Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I don't mean Pathfinder Online should be literally EvE: That is not possible. But if you are designing combat, you have:
1. Fast twitch actiony: Standard-bearer for MMOs: Tera (let's say)
2. Tab-Target: WoW standard-bearer
3. Slower tactical category [...?]
4. Full turn-based: eg Dofus flies the flag..
Effectively if you have combat, you can speed things up, keep them about "average" or slow things down (create some thinking space vs reaction speed of 1.). Most MMOs have gone for 2. for obvious reasons. I think 1., 4. are too extreme for many people playing mmorpgs. So that leaves questioning something in the 3. category. That is all.
But as stated there is a space here that could make a lot of sense from lots of different angles. How to implement something like that? As said I'm impressed with GW2 combat and not against that form of combat, but I think for a sandbox mmorpg, 3. is a better direction to go with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't mean Pathfinder Online should be literally EvE: That is not possible. But if you are designing combat, you have:
1. Fast twitch actiony: Standard-bearer for MMOs: Tera (let's say)
2. Tab-Target: WoW standard-bearer
3. Slower tactical category [...?]
4. Full turn-based: eg Dofus flies the flag..Effectively if you have combat, you can speed things up, keep them about "average" or slow things down (create some thinking space vs reaction speed of 1.). Most MMOs have gone for 2. for obvious reasons. I think 1., 4. are too extreme for many people playing mmorpgs. So that leaves questioning something in the 3. category. That is all.
But as stated there is a space here that could make a lot of sense from lots of different angles. How to implement something like that? As said I'm impressed with GW2 combat and not against that form of combat, but I think for a sandbox mmorpg, 3. is a better direction to go with.
I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun. The games I know of with such combat are Runescape, Wurm, and EVE. That is not a very good list when it comes to engaging/fun combat.
For list one and inbetween 1 and 2 we have Guild Wars, Freelancer, Darkfall, Planetside, etc.
Some of those games aren't the greatest. I personally am not a huge fan of the combat of either Darkfall or Planetside. But Guild Wars and Freelancer are some of the best games ever made in terms of how combat the fun is, in my own opinion of course. I would go so far as to say every MMO, and even non-turn based single player game I've played with a really engaging combat system has been faster paced than WoW.
The slower paced games being things like Heros of Might and magic, and Magic The Gathering. D&D combat was kind of fun but I was always more into the storytelling and and the things like "I wrap the oil soaked rag around the tip of my arrow, set it on fire, and take a shot at that building with the straw roof..." or "I pick up the unconscious worg and throw it at the goblins!" (Got to love a character with a strength of 20 and intelligence of 6.) kind of stuff you just can't do in computer games.
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.)
Ok, I'll bite.
First, the mechanics of the combat system have nothing to do with whether there is open pvp or not. You're deliberately confusing separate issues to try to make me look stupid.
Second, I can only assume from your low opinion of WoW combat mechanics that you're not familiar with any theorycrafting in WoW. Otherwise you simply wouldn't hold this opinion (or you would be incredibly elitist). Rotations are complex, even the simple ones. The fact that you have the option to hit 1,1,1 doesn't mean it's a good idea, and certainly won't fly if you actually try to do anything in the game other than quest. It's kind of like having the option to spend your whole paycheck at McDonald's--you can do it, but it's a bad idea.
Third, the only alternatives you can point to are twitch-based or turn-based, neither of which is going to happen in PFO.
There might be a lot of unexplored design space as Ryan said, but from what we know right now, the best reference point for combat is in fact WoW. I don't see this as being a problem. Primarily because I don't have an irrational hatred of WoW like some posters seem to. And contrary to popular opinion, sharing similar combat systems does not make a game a WoW clone. (What actually makes a WoW clone is the attitudes of people who dismissively think a game needs to somehow be the next holy grail of MMOs to even be worth developing.) Games are far more than whether you tab target and hit hotkeys in combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun.
Have to agree with this. Maybe slowing the combat down takes too much pace out of the game as a whole is a real danger in that case? That is worth thinking about.
Some sort of reduction in the speed of time as an area of effect, universal "tool" in combat could then mix a bit of slower gameplay with mostly normal speed to allow players some form of strategy on top of combat? /best shot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun.Have to agree with this. Maybe slowing the combat down takes too much pace out of the game as a whole is a real danger in that case? That is worth thinking about.
Some sort of reduction in the speed of time as an area of effect, universal "tool" in combat could then mix a bit of slower gameplay with mostly normal speed to allow players some form of strategy on top of combat? /best shot!
The combat system is really critical to me, to the extent of make or break.
I've been having a blast playing the persistent character zombie apocalypse mod Day-Z RPG for Arma 2. Arma 2 is a hyper-realistic military simulator (realistic physics fps, vehicles, etc) and the mod takes place over an area that's 225 sq KM in size. Those maps support maybe 50 people but I'd think it's even more demanding than your standard fps.
The learning curve is brutal, there is no character advancement outside of gear, there is free-loot and permadeath. Because of the realistic simulator it's sitting on top of most all of the buttons on the keyboard are used. It's the opposite of a "steamlined" game, and I love it.
-------------------------
What does this have to do with PFO? Basically that I'd like to see a much more *complex* combat system for PFO. Realistic military simulation complex? Nah, but way more complex than "hit 1-3-4-5-5-2 over and over for optimum dps".
Some stuff in there that I'd love to see make an appearance in an "empire simulator".
-Being knocked out
-Bleeding and blood loss, bandaging
-Pain overload affecting vision/perception.
-Broken bones
-Infections
-Dragging/carrying incapacitated players
-No "ambient" light. Midnight is really midnight, you won't see crap without some light source.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I'll bite.
First, the mechanics of the combat system have nothing to do with whether there is open pvp or not. You're deliberately confusing separate issues to try to make me look stupid.
You simply have expressed that combat is something you never wish to be forced to take part in. I'm not trying to make you look stupid I am just saying. This game, based off announced features has more of a combat focus than you want.
I don't begrudge you wanting that but it is entirely contrary to the kind of game I want, and the kind of game the developers have expressed they wish to deliver. One where every trader has to learn the tricks to sneak past the bandits, and every town has to look to its fortifications and defenses. You can't just have the thriving little town with PVP disabled that can undercut all the towns with it enabled because they don't need guards to protect them from bandits, or fortifications to protect them from hostile nations, or any other responses to challenges the other towns have to overcome.
Obviously someone who doesn't want to have to fight wars, and doesn't find it fun to smuggle their goods past bandits and enemy nations isn't going to care if the combat is dumbed down to a mediocre or even sub-par level.
Just like someone who only plays a game to fight, doesn't care if the crafting is mediocre or sub par. Of course you don't, that is not your preferred content.
I personally love both crafting and combat and I REALLY love the combination of the two. The biggest reason I never tried minecraft is because the servers are too small and I don't want to build an epic fort unless I might have to defend it in an epic battle.
