My question was about EQN combat, and not about EQN landmark combat, i tought everyone knew that landmark combat is only a placeholder.... That has the physical part of the combat, but withouth the tactical and strategical layers...
this topic was meant to be about the combat system of The main game..
i have read up a little, which made me realise how these developers are trying to create a better version of the orriginal EQ...
- in EQ whilemleveling every few levels you got new spells, which could change your combat experience totally.... The game is build around collecting new skills, passive abillities and items, items have much more influence on your combat style then typical RPG items. They are much more then just stat holders.. This would result in people continually changing their playstyle based on the new stuff they find... There are no levels..
- fraction plays a very important role when collecting skills and abbilities. For example necromancer and paladin skills would be mutuall exclusive because of requiring different factions to aquire, someone that plays evil and takes evil actions might never be able to aquire good classes... Unless he starts working on factions and becomming a benevolent character..
-so far it seems like to perform well both solo and in groups people need to build there characters with a single role in mind, with only 12 skills there might not be room for jack of all (more) trades builds.. In the end however everyone will find a build to suit him with a role that suits him...
so back to my orriginal question, will combat have enough strategical and tactical depth with only 8+4 buttons? Thats my biggest worry for this game, i have seen to many games with few skillbuttons lacking the depth required to keep my attention, we will need to wayt and see how much buttonmashing will be left when the game releases.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
My question was about EQN combat, and not about EQN landmark combat, i tought everyone knew that landmark combat is only a placeholder.... That has the physical part of the combat, but withouth the tactical and strategical layers...
this topic was meant to be about the combat system of The main game..
i have read up a little, which made me realise how these developers are trying to create a better version of the orriginal EQ...
- in EQ whilemleveling every few levels you got new spells, which could change your combat experience totally.... The game is build around collecting new skills, passive abillities and items, items have much more influence on your combat style then typical RPG items. They are much more then just stat holders.. This would result in people continually changing their playstyle based on the new stuff they find... There are no levels..
- fraction plays a very important role when collecting skills and abbilities. For example necromancer and paladin skills would be mutuall exclusive because of requiring different factions to aquire, someone that plays evil and takes evil actions might never be able to aquire good classes... Unless he starts working on factions and becomming a benevolent character..
-so far it seems like to perform well both solo and in groups people need to build there characters with a single role in mind, with only 12 skills there might not be room for jack of all (more) trades builds.. In the end however everyone will find a build to suit him with a role that suits him...
so back to my orriginal question, will combat have enough strategical and tactical depth with only 8+4 buttons? Thats my biggest worry for this game, i have seen to many games with few skillbuttons lacking the depth required to keep my attention, we will need to wayt and see how much buttonmashing will be left when the game releases.
Your question is impossible to answer at this time - the game is so far away - I don't think even the devs know how combat will turn out in the finished product.
By some estimates EQN release is about 3 years away....
I think that wouldnt surprise me, i read up on EQnext over the last days and concludee for myself that they are in over their heads... So many game systems are still in early development.... They might have way to much hay on their pitchfork, lets hope the good bits dont drop off...
i think by now they have realised that with only 8 knobs, those skills must interact, seems to me that they have the fysical part under controll, as well as the strategy part ( which is mostly the building of your skillset and planning ahead). .. I guess they are still toying around with the tactical part, which concerns real time combat decisions, with only 8 buttons there needs to be a system that gives you at least 3 viable choices with every button you push...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I am happy others are getting on board with the poor combat presented to us so far.
However, spending time hoping they will change it to something much better is a lost cause I think.
Combat is at the heart of EverQuest. And at the nucleus of EverQuest's heart is class structure and variety. They ruined it from the start with trying to appeal to those that want it all. I'm not expecting any fix that works.
Give us EQ 1 classes. Give us EQ 1 combat -- sure add some of the EQ2 improvements and maybe even pull from some other newer games, but if the core is not EQ 1 -- it is not EverQuest.
That is the only fix I will accept in a game named EverQuest.
Originally posted by Nanfoodle Ya the current combat system is really bad but like posted above, the current combat is just the start of the foundation. They are working on movement and weapon skills. Right now it feels like bunny hopping is the game you play when you are in combat lol. Im done with landmark till they update more as well. Im still not sold on this no trinity game but who knows they may pull off a gem like EVE =-) Some games can make it work.
Thank you SO much for your green text. If you had posted like everyone else I might have missed your very valuable post, obviously more valuable than everyone elses (hence the green). Once again a thoughtful poster only concerned about making sure we are all assured to read his most valuable post.
As for EQN, combat and class design... failboat. I and most of my guild all agrees that once they announced their new combat design, which is a massive departure from the Everquest franchise, our expectations for the game pretty much went out the window.
It's too bad. Another one has probably bitten the dust even before it launches.
I think you totally misunderstand what communities are.. no offense.. I get the feeling you are a very competitive person in whatever game you play.. And when I speak of social communities, esport and competitive play has NO ROOM in it.. Whenever game mechanics divide people into smaller groups, you have a problem..
PS.. Read your last sentence again and keep that in memory in my next post..
If you don't say what you are talking about it kind of makes it hard to be on the same page. Communities are what? What games have had them at what time that you would like to see in EQN?
I'm competitive, but on the PVE end, I'm all about the team. How "good" I am takes a backseat to the success of my group, guild, whatever. PVP is a different story, but even then if I'm part of a team, WE will win, not I.
If you are talking about EQ's community, I understand. It was great and unfortunately not something devs or players can magically reproduce. Gaming and gamers are not the same and there are way too many of us now. The Cheers experience is over.
I'm not a fan of UI addons and other gamey features that allow for PVE competitiveness. Remove those and people can focus on having fun and socializing, instead of staring at numbers and trying to be #1.
As I said, please provide a game that didn't have mechanics that divided people or a time when we didn't naturally divide ourselves. It's what people do. I've never played a game where 100% of players are equal.
Again, provide solutions, not only problems. If you think EQN's design is anti-community or whatever, what could they do to avoid that?
I am happy others are getting on board with the poor combat presented to us so far.
