like to see mind blowingly difficult Darkfall style combat in this game. But I don't think we should stoop so low as to the childishly easy WoW style combat either. There are plenty of games out there that strike a better balance.

[DeciusBrutus]

Andius wrote:

Who is really fooled into thinking WoW-style combat can be deep or highly skill based? I tend to gravitate away from such games yet I managed to beat TOR 2 levels under and highly undergeared from 10 to 48.

I frequently had people tell me "MAN you have AWESOME heals." And in the player-run PVP duels tournament on my server I went the 2nd farthest of any healer, had several people comment during one of my major fights that it was straight up pro, and had people asking for my build afterward.

I didn't adjust my build from my regular straight up healing build for the duel, and I only had 3-4 pieces of PVP gear with an average gear rating just high enough to get accepted into lower level raids.

That sounds EXACTLY like a highly (player) skill based system. You CAN just spam each ability as soon as the cooldown pops, but unless that's always the best time to use it, you shouldn't.

[Andius]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

That sounds EXACTLY like a highly (player) skill based system. You CAN just spam each ability as soon as the cooldown pops, but unless that's always the best time to use it, you shouldn't.

And you really think that takes a lot of skill? Yeah its not tic-tac-toe but it's no chess.

Personally I would rather play a game I'm not going to master in my first day playing. Not meaning to brag but seriously. It doesn't take much to step beyond 1-2-3 to "So I only press 3 if I land 2 and if they are wearing heavy armor switch 1 to 5."

[Nihimon]

From a prior discussion:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Valkenr wrote:

The target/ability bar has really been done to death and i think a lot of people are looking for a new feel.

I don't disagree with that. I think there's a huge design space to be explored. We just won't be exploring the one where you aim with player skill and twitch in response to stimuli.

[Blaeringr]

I thought WoW was THE game representing checkers people used in the analogy "some people prefer chess, and some prefer checkers" when talking about MMOs. Kinda surprised to see the opposing comparison made.

[Coldman]

Altearia wrote:

It doesn't need to be innovative, it just needs to be good, and both WoW and SWToR both have less than desirable combat systems, so if that is what is planned Goblinworks better think again. I personally will find it very hard to go back to tab targeting after all the time I have spent in TERA, where my skills actually have a large impact on the outcome of combat, rather than it being purely about numbers.

As has already been said, you can fix and add sandbox elements post launch, but you cannot fix the combat, what you launch with is what you get for the rest of the game's life-time, and assuming this game lives for the next 10 years I would really like to have something more alined with TERA, than with WoW, it is just more fun. If you omit making the combat both good and fun then you risk a wide range of negatives, from being labeled 'yet another tab target WoW-clone' in an era that is shifting to systems with more user input, to outright killing the game through lack of fresh blood to the game. The new players will only experience combat for their first weeks of the game, they won't be building a town, they won't see many of the positive elements of a sandbox till they have progressed more into it, so if the first thing they think based on the combat is 'man, this game plays just like SWToR, and I don't want to play that again' they will just quit, and without enough new people to replace the old people, who move on to other things, your game just dies.

But all that said I don't want another themepark, I want something more to my game, I want to build a town and burn my enemies to the ground, I'm tired of being just another [insert class here] in [insert game here]. I will just be extremely put out if they just give me a Sandbox WoW.

My point is this. Tera combat is great, yet pretty much all the game has as a life line. Take away that and Tera is just another themepark. It's true that combat mechanics are initiated at launch and remain indefinitely, however a sandbox game relies heavily upon everything but the combat. Themeparks consist of quest grinding; combat is the mechanism in which you derive fun; PvP and end raid content is the name of the game and fun is correlated to the mechanism of combat in completing those goals. Succeeding is indeed fun, but equally as much as the difficulty in combat to reach that goal i.e arenas or Tera open pvp.