Start with the combat and work into a great crafting system. Very few people are going to leave if the option to build temples with marble floors and stain glass windows where they can customize the color of cushions on the pews, or breed horses, or have 50 types of wood with different qualities beneficial to different items aren't in on day one as long as they know those features are coming down the road. I would love to use all of those features. But I know they have years to add them.
Prettymuch everyone knows if the combat isn't engaging on day one, it won't be engaging in three years either. Name a single MMO that has ever done a drastic change to the combat system partway through the game other than the SWG-NGE (And I've heard that one went over really well.)
Second, I can only assume from your low opinion of WoW combat mechanics that you're not familiar with any theorycrafting in WoW. Otherwise you simply wouldn't hold this opinion (or you would be incredibly elitist). Rotations are complex, even the simple ones. The fact that you have the option to hit 1,1,1 doesn't mean it's a good idea, and certainly won't fly if you actually try to do anything in the game other than quest. It's kind of like having the option to spend your whole paycheck at McDonald's--you can do it, but it's a bad idea.
WoW... only to level 25. LotRO to 50 (When 50 was cap) and TOR to 50. My incredibly low opinion of WoW combat style is because I've used it, I know it, and I know there are better options out there. As I've stated previously in the topic I do extremely well with the TOR combat system. It's because I have a razor naga, I have good keybindings set up, and it really isn't that hard to learn. I'm not the one who said it's just spamming combos. I recognize you have to adapt to the situation at hand, but it is not a highly skill based system.
The majority of those games is grinding for your next tier of raid or PVP gear. By 50 you have all the skills down pat. Generally your working with 5-10 core abilities and a few abilities that you'll throw in here and there as the situation calls for it. A lot of your abilities get ruled out as you spec for other things such as my cover abilities were nearly useless once I took my advanced class and as a healer 2/4 abilities that used upper hand were made useless because the other 2 were drastically better.
16 million players (or however many it is at this point) played that game because it was released by a major company with a big advertising budget. Just like cola is popular even though it tastes insanely nasty to most people just picking it up and trying it for the first time, and smoking is popular even though NOBODY enjoys smoking for the first time and everyone knows it kills you now. The advertising is good, and a lot of people had friends doing it. Hell I still have a lot of friends playing WoW and a lot of the people playing it tell me they are playing it because it's what their friends play.
Third, the only alternatives you can point to are twitch-based or turn-based, neither of which is going to happen in PFO.
Guild Wars is an engaging game with great combat...
But Guild Wars and Freelancer are some of the best games ever made in terms of how combat the fun is...
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.
So which one is Guild Wars? Twitch or turn based? As far as I remember its auto-aim with skillbars but the combat feels faster paced and you more frequently find yourself using things like ability interrupt, condition removal, damage prevention that requires a bit of anticipation on your part, and skills that don't hurt you nearly as bad if you are paying attention.
Some of these kinds of things are present in WoW style MMOs... but not in the same quantity and prevalence they are in Guild Wars. Guild Wars REALLY requires a lot of focus on anticipating and reacting to your enemies actions. Far more than most WoW style combat system. You had less quantity of abilities and more quality. I would far rather play a game where I get to pick a small selection from a HUGE list of skills including really awesome ones like Reversal of Fortune and Backfire that ramp up the skill involved in playing, than get handed a handful of crap and a few skillpoints to help me narrow down which 5 of those crap abilities I will be using 90% of the time like in WoW, TOR, or LotRO. (Underworld Medicine, Slow-Release Medpack, Emergency Medpack, Triage, and Dirty Kick. 90% of my ability use right there. 98% if you throw in my 2 grenade skills, basic attack, and Kolto Cloud.)
There might be a lot of unexplored design space as Ryan said, but from what we know right now, the best reference point for combat is in fact WoW. I don't see this as being a problem. Primarily because I don't have an irrational hatred of WoW like some posters seem to. And contrary to popular opinion, sharing similar combat systems does not make a game a WoW clone. (What actually makes a WoW clone is the attitudes of people who dismissively think a game needs to somehow be the next holy grail of MMOs to even be worth developing.) Games are far more than whether you tab target and hit hotkeys in combat.
I have never claimed, nor will ever claim that PFO is a WoW clone unless A LOT of the proposed designs are changed. WoW is pure theme-park. I mean it doesn't even have player owned houses yet. This game leans heavily more toward the sandbox side than the theme-park side. Therefore, not a WoW clone.
I have also argued in favor of achievements, WoW-style racial language options, and I prefer the use of mana over spells per day. I don't mind implementing good ideas from WoW if they are actually good ideas. I just despise the mentality. "16 MILLION PEOPLE LIKED IT SO WE SHOULD DO IT TOO!!!"
No. WoW did a hell of a lot wrong. There is a reason I'm not playing it. There is a reason I never played it past level 25 despite my many friends playing it who I really wanted to play with. Its a boring grind-fest with un-engaging combat and nill in the way of sandbox features. However many million people are currently subscribed to it may not think so, but I do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Compelling combat means for me:
Interesting combat abilities
Seriously, swing your sword, swing it harder every 30s and swing it harder some more if your target has just evaded you is NOT interesting. Neither is DD, DD, debuff, DD.
Give me several abilities that do something more than just damage.
Few but viable choices with tradeoffs
I don't want ten bars full of abilities that will almost never be used because they are not worth the effort.
Give me viable choices between a few interesting abilities that cause me wrack my brain in order to determine what ability is best in the current situation. That said:
Not too fast paced
Choices should be choices. Too often fast paced combat means it is usually better to mash one button but mash it fast than to think about what your doing and "miss out" DPS because of it. GCD of 1.5s is ok but anything faster is a problem as is a plethora of easy to use insta DDs that have no real tradeoff.
Powerful CC sparsely available!
CC should be sparsely available and never without tradeoffs and also should set immunity timers (being stunned once makes you immune for 1 Minute to any and all stuns) but be quite powerful (AoE versions).
This would give a numerically inferior group the possibility to tear into the uncoordinated masses and come away.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Except for the part where getting stunned to end just before the fight begins is advantageous, and the lack of options that only make sense in very limited circumstances, I like MicMan's suggestions.
To wit: turn undead is useless in 90% of all fights. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.
There should be a fair bit of combat-only skills that do no damage yet provide some utility effects. Sunder is one example of this. So is feint. Other combat actions that do no damage but provide a nifty effect could include throwing sand an an opponents eyes, the host of CMB-based actions, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Few but viable choices with tradeoffs
I don't want ten bars full of abilities that will almost never be used because they are not worth the effort.Give me viable choices between a few interesting abilities that cause me wrack my brain in order to determine what ability is best in the current situation.
Actually, give me choices.
If I choose to train a few skills, let me choose ones that give me meaningful choices in combat.