However, spending time hoping they will change it to something much better is a lost cause I think.
Combat is at the heart of EverQuest. And at the nucleus of EverQuest's heart is class structure and variety. They ruined it from the start with trying to appeal to those that want it all. I'm not expecting any fix that works.
Give us EQ 1 classes. Give us EQ 1 combat -- sure add some of the EQ2 improvements and maybe even pull from some other newer games, but if the core is not EQ 1 -- it is not EverQuest.
That is the only fix I will accept in a game named EverQuest.
I think you my friend want to play Everquest... They are making a new game, and ofcourse it is nothing like everquest, because that game allready excists
sure they are trying to catch the feeling of the good old EQ, but they are using 21st century mechanics and systems. But, they are hoping to make a game just as revolutionairie as the orrignial EQ
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I completely agree with Stevon and Uproar just above this post. Why not use a combat system that is proven to bring in subscriptions and that works? Use the old EQ1, WoW, DaoC, LotR, and Rfit combat system and skip this Tera aiming bullshit.
Seriously, gear stats will not matter that much as the weapon you wield? That didn't work in GW2 and it was crap for pve.
Seriously, using a combat system like aiming instead of tab/targeting? Have you guys not learned from all the failed games. People want complexity in their class, they want to min/max, they want a challenge and want to learn their class over the months of leveling.
Do you not get this yet? I'm sorry to be a little frustrated but why can't game makers learn to use a format that is proven and works for the past 15 years of mmorpgs? I get you want to change things up but look at the past games that did and how they lost subscribers/F2P'ers.
If this turns out to be anything like GW2 or Tera, you all will fail and lose players in the first 6 months. Trust me, I've been playing MMORPGS's since EQ1 and the server Velious being created.
I think you are letting your esport attitude fog your vision here, and maybe that is why you refuse to discuss the pro's and con's of shooter style combat.. over other options that are more inclusive then exclusive.. I already pointed out how and why shooter (aim) combat is worse for the community and you ignored it.. ???
Where was this? Don't remember refusing or ignoring anything, not agreeing blindly with you =/= ignoring. Please point it out I might have missed it.
I fully agree "shooter" combat as you call it has pros and cons, as do all styles/designs. Nothing is perfect. Again though, from MUDs to today, I've yet to play a game where the "skilled" players did the exact same thing as the "unskilled". Just isn't how mmos work. Can we co-exist and play together? Sure, but there has to be content to keep everyone entertained.
Your attitude and opinions remind me of my last raiding guild I hated being in.. It just gulled and chapped my ass, that friends of mine that were not "better" players as you call them were often left OFF raid teams, because they couldn't button mash the sequence of skills for optimal DPS.. Now you want to add in "to hit" shooter mechanics that will make their task in a group even harder, and why? So you can gloat you are a better player? I"m smelling esport here..
So you expect a guild, group, team to carry a poor player just so you can play with them? That logic is what happened to WoW it appears. I'm sorry if a Dragon or whatever challenge requires every member to do their part, that's what has to happen. Some content should simply be too difficult for some. It isn't a matter of gloating, but of wanting to be challenged.
I'd actually hope EQN isn't all about the DPS (which you seem to be convinced) and that some other "skills" are needed, but we'll have to see. Either way, skill does come in to play and it is unavoidable. If someone can heal faster or think 5 seconds a head and another player can barely figure out where the enemy is, there is a large gap in the players.
Your attitude seems to be, everyone should get to do everything all the time regardless if they just stand there or hit 111111 while everyone else is doing the work. As someone so in favor of a "community" seems odd that you accept free loaders or what trivial content to be the default for all.
You said you raided in EQ, was just anyone allowed to go on raids without concern of if they knew how to actually play?
The idea that having to aim is so much harder is just silly. It is no different then being able to hit the right sequence of 20+ skills or whatever design a game might have. You might not be able to aim, but that's on you. Plenty gamers can. No matter what design they go with, it will be easy to some, challenging to others, and a nice balance for plenty. There's no one solution that will please everyone.
The ONLY option you have to compensate what YOU want, is to lift any restrictions.. If it takes 100 poor players to dps down a dragon that 20 good players can do, so be it.. Who cares? I don't.. Problem tho is can the game allow and sustain 100 people fighting without lag issues?? Who knows yet.. I prefer combat that is more cerebral, not how fast your reaction twitch skills are.. I think EQN is directly targeting MINDLESS grinding, sorry to say.. The only thing in EQN that remotely looks like a thinking persons game is the min/max'ing that will take place with character development.. It won't be long until the spreadsheet techno fans publish "builds" for special roles, and everyone starts to copy them mindlessly..
Please point me to fantasy mmorpgs that have been cerebral or thinking persons game. Are you talking about solving puzzles or something?
Tech issues aside, my suggestion was a way to allow everyone the chance to do something without having to be "skilled" or not while not making content faceroll easy.
No clue where you would see mindless grinding in EQN beyond how these games function. All these games are pointless and we just do stuff to do stuff. There is no real bigger purpose in place. They are games.
If people choose to go the FOTM, that's on them. I for one will be playing how I want as long as it is effective. If XYZ is terrible, I'll look for alternatives. There is no escaping this as again, games work this way. With 40+ classes and endless builds, assuming it won't be narrowed down to 5 builds to rule them all.
Again, you give a list of problems without any solutions. YOU don't like XYZ because YOU. What could they do differently that would benefit everyone, not just YOU. I'm trying to think up things that would be to the benefit to the largest demographics, not just you or I specifically.
I wouldn't care if Tier 5 content was impossible for a unskilled player, sucks to be them. But that's no fun and I'd rather they at least have options and means to attempt it, even if it means talking to people and attempting team work, so scary. I want to be able to reach Tier 5 and then go back and play in Tier 1 and help people overcome challenges. That whole horizontal deal. It seems you want the entire game to be Tier 1 and everyone can do it all (maybe even solo?).
I'm sorry your don't find having multiple degrees of difficulty and challenge to be fair, but welcome to gaming. There are good players, bad players, lazy players, perfectionist, jerks, nice guys, etc. Some how the devs have to develop something that will entertain the majority of us.