In sandbox games (or every sandbox I have encountered), fun is derived from the availability to achieve worldly and meaningful accomplishments through your actions, combat is just a facet of this. No sandbox I can remember had any distinctly innovative combat system or one which I would define as fun on it's own merit. From this viewpoint, I find it hard to imagine a sandbox MMO with a combat system similar to that of Tera, simply as I haven't seen an MMO in over a decade which can even deliver sandbox features, let alone an advanced combat system such as Tera's FPS combat or Darkfall's hack and slash. These features to me are integral to games which rely upon such mechanisms and in the case of sandbox games (Darkfall), have utterly failed to deliver both a higher form of combat system and sandbox features. I cannot help but think that if Darkfall adopted a more default means of combat, the game breaking lack of sandbox content and weird combat would not exist in any form.

A good sandbox game, even with a combat system identical to WoW, would not phase me. Given the scope of possibilities in game, how I killed people would be of little importance. Salem is a new and very popular sandbox MMORPG in which the combat is ridiculously simple, yet I see it doing very well and don't see how a simplified or even outdated combat system can hinder a game of vast potential for player interaction. Players are not going to login and say 'Oh I've seen this combat before', they're going to say 'I can't believe there is so much stuff I can do'. The game itself will have no comparison to other combat centric themepark games thus I don't think that combat mechanics need comparison on a similar plateau. Combat should not be the only route of entry and thus the game, in my opinion, should not pimp itself out in this direction and would be a poor take on the intellectual property which it carries if it did.

I don't see it reasonable to expect Goblinworks to deliver a combat system anything like what is on offer in Tera; in fact I'd see such a thing as detrimental to the game. Sandbox games are about everything other than high action combat in my eyes; you have control of the development of a vast range of things, combat in itself should not rely on a high calibration of 'twitch' skill as is the case in Tera, this combat has already created a themepark niche of FPS pewpewers. Any form of simplified combat requires an advanced level of skill to compete at the top level, even tiddly winks.

Keep it simple, that's all I hope. I play Tera for twitch combat, I can't see it being in Pathfinder on top of everything else the game requires to be a successful sandbox. Don't get me wrong, I'd accept both; I'd accept something fresh or a new take on the past conventions of combat, but twitch based FPS or innovative combat is a tall order when attempting to create a true sandbox world.

[DeciusBrutus]

Andius wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

That sounds EXACTLY like a highly (player) skill based system. You CAN just spam each ability as soon as the cooldown pops, but unless that's always the best time to use it, you shouldn't.

And you really think that takes a lot of skill? Yeah its not tic-tac-toe but it's no chess.

Personally I would rather play a game I'm not going to master in my first day playing. Not meaning to brag but seriously. It doesn't take much to step beyond 1-2-3 to "So I only press 3 if I land 2 and if they are wearing heavy armor switch 1 to 5."

Yes. I do think that knowing when to use a limited-use ability can take a lot of skill and a firm understanding of all the mechanics involved, including what the opponent thinks you are going to do. Then again, I play Roshambo to win, and win about three quarters of the time against unprepared opponents.

[AvenaOats]

Hudax wrote:

-snip- A hardcore game has far less appeal than a casual one. WoW hit its stride in BC and Wrath because they figured this out. You can still offer extremely difficult content alongside casual content, and it works, and you'll have a larger player base because of it.

Yes, the combat ideally needs to be simple but deep. My problem with wow combat is that it's neither here nor there, it's aiming for visceral feeling to roleplaying statistics and is neither that actiony compared to twitch nor that interesting decision-making compared to the PnP!

I agree you don't design a combat system to appeal to a few people, but at the same time I think you should consider what sort of experience you want to provide and I think the tab-target + some aiming + some aversion and dodging that GW2 HAS successfully implemented is heading that model in the actiony/dynamic direction and so much for the better!