If I choose to train 10 hotbars worth of abilities, let me use any of them without putting arbitrary restrictions. (Lore-based or logic-based restrictions are perfectly acceptable)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun. The games I know of with such combat are Runescape, Wurm, and EVE. That is not a very good list when it comes to engaging/fun combat....I don't mean Pathfinder Online should be literally EvE: That is not possible. But if you are designing combat, you have:
1. Fast twitch actiony: Standard-bearer for MMOs: Tera (let's say)
2. Tab-Target: WoW standard-bearer
3. Slower tactical category [...?]
4. Full turn-based: eg Dofus flies the flag...
The only game I can think of it the original, single player Star Wars Knight of the Old Republic. It was built off of the d20 system and could be played in real-time, although the combat happened in a turn-based system. I am not sure that this could, or should, be carried over to an MMO, but if they wanted to stick closer to d20 it is a semi-viable option.
Just like someone who only plays a game to fight, doesn't care if the crafting is mediocre or sub par. Of course you don't, that is not your preferred content.
It would be great if both systems (combat/crafting) could be polished into perfection, but the reality of it is that GW only has so much time and resources. As far as I am concerned, the combat will be good enough as long as it is not frustrating.
The reason being, I would rather GW spend their limited time working on systems that make combat worthwhile in a grander sense. Work on the crafting system and the resource system, work on the player settlements and the political system, work on things that make me want to win combat not simply because combat is fun, but because there is something at stake.
As a comparison, look at the Total War line of games (I am a huge Rome: Total War fan.) There are two aspect to those games; the empire building, and the combats. The combats are fun by themselves, and very occasionally I will play a random battle with a randomly built army against another randomly built army were nothing is at stake besides the combat. However, during those combat I am unmotivated to win because I gain nothing if I do so.
However, when I play a combat during a gran campaign, were my Roman Legions are fighting off the invading Germanic tribes bent on destroying my cities, then there is a real purpose to the combat, and because of that the combat just became 1000% more intense and engaging.
I want the same thing for combat here. I want them to make it fun, but I do not want them to spend unneeded time polishing it when they could make it more engaging and intense by working on other aspects of the game.
Obviously someone who doesn't want to have to fight wars, and doesn't find it fun to smuggle their goods past bandits and enemy nations isn't going to care if the combat is dumbed down to a mediocre or even sub-par level.
On the contrary. It's precisely because I want to focus on the PvE aspect of the game that I WANT combat to be complex and engaging.
WoW... only to level 25.
It's a common complaint that leveling in WoW doesn't prepare you for endgame--the majority of the focus of the game. You can get to max level spamming 1 button. However, when you get there you won't know anything about your class and you won't be prepared for raiding (insert Illidan voiceover). It really is two different games.
Just as an extreme example, here's a Demo Warlock's optimal opener and priority (note that I do not advocate this level of complexity in PFO):
•Have your raid leader count down 5 seconds before a pull.
•Have your Felguard out before the pull.
•At 1, use a pre-pot.
•Cast Curse of the Elements, if you have Moonwell Chalice, use it, and have your Felguard use Felstorm.
•Once the gcd from CoE is ending, cast Demon Soul: Felguard and use any on use trinket you might have (assuming you don’t have Moonwell Chalice, which as stated previously you would want as soon as your Felguard casts Felstorm).
•If you don't have an affliction warlock or fire mage who would have already applied it, cast Shadow Bolt to put up the 5% crit debuff (this is because SnF doesn't behave as a usual debuff and won't update per-tick or even on a refresh of Immolate)
•Cast Immolate.
•Cast Metamorphosis, Soul Burn, and Bane of Doom.
•Cast Corruption.
•Cast Hand of Gul’dan
•Cast Immolation Aura
•Cast Shadowflame
•By now, any procs such as Power Torrent and DMC:V (if you have it) will be up; cast Summon Doomguard. If Power Torrent procced early, and is going to fade before Volcanic Destruction this point, the main message here is to use Summon Doomguard when both are up (along with Moonwell Chalice, Volcanic Potion, and, if you’re a tailor, Lightweave Embroidery). If these were all up at any time previous to this, you could use it then as well. Just make sure to line up procs well.
•Cast Summon Felhunter (you should still have Soul Burn up)
Additionally, recasting Bane of Doom at the end of Meta (30+ seconds into the fight, or once two ticks have gone off) is a minute DPCT gain over a mere shadow bolt.Extra note! If you have Will of Unbinding, you'd want to wait to cast your DG for as much benefit as possible-- that is, at the very last second that you still have all of your other buffs still up. This means that having Power Torrent proc early from Soul Harvest can severely cut into the number of stacks you're able to get up, so you may not want to pre-SB.
Now you’re ready to start your usual priority!
...
Metamorphosis
Demon Soul (Felguard)
Immolate
Hand of Gul'dan
Demon Soul (Felhunter)
Bane of Doom
Immolation Aura
Corruption
Shadowflame
Incinerate (Molten Core)
Soul Fire (Decimation)
Shadow Bolt
I just despise the mentality. "16 MILLION PEOPLE LIKED IT SO WE SHOULD DO IT TOO!!!"
I agree and am not trying to suggest this. I just equally despise the anti-WoW sentiments I keep seeing here, because most of the time I suspect they're based on lack of experience (to varying degrees) or worse, hipsterism.
WoW did a hell of a lot wrong.
And continues to. There's a lot about the game, including fundamental design, that is moving in the opposite direction I want it to. (Tanks essentially getting perma-threat, roles being pared down to even more one dimensionality.) However, in spite of these flaws I can appreciate that it's still a great game with complex and sophisticated combat mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just equally despise the anti-WoW sentiments I keep seeing here, because most of the time I suspect they're based on lack of experience (to varying degrees) or worse, hipsterism.
I think my experience in TOR and LotRO qualifies me to speak about the WoW system. All three of those games are practically identical in terms of the combat and character advancement system used.
BTW. Last I checked I don't own any square rim glasses or a V-neck sweater. I give credit to things that are popular where I feel the are due. For instance I legitimately believe Halo is such a popular series because Combat Evolved was an amazing game, as was Reach. I won't say much for Halo 2 but I think Bungie learned it's lesson there that you shouldn't always add things to a game just because they seem like cool idea.
It was a fast and simple game design that allowed you to get straight into the action as opposed to these titles that like to make your rifle shake as you move, or lay in a prone position to snipe effectively. Realistic? Yes. Fun? No.
WoW legitimately couldn't interest me past level 25. Not because it was popular, but because I found it boring. I honestly believe it's not a very good game. Once you get past how cool it is to swim around underwater or fly around, or play a 2 foot tall character with goggles and a wrench... I found the actual gameplay itself to be lacking. Thus why I lost interest at level 25.
However, in spite of these flaws I can appreciate that it's still a great game with complex and sophisticated combat mechanics.
I've tried to put my finger on what exactly it is I hate so much about the WoW system and I think I have narrowed it down pretty well. Skill is not large enough of a factor.
1 twinked out level 85 who had the account given to them and only knows how to spam their most basic attack. Unlimited numbers of level 1s or even 10s or whatever level you can reach before it stops saying MISS every time you take a swing at a level 85. Highly skilled WoW veterans who just rolled alts. They fight. Who wins? The 85. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
1 level 85s in twinked out gear with all the best consumables who are really damn good, vs. 5 level 85s in twinked out gear with all the best consumables who are pretty bad. Who wins? Probably those 5 newbs every single time.