In EQ I didn't reach max level and instantly go solo dragons. In WoW, some players never made it to high end raiding, not because of gear, but lack of skill and organization. While horizontal progression should make this less of an issue, there will still be times when having the right equipment (gear, class, Tier, skill/knowledge) will come into play. If not, this game will have keep anyone entertained every long.
Honestly, not sure why you aren't a big fan of WoW. It seems to have a lot of what you are looking for. Which isn't a bad thing. While I preferred Vanilla WoW as it was closer to EQ, I can still see why so many people play it today. It isn't a bad game at all, simply not my style anymore. Curious why you don't play it.
I completely agree with Stevon and Uproar just above this post. Why not use a combat system that is proven to bring in subscriptions and that works? Use the old EQ1, WoW, DaoC, LotR, and Rfit combat system and skip this Tera aiming bullshit.
Seriously, gear stats will not matter that much as the weapon you wield? That didn't work in GW2 and it was crap for pve.
Seriously, using a combat system like aiming instead of tab/targeting? Have you guys not learned from all the failed games. People want complexity in their class, they want to min/max, they want a challenge and want to learn their class over the months of leveling.
Do you not get this yet? I'm sorry to be a little frustrated but why can't game makers learn to use a format that is proven and works for the past 15 years of mmorpgs? I get you want to change things up but look at the past games that did and how they lost subscribers/F2P'ers.
If this turns out to be anything like GW2 or Tera, you all will fail and lose players in the first 6 months. Trust me, I've been playing MMORPGS's since EQ1 and the server Velious being created.
All games lose players in the first few months/year. No magical solution for that. With EQN being F2P, this will happen for sure as people aren't even stuck for that 1st month or whatever.
Not sure how GW2 or Tera "failed" though. Both seem to be still running. Coming by that logic, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, LOTR failed right? Even WoW has lost huge numbers, still #1, but population is quite less today then years back. Guess it failed?
Aiming works in multiple games/genres and is simply a different style. Don't like it, don't play it. I'll be there to take your spot. If EQN was tab targeting, I'd less likely to play it as it doesn't allow for other mechanics to work in the game and overall wouldn't be what I'm looking for.
Instead of complexity of just one class, they are giving complexity for the character itself. 40+ classes, ~500 skills, tons of gear/achievements, and it is up to the players to learn it all or focus on whatever they want. Most games/classes have a cap of what gear and skill combos you can combine and master. Good luck doing that with EQN's system in the same time period.
I completely agree with Stevon and Uproar just above this post. Why not use a combat system that is proven to bring in subscriptions and that works? Use the old EQ1, WoW, DaoC, LotR, and Rfit combat system and skip this Tera aiming bullshit.
Seriously, gear stats will not matter that much as the weapon you wield? That didn't work in GW2 and it was crap for pve.
Seriously, using a combat system like aiming instead of tab/targeting? Have you guys not learned from all the failed games. People want complexity in their class, they want to min/max, they want a challenge and want to learn their class over the months of leveling.
Do you not get this yet? I'm sorry to be a little frustrated but why can't game makers learn to use a format that is proven and works for the past 15 years of mmorpgs? I get you want to change things up but look at the past games that did and how they lost subscribers/F2P'ers.
If this turns out to be anything like GW2 or Tera, you all will fail and lose players in the first 6 months. Trust me, I've been playing MMORPGS's since EQ1 and the server Velious being created.
GW2, Tera, NWO, ESO - none of them have failed and they are all pretty amazing games imo. Tab targeting combat is just so boring whether its pve or pvp. There is no real skill involved and its all about gear/stats. Just stand there pressing your "rotation", maybe throwing in an interrupt.
In all four "action-combat" mmos I mentioned you have to be on your toes in nearly every fight. Dodging, ccing, positioning - you have to actually play the game instead of just pressing your macro while watching youtube. Its like playing an action rpg such as dark souls, dragons dogma, or kingdoms of amalur, while also having the social aspects of an mmo.
If it can get combat as good as GW2 or Tera- pretty much the pinnacles of action/semi-action based combat systems, and combat in general in mmos, SOE will be on a winner (assuming other elements of the game are at least good). However, I doubt they will be able to get combat to work as well as those games. From what I have seen in the alpha/beta Landmark first look at combat they are light years away from getting to the level of any of the four games I mentioned above.
I love it when people say it takes "AIMING" to be classified as a skilled game.. So.. since Chess has NO AIMING Reticle it must not requite skill to play.. Card games require no skill ad well, I guess.. so in conclusion using your BRAIN requires no skill according to some...... LOL
Originally posted by Rydeson I love it when people say it takes "AIMING" to be classified as a skilled game.. So.. since Chess has NO AIMING Reticle it must not requite skill to play.. Card games require no skill ad well, I guess.. so in conclusion using your BRAIN requires no skill according to some...... LOL
Not much different then demonizing aim/action combat, that is is the downfall of community, or saying it is all about being button mashing twitchy or whatever silly generalizations.
All systems have their pros/cons, merits, reasons for existing, short comings, yadda yadda.
As someone that enjoys a variety of styles, I get a different type of challenge and accomplishment depending on the design.
However, in my experience, I've found more active aka having to move around, aiming or not, to require a bit more attention on my end. Aiming can up the skill requirement, but unless we are expecting to have FPS precision aiming, I don't find any problems in mmorpgs. Usually the hit box is the general area of a mob, not headshot accurate, so if someone is able to click on a target in a typical tab game, they should be able to aim at a target. Difference being they need to aim each attack instead of once and then only focus on the skill cycle. To me it is an even trade off.
Depending on marcros, how many buttons a mouse has, and other convenience features, tab systems can require less physical inputs or at least less need to use both hands. I've never experienced that with a more active game.
Doesn't mean my mind isn't active in both. Crap game designs that allow people to roll their face across the keyboard and win are the problem, not tab targeting, aiming, or action combat. Any of these can be attached to a poor game.