I don't see Pathfinder matching that and in fact, as GW2 moves in that direction, I'd like to see Pathfinder move in the opposite direction. For example the idea in EvE that Time-Dilation allows players to queue their skills and execute them and make those decisions, by slowing time down (and crucially allowing the server to calculate for massive battles), is a possible implementation that makes sense. If you have a "combat area of influence" where this approximation creates "engaged in a state of combat" and players can then use this time to make interesting decisions using their skills, you are part way to achieving a shift towards that direction; maybe even "back to it's roots"?

Again it ties into what Coldman is saying above, Sandbox is the interesting context which combat is a part of, you're not going to want Tera style fps mechanic, which is that games selling point, but combat that reflects the rest of the game's pacing as well and if you slow things down, you allow thinking time, you allow slower maturation of skill progression and (potentially) slower rate of divergence in skill between players etc. It could end up being really boring, but:

1. It fits the target niche in the market (your intended audience); there's also quality vs quantity of players, not just quantity (churn rate).
2. It's potentially possible to implement given the sandbox design
3. It might be... simple but deep.

[insorrow]

About what coldman says above. i get the tldr as " combat is one of the sandbox tools , as long as there are plenty of tools that form a nice , coherent world then i will be playing the game "

the point is that there are different kind of players , and a sandbox game must aim to provide enough content and fun for all of them

for example i am an explorer , i will be doing here exactly what i was doing in EVE , trying to find the dungeons and getting the spoils while avoiding pirates/bandits .

there are crafters , socialisers , diplomats and tacticians in sandbox games .and i can see the tools for them apparent in this game

then there are the fighters , pvp oriented guys , those guys who are usually the pk , the pirates, the bandits the mercenary or bounty hunters .they provide content for me and for pretty much everyone.they buy the armor from the smith , they follow the tacticians command , and they protect the mining operation .

Combat is their tool. I would like a good tool given to them.I do not mind if it has a more tactical approach or a more action approach. I just hope that combat feels like a feature of the game not like a supplement .

since you mentioned darkfall , the game has an action oriented combat system , but crafting or empire building or exploration feel generic.The game attracts only the pvp oriented players and didnt become successful.Likewise Mortal online has great crafting but combat sucks and didnt become successful.

every single aspect of the game should be made with their intended audience in mind. combat shouldnt become "easy" to cater to the crafter , same as crafting shouldnt become easy to "cater" to the fighter.A great crafter is proud that he masters all the little details .So does a fighter .there is little room for skill in ( 3iron = 1 iron boot ) as well as in tab 1-2-3.

[Gulnar]

Goblinworks shouldn't 'take inspiration' from the other big D&D MMORPG - ddo (Dungeon and Dragons online, by Turbine). It implements what could be called a twitch system (by pressing the 'attack' button, your character begin the combat animation, and swing at whatever is in front of him; the outcome of this swing is determined by the virtual dice roll). You could also roll (with a different animation based upon your acrobatic skill rank) and block (Decresing incoming damage). Activating a combat ability (trip, stunning fist, and so on) would make your character execute a special animation instead of the next 'normal' attack.
There were problems like the difficulty of implement iterative attacks (each attack beyond the first one, instead of giving a to-hit penality and a speed bonus, gave you a to-hit bonus with the same speed, so you had a better chance to hit but had the same number of attacks / second), the difference between weapon speeds (the animation of swinging a 2h was longer that the one of swinging a 1h weapon, so the damage difference was more complex than 'it does more damage'), and the fact that with sufficient manual dexterity you could literally dodge a enemy attack by moving in and out of his attack zone.
The only good points of the combat system was that the combat was very fast-paced and exciting, but not very D&D-ish.

[Misere]

the point is that there are different kind of players , and a sandbox game must aim to provide enough content and fun for all of them

I do not agree with this. Its just my opinion, but if you try to please everyone you end up with a product that isn't as interesting to anyone as something else out there. There is always going to be something that appeals to each group more.

For myself, I don't always want to have to over think basic combat movements. I would rather have a strategy type game where getting to the combat is more fun/challenging. If I want to focus on my movements and jumping around I will not be playing a large scale multiplayer game.