Now lets take Freelancer. Me and 1 buddy in the worst ship in the game and a mid range ship we are flying for fun vs. one crap player with the best stuff in the game. Who wins? Us. But we wouldn't have if we didn't take the fight seriously.
Me with the best ship and guns in the game vs. 5 players from a new pretty unskilled clan with the best ship and guns in the game. Who wins? Me. But I wouldn't have if I didn't take the fight seriously.
I believe that a highly skilled player should be able to absolutely shut a low skilled player down. Not based on gear, not based on level, but based purely on player skill and tactics.
That is what I hate about the WoW system. I just don't see player skills shining through very brightly at all.
I think with the Guild Wars system you can get A LOT closer to what I would actually like to see. With things like spells you can cast to turn a massive blow coming from your opponent into healing or damage directed back at them, there is more opportunity for your skills to shine. With things like domination magic and scourge prayers that don't allow your opponents to use certain kinds of abilities for a short while or else they do MASSIVE damage to themselves, there is more room for player skill to shine. With a lot of condition based attacks and condition removal there is more room for player skill to shine.
I don't want to see it like WoW where there are tons of just straight up heals and attacks and a few disrupt and condition removal abilities. I want to see the ability to make entire builds based skrewing with your opponents, or disrupting, preventing, and removing abilities your opponents use.
I would like to see less of a DPS race and a more complicated system where you can entirely shut an opponent down and perhaps not even take any damage if they are not paying close attention to your moves, and you are to theirs.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Obviously someone who doesn't want to have to fight wars, and doesn't find it fun to smuggle their goods past bandits and enemy nations isn't going to care if the combat is dumbed down to a mediocre or even sub-par level.On the contrary. It's precisely because I want to focus on the PvE aspect of the game that I WANT combat to be complex and engaging.
WoW... only to level 25.It's a common complaint that leveling in WoW doesn't prepare you for endgame--the majority of the focus of the game. You can get to max level spamming 1 button. However, when you get there you won't know anything about your class and you won't be prepared for raiding (insert Illidan voiceover). It really is two different games.
Just as an extreme example, here's a Demo Warlock's optimal opener and priority (note that I do not advocate this level of complexity in PFO):
List...
Are you trying to point that out as an example of complexity, because it takes so much text to describe, or simplicity, because there are no decision nodes in it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you trying to point that out as an example of complexity, because it takes so much text to describe, or simplicity, because there are no decision nodes in it?
I was kind of wondering the same thing. So you can follow this exact formula with little-no variation and put out the best DPS in the game for your class. I know a game you might like where you have a bunch of cards face up, then you flip them face down, and have to quickly identify as many pairs as you can. Memorization isn't deep a deep combat mechanic IMO.
When I played TOR it was less memorization of a specific rotation and more the ability to know when to use and how to quickly access your abilities, mainly just the abilities that your talent points turn into your core abilities. It wasn't highly difficult but I personally consider it more engaging and skill based than following the same long complex rotation every single time. I can write a program with auto-hotkey that does that for me. Literally, if that rotation never changes I can write you a program that executes the whole process when you press ctrl+1.
Wouldn't you rather have a process where the person doing the most DPS is the one who notices the boss raising his hammer high above his head and uses an ability on him that causes the boss to redirect the damage of his next attack against himself?
would you mind to post us the rotation of the arcane mage plz?
Suffice it to say it's deceptively simple.
I can do sarcastic rhetoric too.
Their combat system is simply unfit for open world warfare.
WoW handles large scale combat just fine.
That is what I hate about the WoW system. I just don't see player skills shining through very brightly at all.
Levels and gear matter too much, and there are too infrequent opportunities for skill to be the deciding factor.
From what we know so far, this shouldn't be the case in PFO.
Are you trying to point that out as an example of complexity, because it takes so much text to describe, or simplicity, because there are no decision nodes in it?
You're obfuscating priority with rotation. I know you know better.
The opener is complex because it's long. The priority is complex because every GCD is a decision node.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius, as much as I appreciate your disliking for a number of things which contribute to WoWs combat system, you are forgetting the fact that Arena PvP in WoW is arguably the most competitive institution I have ever known in an MMORPG; it is unmatched for skill required and for the scale on which it occurs in terms of participants and prestige. I always considered PvP in Ultima to be the height of my own participation in heavily skill orientated PvP in an MMORPG, WoW arena however is simply unmatched. Gear becomes negligible and the top teams are simply insane at the game. The arguement that World of Warcraft is a simple game in regards to PvP needs to end as the arena system, for what it's worth as a themepark mechanic, is the premier institution for competitive PvP right now (as saddening as that is).
Your disliking for the game past level 25 is of your own tastes; you can't call the game uninteresting as not only has it shown to be the biggest game to hit the industry in terms of subscribers (and subscriber retention), it's also 7+ years old and continues to do very well.
Wow combat is overused in other games to such a point that it's difficult to stomach anymore. But remember that WoWs formula for combat is one which is reused in a similar context. Not only are games borrowing it's combat system, they're borrowing the general deployment of conventional quest grinding and instances as offered in Wow. Wow's combat is simply a continuation of refining the combat system offered in Everquest, but when used in games of a completely different flavor to WoW, the end result of playing is different.
As I have stressed in my posts, even if one was offered a rich sandbox game with a large emphasis on sandbox gameplay outcomes of conquest, mastering trade, mastering crafting, establishing player made insitutions, the game would not suffer the stigma of being a WoW clone should a similar mode of combat be employed. Combat simply needs to exist and be done well, that is all. WoW combat is done well and is nothing more than a perfected take on what was being developed over the decade prior. It's the game that sucks.
Last I checked I don't own any square rim glasses or a V-neck sweater.
Sorry. At that point I was speaking generally.
I'm just tired of people jumping on the "it's cool to hate on WoW" bandwagon. It's not constructive, especially when WoW is a good resource for constructive discussion.
WoW combat is done well and is nothing more than a perfected take on what was being developed over the decade prior. It's the game that sucks.
Thanks, this is exactly the distinction I'm trying to make.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm just tired of people jumping on the "it's cool to hate on WoW" bandwagon. It's not constructive, especially when WoW is a good resource for constructive discussion.
I disliked WoW from the moment it was launched. I didn't like its combat system, and didn't like its lack of sandbox features. I wasn't a bandwagoner, and I don't think its fair to label everyone as such. 7 million people like WoW. Are they all bandwagoners too, who don't really know what they are talking about? Please don't just dismiss your opponents views or points, it makes constructive debate far more challenging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius, as much as I appreciate your disliking for a number of things which contribute to WoWs combat system, you are forgetting the fact that Arena PvP in WoW is arguably the most competitive institution I have ever known in an MMORPG; it is unmatched for skill required and for the scale on which it occurs in terms of participants and prestige. I always considered PvP in Ultima to be the height of my own participation in heavily skill orientated PvP in an MMORPG, WoW arena however is simply unmatched. Gear becomes negligible and the top teams are simply insane at the game. The arguement that World of Warcraft is a simple game in regards to PvP needs to end as the arena system, for what it's worth as a themepark mechanic, is the premier institution for competitive PvP right now (as saddening as that is).