EQN devs have decided to go with action combat along with aiming. How much "skill" or brain power we will need to actually play at any challenge level has yet to be revealed. I'm highly doubting we'll need to be super button mashers to play. Like any game, there will be poor players, average, above average, amazing, etc. Just how it is. As long as everyone can play and have a good time, should work out fine.
Originally posted by bcbully No block button kinda = gg for action combat system these days. It makes no sense to be carrying a shield or w/e and not be able to actively block.
Would be nice to see. They've shown skills (Bulwark) that are shield focused, but it would be fun to have active blocking along with just the regular dodge and movement defense. Not sure it fits into the combat they have shown, but would be interesting for them to at least give it a try.
Originally posted by Rydeson I love it when people say it takes "AIMING" to be classified as a skilled game.. So.. since Chess has NO AIMING Reticle it must not requite skill to play.. Card games require no skill ad well, I guess.. so in conclusion using your BRAIN requires no skill according to some...... LOL
Not much different then demonizing aim/action combat, that is is the downfall of community, or saying it is all about being button mashing twitchy or whatever silly generalizations.
All systems have their pros/cons, merits, reasons for existing, short comings, yadda yadda.
As someone that enjoys a variety of styles, I get a different type of challenge and accomplishment depending on the design. And we are still trying to discover yours and why you want an Esport style.. It is ok to admit that YOU want a combat system that allows you to strut your combat twitch skills and sense of superiority.. or as you say, show the difference between "poor" and "good" players.. I don't play games to DISPLAY the separations between poor and good.. That is ego stroking and I've grown past that long ago.. I"m trying to discuss what is BEST for the community of players, not what is best for your ego..
However, in my experience, I've found more active aka having to move around, aiming or not, to require a bit more attention on my end. Aiming can up the skill requirement, (at the expense of creating a larger gap between poor players and good players) but unless we are expecting to have FPS precision aiming, I don't find any problems in mmorpgs. (Really? You don't see a problem in having a community that becomes WIDER between poor and good?.. To me it is crystal clear from a social aspect.. If you can keep everyone in the same range, it makes it easier and more stable to create combat scenarios.. However, the wider that range becomes, the harder it is to create a combat encounters without those at the bottom becoming frustrated and leaving the game) Usually the hit box is the general area of a mob, not headshot accurate, so if someone is able to click on a target in a typical tab game, (using the tab key or any key for a ONE time auto target is completely different then sustaining that "aiming" target.. I prefer auto aim, which is MAINSTREAM FYI ).. they should be able to aim at a target. Difference being they need to aim each attack instead of once and then only focus on the skill cycle. To me it is an even trade off. and why is that? so you can display that you are a better player then others? Is that why you play some games to Esport and be better then others? I play golf to NOT be better then others, or display it.. I play with my friends to have FUN.. But then my fun doesn't mean being better..
Depending on marcros, how many buttons a mouse has, and other convenience features, tab systems can require less physical inputs or at least less need to use both hands. I've never experienced that with a more active game.
OK adding macro's is a whole different thing.. I hate combat macros, and feel they have no business in games.. If you are given 8 or 10 hot keys to fight with, use them all.. Not just 1 or 2 macro's that promote "I win" button mashing..
Doesn't mean my mind isn't active in both. Crap game designs that allow people to roll their face across the keyboard and win are the problem, not tab targeting, aiming, or action combat. Any of these can be attached to a poor game.
EQN devs have decided to go with action combat along with aiming. How much "skill" or brain power we will need to actually play at any challenge level has yet to be revealed. I'm highly doubting we'll need to be super button mashers to play. Like any game, there will be poor players, average, above average, amazing, etc. Just how it is. As long as everyone can play and have a good time, should work out fine.
Think about it.. and TRUST my math skills.. If you have a game that allows a range of skill between 80 to 100, it is easier for devs to create content for that range, knowing the bell curve average is 90.. Sure the uber players at 100 will have an easier time, and poorer players at 80 will have to work a little harder or need a little help to make up that 10 point deficit.. Now keep in mind too that the better players only have a 10 point cushion as well, so even the better players will not have a faceroll of a time.. EQ was much like that.. You can be a great player, but if you got careless.. POW (corpse run)..
Now you want to add in yet another variable to the combat equation, and when you do that, YOU WILL make that bell curve wider (60 to 100), and with that you have an average of 80 instead of the 90.. What this means that better players end up facerolling over most encounters, and poorer players will be unable to make up that 20 point disadvantage and quit.. Now are you catching on? From a SOCIAL community perspective, having a wider gap between poor and good is NOT a perk, but a problem.. Now if you are an Esporter (which YOU come across as), you don't care how wide that gap, because you are not playing as a member of a community, but as an individual that needs and wants to be labeled as to the skill level they are.. A true social gamer does not strive for fame or notoriety, or recognition, they play for the fun of the game.. Many like you seldom talk about what is best for WE, the community.. You spend more time talking about the singular person instead..
So YES, statistically adding in AIMING to a combat equation, is more of a divider not a uniter of social combat >> FACT.. If you truly cared about "everyone" being able to play and be challenged, you would want that gap to be as small as possible... I want a game that 99% of all the players are within a certain range.. Why don't you?
And we are still trying to discover yours and why you want an Esport style.. It is ok to admit that YOU want a combat system that allows you to strut your combat twitch skills and sense of superiority.. or as you say, show the difference between "poor" and "good" players.. I don't play games to DISPLAY the separations between poor and good.. That is ego stroking and I've grown past that long ago.. I"m trying to discuss what is BEST for the community of players, not what is best for your ego..
I have no style, I like them all, same in real life, I'm just kind of here.
I have zero interest in strutting my stuff. I want no UI addons that track what I or others are doing to even know the specifics. If you've seen the EQN tech videos, not sure how anyone will know what others are doing exactly with the degree of action going on, unless of course they're standing in the back doing nothing and just watching others play the game.
Players naturally play with others with similar skill levels and interests.
Again, you didn't ding X level in EQ/WoW and magically become a raid master. Some might be better then others naturally, but for many it takes practice over time. There is no difference between someone being able to move around and aim better then someone else compared to someone being able to cycle through X number of skills correctly. Both take practice and skill.