[Andius]

AvenaOats wrote:

I don't see Pathfinder matching that and in fact, as GW2 moves in that direction, I'd like to see Pathfinder move in the opposite direction. For example the idea in EvE that Time-Dilation allows players to queue their skills and execute them and make those decisions, by slowing time down (and crucially allowing the server to calculate for massive battles), is a possible implementation that makes sense. If you have a "combat area of influence" where this approximation creates "engaged in a state of combat" and players can then use this time to make interesting decisions using their skills, you are part way to achieving a shift towards that direction; maybe even "back to it's roots"?

As I've written some of these posts I've been ratting in -0.9 null sec on EVE. All I do is pump up the shield hardeners on my drake, tell my missiles and drones what to shoot, and occasionally tab back to select a new target, check to make sure no non-allied players have jumped into system.

If I tab back and there are non-hostile players (My shield levels are always fine) I jump to our safe POS, continue to browse the forums, and check every few minutes to see if it is safe to rat again, and then hop back to the asteroid belts if it is.

That isn't combat. That is mining with missiles. The only thing exciting about that game's combat is the future release of Dust 514. Lets please NOT move in that direction.

Coldman wrote:

A good sandbox game, even with a combat system identical to WoW, would not phase me. Given the scope of possibilities in game, how I killed people would be of little importance. Salem is a new and very popular sandbox MMORPG in which the combat is ridiculously simple, yet I see it doing very well and don't see how a simplified or even outdated combat system can hinder a game of vast potential for player interaction. Players are not going to login and say 'Oh I've seen this combat before', they're going to say 'I can't believe there is so much stuff I can do'. The game itself will have no comparison to other combat centric themepark games thus I don't think that combat mechanics need comparison on a similar plateau. Combat should not be the only route of entry and thus the game, in my opinion, should not pimp itself out in this direction and would be a poor take on the intellectual property which it carries if it did.

I quite frankly expect a lot more from PFO than I do from Mortal, or Darkfall, any other small independent title. The money made from this unfinished kickstarter is probably equivalent to what those games made in their first year after release. I mean the Darkfall team is literally 5 guys who have a day job if I remember right.

This game is being produced by experienced developers who while not having the budget of WoW or TOR, have A LOT pulling in their favor compared to these basement companies.

This game is going to be driven by war and adventures. Crafters will build supplies to outfit warriors and adventurers, towns will be built to keep out enemy warriors, warriors are going to compete for territory and the right for their crafters to extract resources from it.

Thus is the nature of an open world PVP game. Some of the people arguing for mediocre-crap combat systems in this topic, are the same who believe this game should not force PVP upon people. (I'm looking at you Hudax.)

Obviously this game is not catering to those kind of people. Just like they can point fingers at us and say "IF YOU WANT COMBAT GO PLAY COUNTERSTRIKE OR GUILD WARS!!!" I can point my fingers back at them and say if you want deep worlds without combat go play Minecraft or the freedom server on Wurm Online. Those games exist and they are GREAT for building your own world.

I personally really want to see a game where combat is compelling enough that I can log in and hunt PKers for 5 hours in a single day and not feel bored for a second of it like I did in Freelancer. NOTHING can compare to an open world PVP game with an engaging combat system, and real politics and economics. There is a reason I played a game where multiplayer was an afterthought for five years on a multiplayer server.

I also want to see a game where crafting is compelling enough that if all I want to do is come online and work on our town and farm potatoes all day, that it is compelling too. And mainly I am looking forward to something Freelancer never offered me that is one of the major reasons I left... meaningful territory control.

The type of game I am looking for is what I dub an "empire simulator." Wurm tries. Mortal tries. Darkfall tries. None of them really deliver. Mainly because as I said, they are basement companies.

PFO is not a basement company and it is offering an empire simulator. That is why I am here.