I think you are entirely missing the point. Arena PVP is VERY controlled environment. Put 10 clones of me against the top 10 man arena team (If there is a 10 man category.) and they will utterly defeat me every single time. But what about 15 of me? 20? 30? I am guessing you won't have to go very far before I will utterly dominate them. Every single time.
In Darkfall, if you put clones of me up against clones of William Wallace or some other top notch player they would dominate me by the hordes like Spartan elites vs. a Persian militia.
That is a VERY important thing when it comes to what combat system you want to use in an open world PVP game. It is a very NON-controlled environment. If you don't get the balance right you make the zerg king. The number of troops on the field become almost the sole determining factor in victory or defeat.
I really like having it be a factor, but I want to see the ability for seasoned veterans to really show their stuff against hordes of militias. And not via character skills or gear. That would just make it so the number of players and how long they have been playing is the primary factor in who wins or loses in war.
I'm not saying we need a carbon copy of Darkfall combat. I wouldn't even enjoy that myself. But we need SOMTHING more skill based than WoW. I think Guild Wars is a good model.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I understand your point (now atleast). To conclude for the night, I don't know mate. I've not played a game which has done large scale open PvP well whilst finding the mark in terms of players skill vs the zerg. Ultima Online hit the nail on the head for me, myself and a few friends used to take on 2-3x our numbers and come out victors, but that game employed very simply spell system which could be mastered; I fear anything hoping to recreate a good balance would need to employ something similar.
Darkfall comes close, but only as it's combat exists in the weird ass fashion that it exists today, that and the FPS element. Equally, the game includes a far too high skill curve. An MMORPG is a game in which you train your character to be a dangerous individual; people quickly stop engaging in PvP the second you allow 16 year olds with all the time in the world to become insane, proceed to stomp everyone in twitch based combat which can easily overcome numbers or vastly superior gear. I understand everything you're saying as I was on the Darkfall forums since 2005 begging for the very same thing.
Let's just say I wasn't very happy when I got it. All other failures ignored, Darkfall is an extremely skill based PvP game, yet I still missed my time in Vanilla WoW killing people 1 vs 3 on my terribly geared mage. Funny that I still to this day consider vanilla WoW to have hit a better medium of skill vs numbers than Darkfalls quake arena pvp.
I can confess that I generally don't care about combat mechanics too much as my days of being in the biggest baddest PvP guild are over. I'll leave the debate with 2 wishes:
1) Andius gets what he wants
2) I don't have to feel like I'm playing street fighter when I'm killing an AI goblin.
I disliked WoW from the moment it was launched. I didn't like its combat system, and didn't like its lack of sandbox features. I wasn't a bandwagoner, and I don't think its fair to label everyone as such. 7 million people like WoW. Are they all bandwagoners too, who don't really know what they are talking about? Please don't just dismiss your opponents views or points, it makes constructive debate far more challenging.
I'm just tired of people jumping on the "it's cool to hate on WoW" bandwagon. It's not constructive, especially when WoW is a good resource for constructive discussion.
This is why you're not on the bandwagon: you explained yourself and your explanation makes sense. Your criticisms were specific. Andius's explanation that it's not reliant enough on skill makes sense, and I even agree. Again, specific.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone in this thread or single anyone out. It's something I've noticed in the PFO forum for months and seems to be making a resurgence in multiple threads.
Saying "WoW is dumbed down"--as so many people do--is not an explanation and doesn't make sense because it isn't true. It's also not helpful because it could be directed at anything. This is what I take issue with. The other thing I take issue with is people's readiness to jump to the conclusion that X is a "WoW clone." That phrase also has no meaning because the criteria could be anything. If PFO has cartoony graphics or tab targetting, does that make it a WoW clone? I think it would be easy to find people who would say yes. That bothers me.
That's what I mean by being on the bandwagon--repeating meaningless vagueries.
Talking down WoW won't make PFO better. In fact, dismissing WoW's good qualities might make PFO worse. Assimilate AND innovate. There's no reason to reinvent every wheel.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disliked WoW from the moment it was launched. I didn't like its combat system, and didn't like its lack of sandbox features. I wasn't a bandwagoner, and I don't think its fair to label everyone as such. 7 million people like WoW. Are they all bandwagoners too, who don't really know what they are talking about? Please don't just dismiss your opponents views or points, it makes constructive debate far more challenging.
I'm just tired of people jumping on the "it's cool to hate on WoW" bandwagon. It's not constructive, especially when WoW is a good resource for constructive discussion.This is why you're not on the bandwagon: you explained yourself and your explanation makes sense. Your criticisms were specific. Andius's explanation that it's not reliant enough on skill makes sense, and I even agree. Again, specific.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone in this thread or single anyone out. It's something I've noticed in the PFO forum for months and seems to be making a resurgence in multiple threads.
Saying "WoW is dumbed down"--as so many people do--is not an explanation and doesn't make sense because it isn't true. It's also not helpful because it could be directed at anything. This is what I take issue with. The other thing I take issue with is people's readiness to jump to the conclusion that X is a "WoW clone." That phrase also has no meaning because the criteria could be anything. If PFO has cartoony graphics or tab targetting, does that make it a WoW clone? I think it would be easy to find people who would say yes. That bothers me.
That's what I mean by being on the bandwagon--repeating meaningless vagueries.
Talking down WoW won't make PFO better. In fact, dismissing WoW's good qualities might make PFO worse. Assimilate AND innovate. There's no reason to reinvent every wheel.
I understand your point. However, most people use the pat phrases because they are quick and easy. Ask most people why they don't like WoW, they can give you a few good reasons they can't stand the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I might be more open if someone could site a game with combat paced slower than WoW, but not turn based, that is fun.Have to agree with this. Maybe slowing the combat down takes too much pace out of the game as a whole is a real danger in that case? That is worth thinking about.
Some sort of reduction in the speed of time as an area of effect, universal "tool" in combat could then mix a bit of slower gameplay with mostly normal speed to allow players some form of strategy on top of combat? /best shot!
The combat system is really critical to me, to the extent of make or break.
I've been having a blast playing the persistent character zombie apocalypse mod Day-Z RPG for Arma 2. Arma 2 is a hyper-realistic military simulator (realistic physics fps, vehicles, etc) and the mod takes place over an area that's 225 sq KM in size. Those maps support maybe 50 people but I'd think it's even more demanding than your standard fps.
The learning curve is brutal, there is no character advancement outside of gear, there is free-loot and permadeath. Because of the realistic simulator it's sitting on top of most all of the buttons on the keyboard are used. It's the opposite of a "steamlined" game, and I love it.