Or are you suggesting a 10 year old on day 1 of his first mmorpg should be as "good" and excel as easily as someone with 20 years of experience? If so, I really don't want to play YOUR ideal game because...social.
However, in my experience, I've found more active aka having to move around, aiming or not, to require a bit more attention on my end. Aiming can up the skill requirement, (at the expense of creating a larger gap between poor players and good players) but unless we are expecting to have FPS precision aiming, I don't find any problems in mmorpgs. (Really? You don't see a problem in having a community that becomes WIDER between poor and good?.. To me it is crystal clear from a social aspect.. If you can keep everyone in the same range, it makes it easier and more stable to create combat scenarios.. However, the wider that range becomes, the harder it is to create a combat encounters without those at the bottom becoming frustrated and leaving the game) Usually the hit box is the general area of a mob, not headshot accurate, so if someone is able to click on a target in a typical tab game, (using the tab key or any key for a ONE time auto target is completely different then sustaining that "aiming" target.. I prefer auto aim, which is MAINSTREAM FYI ).. they should be able to aim at a target. Difference being they need to aim each attack instead of once and then only focus on the skill cycle. To me it is an even trade off. and why is that? so you can display that you are a better player then others? Is that why you play some games to Esport and be better then others? I play golf to NOT be better then others, or display it.. I play with my friends to have FUN.. But then my fun doesn't mean being better..
I'm actually confused as to what you want from a game. Could you give me an example of a game you've played that had an even playing field for all players, regardless of their "skill" or experience, where everyone played side by side as a community? EQ is not an answer fyi.
You keep going on and on about how I want to show I'm better then someone. How exactly would I do this through aiming at a target? Again, if they make combat anything like what is in other games (which you have zero experience with apparently), it isn't hard to aim-target-hit things as much as you seem to think. Really, install TERA and tell me it is impossible for you to play. I think you give gamers little credit in what they can do.
I prefer aiming/action combat because it allows me to be active and play a more "realistic" style. Instead of my fireballs or arrows magically hitting targets I'm not even looking at directly or attacks hitting 1 out of 20 mobs I'm swinging at. That whole immersion thing, less UI and gamey mechanics.
We've seen what going the easy, everyone is a winner, route does for games. WoW anyone? I'm not suggesting we have early EQ/WoW gaps though and call it a day.
I'm suggesting they have content/challenges for all types of players so no one is left out. If you are "good" and want to play with your "bad" friends, do it. If they practice and get better, they can always try harder stuff. Hence the whole progression thing. Horizontal allows for this. There is a reason to go from Tier 1 to 5 and back again.
Your view that if things are too hard, the unskilled players will leave is exactly the same as if there is no challenge for the skilled players. Guess what they'll do? Neither is the solution.
Think about it.. and TRUST my math skills.. If you have a game that allows a range of skill between 80 to 100, it is easier for devs to create content for that range, knowing the bell curve average is 90.. Sure the uber players at 100 will have an easier time, and poorer players at 80 will have to work a little harder or need a little help to make up that 10 point deficit.. Now keep in mind too that the better players only have a 10 point cushion as well, so even the better players will not have a faceroll of a time.. EQ was much like that.. You can be a great player, but if you got careless.. POW (corpse run)..
And if you were a poor player, no raids for you....perfect solution...
You say it is easier on devs, but how do you know that? Maybe the design and tech is capable of a much larger range of challenges. They've said the Storybricks AI can be turned up if players overcome the hardest content. Which leads me to believe that the challenge scale is as large as they need it to be.
Your assumption that the scale between "poor" and "godly" players is small seems a bit off. Not sure how good/bad you are at gaming, but I've done my fair share of PUG groups and I'm amazed some people are able to turn their computers on, let a lone "play" a social game where team work is expected.
I don't want an average game. I want a game for all. Building around average is doing exactly that. Giving a portion of players the majority of content. Which is how most of these games work.
Now you want to add in yet another variable to the combat equation, and when you do that, YOU WILL make that bell curve wider (60 to 100), and with that you have an average of 80 instead of the 90.. What this means that better players end up facerolling over most encounters, and poorer players will be unable to make up that 20 point disadvantage and quit.. Now are you catching on? From a SOCIAL community perspective, having a wider gap between poor and good is NOT a perk, but a problem.. Now if you are an Esporter (which YOU come across as), you don't care how wide that gap, because you are not playing as a member of a community, but as an individual that needs and wants to be labeled as to the skill level they are.. A true social gamer does not strive for fame or notoriety, or recognition, they play for the fun of the game.. Many like you seldom talk about what is best for WE, the community.. You spend more time talking about the singular person instead..
So a true social gamer will play mind numbing easy content for the sake of the greater good? Please point me to a game that had gamers that did that.
Again, your view seems to ride completely on the idea that the game is balanced around X. Why does the entire game have to be balanced around the lowest/highest/average skill level? Why can't there be varying levels through out?
You assume expect me to agree with your math which is based on? You have no experience with mmorpgs that have aiming, how do you know how hard it is? Moving your mouse pointer to an Orc with one hand and clicking 1 and then either moving away or continuing to hold the mouse over the target while hitting 2 is a giant leap harder then pointing at target, clicking, hitting 1, then 2? Didn't realize moving a mouse was that hard honestly. Remember EQN will have a small skill pool, you shouldn't need 4 hands to manage all the skills/UI.
So YES, statistically adding in AIMING to a combat equation, is more of a divider not a uniter of social combat >> FACT.. If you truly cared about "everyone" being able to play and be challenged, you would want that gap to be as small as possible... I want a game that 99% of all the players are within a certain range.. Why don't you?
Because that game would be WoW? Unless I'm missing what you are saying. Could you compare what you are saying to what a game like WoW is like when it comes to challenge and skill needed?
I will agree that aiming can make things harder for some. But so can having a huge skill pool, which usually comes along with tab. Again, there is a balance. Small skill pool and tab seems to be the worst of both systems.