[DeciusBrutus]

Andius wrote:

AvenaOats wrote:

I don't see Pathfinder matching that and in fact, as GW2 moves in that direction, I'd like to see Pathfinder move in the opposite direction. For example the idea in EvE that Time-Dilation allows players to queue their skills and execute them and make those decisions, by slowing time down (and crucially allowing the server to calculate for massive battles), is a possible implementation that makes sense. If you have a "combat area of influence" where this approximation creates "engaged in a state of combat" and players can then use this time to make interesting decisions using their skills, you are part way to achieving a shift towards that direction; maybe even "back to it's roots"?

As I've written some of these posts I've been ratting in -0.9 null sec on EVE. All I do is pump up the shield hardeners on my drake, tell my missiles and drones what to shoot, and occasionally tab back to select a new target, check to make sure no non-allied players have jumped into system.

If I tab back and there are non-hostile players (My shield levels are always fine) I jump to our safe POS, continue to browse the forums, and check every few minutes to see if it is safe to rat again, and then hop back to the asteroid belts if it is.

That isn't combat. That is mining with missiles. The only thing exciting about that game's combat is the future release of Dust 514. Lets please NOT move in that direction.

Why do you do that if you find it boring?

[Andius]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Why do you do that if you find it boring?

Andius wrote:

The only thing exciting about that game's combat is the future release of Dust 514.

I want to have a decent character when that game comes out. The two games are meant to work together so I'm sure it will be useful to have one account space-side, and one planet-side.

At this point I am just killing time until the release of games I want to try. Plus as I mentioned It doesn't kill much time. I can play it WHILE doing something else. (A very sad statement when it comes to combat)

[DeciusBrutus]

Andius wrote:

At this point I am just killing time until the release of games I want to try.

There are alternatives.

If the back catalog isn't large enough for you, I doubt that Dust 514 or Firefall will.

[Andius]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Andius wrote:

At this point I am just killing time until the release of games I want to try.

There are alternatives.

If the back catalog isn't large enough for you, I doubt that Dust 514 or Firefall will.

I doubt they will either long-term. That's why I am waiting on PFO and have started experimenting around with the Unity engine. I want to play an empire simulator MMO with compelling combat and crafting. I define empire simulator as:

1. Players are not restricted into NPC or any other pre-determined factions.
2. Persistent world with the ability to take or lose control of territory.
3. Minimal restrictions on PVP. AKA you can kill anyone anywhere with the possible exception of a few safe areas.
4. Economics, politics, and logistics all play a major part in warfare.

A lot of games qualify as empire simulators (Wurm (Epic Server), Darkfall, Eve, Xsyon, Mortal, etc.) None of them have BOTH compelling combat and crafting by my standards. If you know of one that does let me know.

I'm not interested in playing games that offer 1 element of what I want by itself, or that no longer have a sizeable community playing them.

I thought this topic was about PFO combat and not my choice of game though.

[Nihimon]

Andius wrote:

compelling combat

I'm curious what you mean?

From another thread:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think there's a huge design space to be explored. We just won't be exploring the one where you aim with player skill and twitch in response to stimuli.

That seems pretty clear-cut.

I watched a video (possibly from a link you provided) of combat in Guild Wars 2 and noticed that you still select a target (I couldn't tell if he clicked or hit tab) and then hit buttons to use abilities.

Aren't the choices what make combat compelling? Rather than the mechanics of how you select your target, or how you activate your abilities?

[Aquilus]

Nihimon wrote:

Aren't the choices what make combat compelling? Rather than the mechanics of how you select your target, or how you activate your abilities?

This is indeed one of the points I try to make in the OP. Guild Wars 2 does indeed have tab targeting and a hotbar of abilities. But as you say, the method for activating abilities is irrelevant. It doesn't make a difference if you press "2" or the X button on a gamepad to activate an ability, the result is the same. I've explained in the OP the specific elements that make GW2 combat compelling, even though it controls like any other MMO.

The point is that hotkey bars and tab targeting aren't necessarily a bad thing, the core quality of the combat lies in how abilities work, not how the player activates them.