-------------------------
What does this have to do with PFO? Basically that I'd like to see a much more *complex* combat system for PFO. Realistic military simulation complex? Nah, but way more complex than "hit 1-3-4-5-5-2 over and over for optimum dps".
Some stuff in there that I'd love to see make an appearance in an "empire simulator".
-Being knocked out
-Bleeding and blood loss, bandaging
-Pain overload affecting vision/perception.
-Broken bones
-Infections
-Dragging/carrying incapacitated players
-No "ambient" light. Midnight is really midnight, you won't see crap without some light source.
Think there is a lot to be said for this. In a battle there are the "walking wounded" categories to combat interaction as well as personally mangaging your own incapacities (not 100% inaction mechanics for 5secs eg knock-downs) but efficiency reductions; namely those fightng first and longest will eventually wear down fastest?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Their combat system is simply unfit for open world warfare.WoW handles large scale combat just fine.
where? would you plz name the part of the game where large scale warfare is an intended feature . ( alterac valley does not count, you run past your opponents and kill a pve boss to win)
link me a video of anything with 500 people simultaneously in wow fighting over something that matters ingame.
as for arena pvp or any other kind of restricted pvp .check what is the definition of e-sport. It is enough to say that wow was dropped out of the esport list , check sk gaming or the esport site.you can see that due to the simplistic combat and class imbalance , arenas are not considered competitive pvp gaming
Guild wars on the other hand was made with combat in mind , it even had a tv show in korea about the top pvp teams and fights.
in short .you need to make pvp and combat a core gameplay mechanic and think about how it works in the long run , not an aftermath.
This is an interesting discussion but I think you're slightly missing Hurax's point. I don't think he is suggesting that WoW's PVP combat is the pinnacle of mass open combat. Guild Wars, Darkfall, EVE, even large scale FPS games like Battlefield 3 espouse it better, but equally I would suggest that it is unwise to completely dismiss what WoW does bring to the table as well.
The mechanics they brought in with their Lake Wintergrasp battleground is actually quite similar to what Guild Wars 2 is now attempting with its Mists regions. The game uses structures and systems you may not currently enjoy, but there may also be design changes and modifications to these systems that could become something you do enjoy. Don't just dismiss it out of hand, especially this early in the design process.
For what it is worth personally, I accept that twitch-based is out, I have FPS and Fighting games for that, I can survive without it being in my MMO's.
Which means if it's not skill based twitch, the next logical place to go is the strategic and mental games. Skill choices, timing, use of key abilities at the right time, I do fall into the 'how about a nice game of chess' side.
I have long felt that stretching combat out a little, making it last a little bit longer and slowing it somewhat would not hurt. To do this it needs to be deep. The slower it is the less simple it can be, lest it grow boring, so it's a fine line. A good siege needs time to sap the walls before you can bring them down. An opponent must be wearied before his guard will drop.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
WoW is NOT an easy game. It is just an easy game if you are ok with 80% performance (or 95% in the case of an arcane mage).
Granted 80% for sure means that in 2vs1 2x80% still trumps 1x100% almost every time and that in pro circurit arena 99,3% looses to 100%.
But this applies to a "War as Sports" approach, which WoW has and PFO won't.
In PFO, as in every other open PvP game, bringing the most peeps is usually a sure fire way to win, unless there are mechanics that alleviate that to a certain degree.
This is why I advocate for few but powerful CC-powers and non spammable combat abilities in general (choice often means skill matters). Friendly fire is another possibility as is collision detection.
However, the greatest danger to engaging combat/gameplay is slowdown aka lag! Collision detection is very hard on the system and if that means combat will lag then it has to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, as in every other open PvP game, bringing the most peeps is usually a sure fire way to win, unless there are mechanics that alleviate that to a certain degree.
I agree that has been the case, but I don't want it to be so here. To me, I'd like to see it broken down into a victory in mass pvp coming down to this:
25% gear (equipped items, consumables, etc)
25% numbers (because the Russian Solution *can* work)
40% player skill (otherwise, why play?)
10% character power (helps prevent goonswarming)
I don't want to see combat becoming a crazy zerg fest of who can throw the largest disposable army at each other. That might have been how medieval combat went quite frequently, but it doesn't feel that heroic or fun to me somehow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
40% player skill (otherwise, why play?)
This is an interesting point. What exactly constitutes "skill"?
Being able to push buttons faster/in the correct sequence/better than your opponent?
Reacting more optimally with skills and situational awareness.
Having assembled a superior set of gear for the situation?
Having planned skills out in advance for a scenario such as this?
Fighting games and FPS games definitely rely on the 1st point. (And I am in no way suggesting that it is not an extremely valid skill test.)
Real Time Strategy games rely on the second and (metaphorically) the third.
MMO's, uniquely also have the final component and I suspect people mistake this one with the others. People get upset as they feel they pushed buttons better or played the circumstances better or even assembled better gear. This effort they feel should be enough to get them the win. Therefore something about the other character is out of balance or unfair. This game will be no different, people will lose PVP battles and complain about balance.
They will claim they are 'skilled' enough, usually without even realising they are only looking at a single aspect of skill when up to 4 different kinds can be in play. People often miss just how deep these systems can go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing has to be considered when talking about "skill":
Does low skill mean that you do not contribute a lot (aka dead weight) or that the group is actually worse off with you than just going with one player less?
If the latter is the case then the game is usually thought of as a game where skill matters a lot (like 40%). That also means that noone will take n00bs with them!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing has to be considered when talking about "skill":
Does low skill mean that you do not contribute a lot (aka dead weight) or that the group is actually worse off with you than just going with one player less?
If the latter is the case then the game is usually thought of as a game where skill matters a lot (like 40%). That also means that noone will take n00bs with them!
A small child armed with a toothpick following your orders should always give you an advantage. I don't think anyone is suggesting that open world PVP should be scaled based on group size. I've advocated that approach for dungeons but like I said when I did: this game should be sandbox in the world, theme-park in the dungeons. Perfectly balanced and fun. Not a horrible, messy combination of the two everywhere.
I fully support the ability of companies and kingdoms to arm hordes of poorly trained soldiers with pitchforks, and march them onto the battlefield. I just don't think they should be able to match highly with anything less than a MASSIVE numbers advantage.
I also advocate the ability to march poorly trained but very well equipped soldiers onto the battle field... but I don't think they should be able to take on the best of the best without a heavy numbers advantage.
Think of it in terms of a Total Warfare game. Those extra units of militia are never going to hurt in a fight. But they are no match for a veteran unit of professional soldiers being lead by a brilliant commander. In order to defeat them, you will need your own brilliant tactics and professional soldiers backing them. Or a HUGE numbers advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will give an example:
In DAoC CC (crowd control) was very important. It was sparsely available and the best forms were on long timers. Add to this that anyone hit be a form of CC was immune to it for pretty much the rest of the fight and that dealing even a single point of damage ended CC and you'll start to see whats the problem.