Communities are full of a diverse group of folks. It would be nice if 99% fell within a certain range, but I'm not sure how you figure that out.
You seem to forget that people get better over time, usually. If the 80s turn into 90s and the 90s turn into 100s and the 100s leave the game, then what? Oh ya, expansion, add more levels and gear to grind!!! YES! There's the solution... This is exactly what we going on in other games. Why don't I want to repeat that? Really?
Can't assume that players skill or interests are static. We improve, change, and want different things as time passes. Designing around an average based on unknown doesn't work.
I want a game where as a solo player I can take on easy content and then as I improve, continue to find more challenging adventures. If I group with a few folks, I want the same. If I'm part of a guild/raid, I want the same. Allowing for ongoing progression and improvement. At the same time, going back to "easier" content is still rewarding by having a diverse amount of content.
That Orc Chieftan I struggled to defeat with 10 others when I started is still a challenge as a solo player after improving. To me this is how you balance around social and the community. By encouraging team work, not designing around individual skill. These are MMOs not single player games. While I don't want people forced to group to experience anything, I also don't want to be "The Hero" slaying dragons with one hand tied behind my back because it isn't fair that I don't get to =(
If I'm terrible and never get better, everyone else should have to play at my level? To me that is poor design. Gaming is not fair. If someone simply sucks, I don't believe a game should revolve around them. Some level of "skill" should be expected in an mmorpg designed for a wide variety. I won't be upset if a 7 year old can't master a Tier 5 Warrior.
You seem to be describing a game that cater to the lowest common denominator. Make everything within reach of all players regardless if they are terrible or not. We already have games like that. No need to repeat that in EQN.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but again, I'd love some solutions/examples of your ideas instead of your "stats." I also believe you lack enough knowledge/experience with the aiming/action system to know how it will work or if players can handle it. Sounds more to be exactly what you say I'm doing with talking from your POV and interests, not the communities.
As I've said, there is no perfect design that will be 100% optimal for everyone. It is subjective. SOE has already picked the system and it is already live. You can choose to dislike, hate, frown upon, think up 100s of reasons it is bad for the community, but there it is. Not trying to be an ass, but as you like to say "Are you catching on?" Fans of EQN don't seem to care, SOE doesn't care, not sure why you insist on going on about it. I here I am writing walls of text, I can't resist
Players naturally play with others with similar skill levels and interests.
Again, you didn't ding X level in EQ/WoW and magically become a raid master. Some might be better then others naturally, but for many it takes practice over time. There is no difference between someone being able to move around and aim better then someone else compared to someone being able to cycle through X number of skills correctly. Both take practice and skill. (110% ABSOLUTELY WRONG)
Or are you suggesting a 10 year old on day 1 of his first mmorpg should be as "good" and excel as easily as someone with 20 years of experience? If so, I really don't want to play YOUR ideal game because...social. (Seriously dude, you can practice all you want, you are either a good shot or not.. Trust me, I have my marksman ribbon from my military days, and I still hunt from time to time.. However, just like in golf or hunting, you either are gifted with a good eye, or not and no amount of practice is going to turn you into a pro.. Tiger Woods will always kick my ass, no matter how much I practice.)
I'm actually confused as to what you want from a game. Could you give me an example of a game you've played that had an even playing field for all players, regardless of their "skill" or experience, where everyone played side by side as a community? EQ is not an answer fyi. ( EQ is the precise answer, as much as you not want to accept it.. ALL 39th level Druids had the same spells and skills.. The only difference was their desire to keep spell skills maxed.. There was no min/maxing in EQ.. The only differences between a good and poor player was their alertness to what was going on, and cerebral decision making on doing the right thing )
You keep going on and on about how I want to show I'm better then someone. How exactly would I do this through aiming at a target? Again, if they make combat anything like what is in other games (which you have zero experience with apparently), it isn't hard to aim-target-hit things as much as you seem to think. Really, install TERA and tell me it is impossible for you to play. I think you give gamers little credit in what they can do. ( I don't need to, I play Call of Duty, Demon Soul, Dragon Age, and many other games over the past 30 years that display exactly what I"m talking about.. Even Diablo 3, as much as I love it, causes problems with players..)
I prefer aiming/action combat because it allows me to be active and play a more "realistic" style. Instead of my fireballs or arrows magically hitting targets I'm not even looking at directly or attacks hitting 1 out of 20 mobs I'm swinging at. That whole immersion thing, less UI and gamey mechanics. (As I said, you only care about your ability to play the game, and screw everyone else.. You want realistic combat at the expense of less players playing.. Why? Ego?)
We've seen what going the easy, everyone is a winner, route does for games. WoW anyone? I'm not suggesting we have early EQ/WoW gaps though and call it a day. (well there you go.. YOU DON"T want everyone to be a winner.. Yet you proclaim you don't care about status or skill ranks.. With the exception of some esport mechanics that WoW has, they do a damn good job with game design)
I'm suggesting they have content/challenges for all types of players so no one is left out. If you are "good" and want to play with your "bad" friends, do it. If they practice and get better, they can always try harder stuff. Hence the whole progression thing. Horizontal allows for this. There is a reason to go from Tier 1 to 5 and back again. (I'm thinking you don't quite understand what tiers in EQN are.. You think they are challenge levels? and they are NOT.. FYI)
Think about it.. and TRUST my math skills.. If you have a game that allows a range of skill between 80 to 100, it is easier for devs to create content for that range, knowing the bell curve average is 90.. Sure the uber players at 100 will have an easier time, and poorer players at 80 will have to work a little harder or need a little help to make up that 10 point deficit.. Now keep in mind too that the better players only have a 10 point cushion as well, so even the better players will not have a faceroll of a time.. EQ was much like that.. You can be a great player, but if you got careless.. POW (corpse run)..
And if you were a poor player, no raids for you....perfect solution... (Who said that? I didn't)
You say it is easier on devs, but how do you know that? Maybe the design and tech is capable of a much larger range of challenges. They've said the Storybricks AI can be turned up if players overcome the hardest content. Which leads me to believe that the challenge scale is as large as they need it to be. (that has nothing to do with storybricks, every dev in the world for YEARS as the ability to make changes to the combat code if things are too hard or easy.)