Often you managed to get your CC off and put half of the opponents to sleep only to have some noob pull out some minor AoE damage spell aka "get out of jail free".
Another classic was that the noob ran into a group of aggro NPCs.
Still another was loosing a damage spell prematurely and thus ending extra movement speed for the whole group.
In all cases the group was usually better off fighting with one peep less because combat took "a lot of skill" (and said noob would also not be likely to DD/heal alot anyways).
On the other hand there were Vids on youtube where a single 8-man group took on 30 opponents of the mostly same level and roughly the same equip and came out winning when they absolutely should not have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Obviously someone who doesn't want to have to fight wars, and doesn't find it fun to smuggle their goods past bandits and enemy nations isn't going to care if the combat is dumbed down to a mediocre or even sub-par level.On the contrary. It's precisely because I want to focus on the PvE aspect of the game that I WANT combat to be complex and engaging.
WoW... only to level 25.It's a common complaint that leveling in WoW doesn't prepare you for endgame--the majority of the focus of the game. You can get to max level spamming 1 button. However, when you get there you won't know anything about your class and you won't be prepared for raiding (insert Illidan voiceover). It really is two different games.
Just as an extreme example, here's a Demo Warlock's optimal opener and priority (note that I do not advocate this level of complexity in PFO):
...•Have your raid leader count down 5 seconds before a pull.
•Have your Felguard out before the pull.
•At 1, use a pre-pot.
•Cast Curse of the Elements, if you have Moonwell Chalice, use it, and have your Felguard use Felstorm.
•Once the gcd from CoE is ending, cast Demon Soul: Felguard and use any on use trinket you might have (assuming you don’t have Moonwell Chalice, which as stated previously you would want as soon as your Felguard casts Felstorm).
•If you don't have an affliction warlock or fire mage who would have already applied it, cast Shadow Bolt to put up the 5% crit debuff (this is because SnF doesn't behave as a usual debuff and won't update per-tick or even on a refresh of Immolate)
•Cast Immolate.
•Cast Metamorphosis, Soul Burn, and Bane of Doom.
•Cast Corruption.
•Cast Hand of Gul’dan
•Cast Immolation Aura
•Cast Shadowflame
•By now, any procs such as Power Torrent and DMC:V (if you have it) will be up; cast Summon Doomguard. If Power Torrent procced early, and is going to fade before Volcanic Destruction this point, the main message here is to use Summon Doomguard when both
The problem HERE is not that there are X number of moves in your optimal sequence.... that just makes it COMPLEX CHOREOGRAPHY....not COMPLEX COMBAT. If you compare this to say Chess.....having a 25 move formula that you follow rote doesn't fly because how you move is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT ON HOW YOUR OPPONENT REACTS. It's not X->Y->Z.... it's Move -> Counter-Move -> Reaction to Counter Move.....
And Chess is a really simplistic game in terms of the variety of tactical options. Compare that to a good wargame or minutures game (or PnP combat).... and there is no "I open with these 5 moves"...it's "What battlefield situation/condition do I find myself in?" "What assets do I have availble to me?", "Who am I working with here and what assets do they have?", "What do I know about my opponents...and what strategy do I think they are going to try to employ?"
What you do varies dramaticaly every single time based upon the specific situation you find yourself in. Thats what makes for complex combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a general principal, I would always prefer my "player skill" to be judged by how well I analyze and adapt rather than how well I execute.
Seconded, I would rather have 4 skills, of which the timing and usage is greatly varied in when and how good it is. IE all 16 orders that I use those skills has a result that is better in a different situation.
Than have 50 skills, that have a set order that is always best in 95% of situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a general principal, I would always prefer my "player skill" to be judged by how well I analyze and adapt rather than how well I execute.
Seconded, I would rather have 4 skills, of which the timing and usage is greatly varied in when and how good it is. IE all 16 orders that I use those skills has a result that is better in a different situation.
Than have 50 skills, that have a set order that is always best in 95% of situations.
Thirded.....and it's not really THAT tough to design. You don't need a "Radical, flailing, uber-strike of Doom" ability.
Simple Attack X... but oh wait...
- You have a flanking bonus
- You have a height advantage bonus
- Your using Pike...cool that has a reach advantage over your opponents rapier...better not get caught in a confined space though, you won't be able to use your LARGE weapon there.
- Your opponent is wearing padded armor, great if you were using a blunt weapon but won't do much against the Piercing Damage your PIKE does.
- Your opponent has a bullwhip that can do nasty damage...but your wearing plate....good for you, a bullwhip has lousy armor penetration properties, he won't be doing much damage to you. But watch out, you ARE in plate....that's a swamp behind you, better hope you aren't forced to fall back into it or you'll be moving slow as molasses.
All that variation is availble with just using a simple "ATTACK" skill, if you start to look at the different sorts of conditions/variables that can be used to modify effectiveness.
Mechanicaly simple for the player to execute (only 1 button to press).... NOT at all simple to work out the subtle permutations of the different conditions that can effect that skill...and how to approach any given situation tacticaly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the other hand there were Vids on youtube where a single 8-man group took on 30 opponents of the mostly same level and roughly the same equip and came out winning when they absolutely should not have.
How do you define should not have? Are you saying the group's classes were overpowered or they were using skills that were overpowered? Or are you saying 8 people shouldn't be able to take on 30 of equal level/gear?
I must not be communicating very well, so I'll just try to clarify. The warlock OPENER is complex choreography. The PRIORITY, on the other hand, is adaptive and dynamic. Listing out the abilities in the priority doesn't mean you go through them in order, it means you prioritize spells at the top over spells at the bottom. They are then used in constantly changing orders depending on what needs refreshing and what's more important.
The opener is execution, but execution can be difficult when performance matters. It doesn't matter than it's rote because you can still screw it up, and getting it right matters. Is being a musician now considered a "dumbed down" skill if you're not improvising? No.
I have a personal preference for priority over rotation/execution. I didn't list the warlock opener because I think it's the holy grail of class design. I chose it because they are universally considered the most demanding class to play. I chose to list their opener because people were saying WoW is a 1-button game and that is definitively untrue. Even arcane mages--as insorrow was kind enough to bring up--do more than just spam arcane blast. Their priority involves a mana burn phase, a mana neutral phase, and juggling between those considering combat conditions and their mana regen abilities.
The problem I keep seeing is this:
Let's say you have 4 skills like Onishi says.
1) Arcane Blast--does X damage and puts a debuff on you that causes it to cost more mana and do more damage.
2) Arcane Missiles--40% chance to proc usability. Clears Arcane Blast debuff.
3) Evocation--Regenerates 60% of your mana.
4) Mana Adept (passive)--the more mana you have, the more damage you do.
That's 4 skills. They interact in dynamic and relevant ways depending on your character's condition (mana, evo cooldown, debuff status) and combat conditions (high mobility fights make casting difficult, burn phase may need to line up with the raid's need for burst dps).
HOWEVER, since it's the "WoW arcane mage 1-button spam rotation," it's somehow not interesting enough to discuss?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Let's say you have 4 skills like Onishi says.1) Arcane Blast--does X damage and puts a debuff on you that causes it to cost more mana and do more damage.
2) Arcane Missiles--40% chance to proc usability. Clears Arcane Blast debuff.
3) Evocation--Regenerates 60% of your mana.
4) Mana Adept (passive)--the more mana you have, the more damage you do.That's 4 skills. They interact in dynamic and relevant ways depending on your character's condition (mana, evo cooldown, debuff status) and combat conditions (high mobility fights make casting difficult, burn phase may need to line up with the raid's need for burst dps).
For long term damage:
If the Arcane Blast buff increases damage efficiency (damage per mana), and has higher efficiency than the missiles, it's the clear winner to spam, rationing it either so that you are always at full mana when you cast it, or you drop to 40% mana just as Evocation clears.If Arcane missiles has better efficiency, then either spam them whenever mana is full, or use them at a rate to fully utilize evocation, or spam them with just enough arcane blasts to fully utilize evocation.
For burst damage, spam whichever ability does the most damage for the entire duration of the burst. Pop evocation either halfway through the burst, or the first time you hit 40% mana.
That looked very conditional, but all of the conditions are fixed characteristics of the abilities. It's not a decision, it's a calculation.
Contrast the 3.5 warlock, who has to choose between melee, ranged and area attacks: They do different amounts of damage, and might inflict different status effects, and also change how vulnerable the warlock is.
@Decius: It's no more a decision, and no less a calculation, to select a weapon based on where you are or what you're attacking. Ultimately any battle is just a series of calculations. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses and being able to prioritize on the fly. Know yourself, know your enemy, and in 100 battles you will have 100 victories. That's only possible if it's calculable.
If you want decisions, you'll have to look to something besides combat. Skills, for instance. Choose what abilities you have, then calculate how best to use them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I must not be communicating very well, so I'll just try to clarify. The warlock OPENER is complex choreography. The PRIORITY, on the other hand, is adaptive and dynamic. Listing out the abilities in the priority doesn't mean you go through them in order, it means you prioritize spells at the top over spells at the bottom. They are then used in constantly changing orders depending on what needs refreshing and what's more important.
The opener is execution, but execution can be difficult when performance matters. It doesn't matter than it's rote because you can still screw it up, and getting it right matters. Is being a musician now considered a "dumbed down" skill if you're not improvising? No.
I have a personal preference for priority over rotation/execution. I didn't list the warlock opener because I think it's the holy grail of class design. I chose it because they are universally considered the most demanding class to play. I chose to list their opener because people were saying WoW is a 1-button game and that is definitively untrue. Even arcane mages--as insorrow was kind enough to bring up--do more than just spam arcane blast. Their priority involves a mana burn phase, a mana neutral phase, and juggling between those considering combat conditions and their mana regen abilities.
The problem I keep seeing is this:
Let's say you have 4 skills like Onishi says.
1) Arcane Blast--does X damage and puts a debuff on you that causes it to cost more mana and do more damage.
2) Arcane Missiles--40% chance to proc usability. Clears Arcane Blast debuff.
3) Evocation--Regenerates 60% of your mana.
4) Mana Adept (passive)--the more mana you have, the more damage you do.That's 4 skills. They interact in dynamic and relevant ways depending on your character's condition (mana, evo cooldown, debuff status) and combat conditions (high mobility fights make casting difficult, burn phase may need to line up with the raid's need for burst dps).
HOWEVER, since it's the "WoW arcane mage 1-button spam...
It's been a long time, but I DID play WoW for about 1-1/2 years. This was before the Burning Crusade expansion. I enjoyed my time there, but it WAS an extremely simple (brain dead) combat game as far as I was concerned.
Not that it was neccesarly EASY to win certain fights (e.g. Boss fights) but 99% of the difficulty in those was CHOREOGRAPHY not strategy.... step here, count to 3, waggle your butt, jump over here in 1.5 seconds. I felt more like I was playing Dance, Dance Revolution...not a tactical combat game. Nothing particularly wrong in that, but it's not what I'm interested in....and is not what I consider a deep or complex combat system.
In fairness, I played LOTRO from closed beta until a few months ago...and while also fun, it's combat is only marginaly more complex then WoW's was. I'm sorry...but to me...that style of combat is brain dead...and largely unsatisfying.
Perhaps a bit of background on me....In addition to being an old school PnP player, I'm also an old school board & computer wargamer. I cut my teeth on things like Advanced Squad Leader and all those old SPI games. In computer games, I play things like Combat Mission:Normandy or Advanced Tactics WWII, Norm Kroegars TOAW, etc.
Those, along with many PnP style rulesets (when GM'd well) offer what I consider deep and engaging combat systems. The only thing that I've found approaches that in the MMO world so far is WWII-Online. Though some of the FPS aren't actualy that bad in that regard either..... most MMO's I've experienced...completely brain-dead. Sorry, but I call em like I see em.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
WoW relies on execution of strategy. I would much rather see PFO rely on adaptability to changing dynamics.
I would much rather maximize my impact by choosing the proper time to cast a spell based on position, debuffs, etc. than by being able to spam my rotation with as little downtime as possible.
Yes, I understand that priority rotations solve some of this problem, and they are indeed a step in the right direction. But what I'm really after is a situation where it actually makes sense for me to calmly wait at the edge of battle, and only cast my spell when I have the best chance of it being effective. I'm not sure exactly how to achieve that goal, but I would much rather be able to play with that dynamic than to always have some ability I should be using.
(( I also realize that other Archetypes, or alternate archetypes, might play entirely differently. For example, my Paladin should probably not be standing around waiting for opportunities, but rather should be constantly harassing his opponent, trying to create those opportunities. ))
It's been a long time, but I DID play WoW for about 1-1/2 years. This was before the Burning Crusade expansion. I enjoyed my time there, but it WAS an extremely simple (brain dead) combat game as far as I was concerned.
Fair enough. In Classic there really were only a few abilities per class. Some only a single relevant ability (ie: frostbolt). Some things have changed so much it's practically a different game. If people have been talking about Classic while I talk about Cata, then my apologies--we have no argument.
always have some ability I should be using
Specs that feature this are not my preference either.
The majority of the time I play a feral cat, which is kind of the way you describe. It's as much about waiting for the right moment as using the right ability. I think it's a combination of the damage-over-time intensive nature of the spec, and the fact that you often have to wait for energy. You can really screw yourself if you do too much--you end up with dots ending and no energy.
In PvP this should sort itself out. In PvE, non-scripted fights would be ideal--if GW can develop sufficiently sophisticated AI and threat mechanics that mobs can act like halfway intelligent players.
Something that might help is if mobs have the capability to bluff/feint in combat. Imagine a dragon apparently winding up to blast you, then laughing at you as you blow your defensive cooldowns and proceeding to blast someone else.