Your assumption that the scale between "poor" and "godly" players is small seems a bit off. (I NEVER said that.. tyvm ) Not sure how good/bad you are at gaming, but I've done my fair share of PUG groups and I'm amazed some people are able to turn their computers on, let a lone "play" a social game where team work is expected.
So a true social gamer will play mind numbing easy content for the sake of the greater good? Please point me to a game that had gamers that did that. (No said that.. are you reading text not printed?)
Again, your view seems to ride completely on the idea that the game is balanced around X. Why does the entire game have to be balanced around the lowest/highest/average skill level? Why can't there be varying levels through out? (I assume you didn't understand what I typed because of your lack of experience with bell curve statistics.. /shrug)
You assume expect me to agree with your math which is based on? You have no experience with mmorpgs that have aiming (A statistician doesn't need experience on the subject to know how to crunch numbers)
Because that game would be WoW? Unless I'm missing what you are saying. Could you compare what you are saying to what a game like WoW is like when it comes to challenge and skill needed? (Ok.. lets use WoW as the example.. Imagine it changing to an Aiming system with no targeting.. Can you honestly say to us that it would have NO IMPACT on the game between poor players and good players? Honestly?
I will agree that aiming can make things harder for some. (BINGO BINGO BINGO.. TY for admitting it will make it harder for some = INCREASING the gap between less and more skilled players) But so can having a huge skill pool, which usually comes along with tab. Again, there is a balance. Small skill pool and tab seems to be the worst of both systems. (You are talking about min/maxing skill trees where one skill is better then another.. That is NOT personal skill issue, that is a program balance issue.. HUGE difference)
Communities are full of a diverse group of folks. It would be nice if 99% fell within a certain range, but I'm not sure how you figure that out.( I JUST TOLD YOU.. damn!.. lol You admitted earlier their is a big difference between target zones.. aka headshot vs general area.. TRUE.. Now lets look at aim targeting such as range dps or healing.. Would you have an objection in making that "cone of fire" large enough that 90% of the attacks HIT the target? <more on that later depending on your response>)
You seem to forget that people get better over time, usually. ( no they don't.. People get adjusted to their class and learn to play it, but twitch aim skills barely ever change..) If the 80s turn into 90s and the 90s turn into 100s and the 100s leave the game, then what? Oh ya, expansion, add more levels and gear to grind!!! YES! There's the solution... This is exactly what we going on in other games. Why don't I want to repeat that? Really? (you are way OFF.. We are not talking power ratings, levels or whatever metric you want to use for progression.. I'm talking about simple talent.. It doesn't matter how much little Billy practices throwing the football, he will NOT become Peyton Manning.. There is a reason Peyton Manning is as good as he is, and it's not because he practices more then anyone else on the block.. There are golfers that practice more then the Golden Bear Jack Nicklaus ever did, but they will NEVER match his skill or records..)
Can't assume that players skill or interests are static. We improve, change, and want different things as time passes. Designing around an average based on unknown doesn't work. (WRONG, designing things for the average is the safest option)..
If I'm terrible and never get better, everyone else should have to play at my level? To me that is poor design. (So your answer is to show all the less skilled players the door? ) NICE.. We are starting to see your true colors.. Gaming is not fair. If someone simply sucks, I don't believe a game should revolve around them. (BAM.. there you go, TY for admitting to us finally after all these post how you view social gaming.. Keep up or Get out? Some level of "skill" should be expected in an mmorpg designed for a wide variety. I won't be upset if a 7 year old can't master a Tier 5 Warrior.
You seem to be describing a game that cater to the lowest common denominator. Make everything within reach of all players regardless if they are terrible or not. We already have games like that. No need to repeat that in EQN. (NO.. I think games should be designed on a bell curve average, and that everyone within that 99% distribution bracket should enjoy the game without feeling poor or godly.. But apparently you feel different.. The gap between poor and good should be MINIMALIZED to promote community, not esport segregation.. You claim to want social gaming without labels, but you clearly want combat to EXPOSE the less skilled player and force them out? WOW!!
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but again, I'd love some solutions/examples of your ideas instead of your "stats." (Stats are a good thing, as long as they are not corrupted.. ALL combat is based on DPS numbers.. Too low, and you die, too high and you feel like a god.. Both extremes are bad.. EQ is a base example where a 30 level wizard will do the same damage as every other 30th level wizard.. Now over time, EQ1 changed to promote min/maxing and bs.. Then WoW generation of games come out with multiple skill sets.. Not ALL Mages in WoW did the same dps because of skill trees.. When you have 1 variable in the dps equation, you get a small gap between poor and good.. Add in a 2nd variable to the equation like Blizzard did and that gap widens.. It is simple math.. Now add in yet a 3rd variable of Aiming, and the gap will widen even more.. And we haven't even talked about technical issues such as ISP and computer speeds that have a GREAT influence on shooter games.. )
ooof.. There are solutions to all this, but until you understand what is being said, why bother.. Happy Holidays
(Seriously dude, you can practice all you want, you are either a good shot or not.. Trust me, I have my marksman ribbon from my military days, and I still hunt from time to time.. However, just like in golf or hunting, you either are gifted with a good eye, or not and no amount of practice is going to turn you into a pro.. Tiger Woods will always kick my ass, no matter how much I practice.)
True you might never be Tiger, but you sure as heck can improve. Tiger wasn't born good (at least can't be proven), his dad trained his ass off as far as I understand (not a golf fan). Sure some naturally are gifted at certain things, but without practice, being 7 ft tall doesn't = amazing basketball player or being able to throw like crazy =/= super star pitcher.
You have to practice/train and work at it. I doubt those on the pro gaming scene were instantly amazing the moment they touched a keyboard/controller. You might not be improving anymore, but I know I still am. I'm assuming most others are as well. I want a game that allows growth. Not, "You are X skill level, the end, don't even try to get better."
Honestly can't believe your logic here. You've never improved after practicing something? You either are good or bad and that's it?
( EQ is the precise answer, as much as you not want to accept it.. ALL 39th level Druids had the same spells and skills.. The only difference was their desire to keep spell skills maxed.. There was no min/maxing in EQ.. The only differences between a good and poor player was their alertness to what was going on, and cerebral decision making on doing the right thing )
Um you just described "skill" that is exactly what I'm trying to get at.
If Player A and Player B are given the exact same tools/options, it is a matter of what they do with them. Chess, checkers, or any game of that nature. It is what you know and how you use that to your advantage. Skill.
If A > B and they are given the same challenge, A will do better. Which is fine, but I'd rather see a game where A, B, C to Z have challenging content. Not just A B C and everything is designed around most being B. This is the typical shallow design.
My point is that those with higher "cerebral decision making" shouldn't be doing the exact same content as those with lower. Which seems to be what you are talking about. Or that the range shouldn't match the range of skill.
( I don't need to, I play Call of Duty, Demon Soul, Dragon Age, and many other games over the past 30 years that display exactly what I"m talking about.. Even Diablo 3, as much as I love it, causes problems with players..)
Again, you simply lack experience. COD =/= TERA. Do both have aiming? Yes, but they work on totally different mechanics. It's like saying shooting a bow is the same as shooting a gun...both require aiming. D3 as well is a completely different system.
(As I said, you only care about your ability to play the game, and screw everyone else.. You want realistic combat at the expense of less players playing.. Why? Ego?)
I'm sorry you play games you hate and don't enjoy, because community. I enjoy the games I play, for the fun, not my ego. I could play EQN just as easily if it was Tab, but I don't have to, so its even better. Who is this everyone else you are talking about? I didn't realize you were the mouth of millions. You say you speak for others, but did they ask you to? I'm really lost on how you've come to the conclusion that gamers as a whole that might potentially play EQN either don't want or can't handle their combat system. Proof? Facts? Data?
(well there you go.. YOU DON"T want everyone to be a winner.. Yet you proclaim you don't care about status or skill ranks.. With the exception of some esport mechanics that WoW has, they do a damn good job with game design)
Well that clears up a lot if you think WoW is great. It is a great casual game that allows everyone to win for showing up, which is a lot of fun for many. Although I'd argue many of them would probably like to be challenged once in a while. And I do want everyone to be a winner, just not at the exact same thing. I don't want a game designed for the lowest common denominator only. They should still have as much fun as anyone else, but there should be options to have harder content.
Really you confuse me. Early EQ/WoW were nothing like the current games, yet you seem to like the early versions as well. Everyone was not a winner in EQ/WoW previously. Which was a poor design. Now people just log in and might as well be given every reward and just cut to the boss falling over. There can be a balance between the extremes.
I care about my personal experience. I want to be challenged. If you don't, awesome. We could both have our way. You play the easy stuff, I'll play the harder stuff. Win/Win. If you practice and get better, you could try the harder stuff as well. Not seeing the negative.
(I'm thinking you don't quite understand what tiers in EQN are.. You think they are challenge levels? and they are NOT.. FYI)
What are they? You obviously follow EQN much closer then me, so if you could clear it up, that would be great.
Think about it.. and TRUST my math skills.. If you have a game that allows a range of skill between 80 to 100, it is easier for devs to create content for that range, knowing the bell curve average is 90.. Sure the uber players at 100 will have an easier time, and poorer players at 80 will have to work a little harder or need a little help to make up that 10 point deficit.. Now keep in mind too that the better players only have a 10 point cushion as well, so even the better players will not have a faceroll of a time.. EQ was much like that.. You can be a great player, but if you got careless.. POW (corpse run)..
And if you were a poor player, no raids for you....perfect solution... (Who said that? I didn't)
That was EQ's solution. You seem to have missed that part. If you were good and screwed up, you died. If you were bad, you were just bad and content was locked out.
(that has nothing to do with storybricks, every dev in the world for YEARS as the ability to make changes to the combat code if things are too hard or easy.)
Yet we don't see it in every mmorpg? And I'm not talking about going from enemy has 100 hp to 100000 hp and doing 10 dmg to doing 10000 dmg. But actual reaction and tactical stuff. Not just zombie to godmode.
So a true social gamer will play mind numbing easy content for the sake of the greater good? Please point me to a game that had gamers that did that. (No said that.. are you reading text not printed?)
You seem to go on about the community and doing what is best for the whole. If I'm a "good" player and want a challenge, yet you seem to want a game designed for those that can't handle ever greater challenges, where would I fit in? I play below my skill level? Honestly your point is somewhat confusing since you rely on your "stats" which aren't very realistic.
(I assume you didn't understand what I typed because of your lack of experience with bell curve statistics.. /shrug)
I guess so. I understand bell curves, just not how your example applies to gamers with a wide range. Some examples maybe?
(A statistician doesn't need experience on the subject to know how to crunch numbers)
What numbers are you crunching? That's kind of my point. You just made up numbers and those are your facts. Yet you refuse to accept that other games have similar mechanics as EQN and work just fine. I'll take a game I can see/play over your random numbers.
(Ok.. lets use WoW as the example.. Imagine it changing to an Aiming system with no targeting.. Can you honestly say to us that it would have NO IMPACT on the game between poor players and good players? Honestly?
Nope. I'm betting those that are worse at aiming will do worse and those worse at skill cycling would do better, assuming the skill number was decreased to factor in movement/aiming which usually go hand in hand with aiming. Every system is this way. Again, you give players little credit. Those who are poor at it, could never get better? You either can move your mouse pointer or you can't? This isn't COD aiming....
( I JUST TOLD YOU.. damn!.. lol You admitted earlier their is a big difference between target zones.. aka headshot vs general area.. TRUE.. Now lets look at aim targeting such as range dps or healing.. Would you have an objection in making that "cone of fire" large enough that 90% of the attacks HIT the target? )
You told me based on your made up numbers that don't represent anything 80 = ? 80% of ? How is this determined?
Again, you've obviously not played this type of game before. If you are aiming in the general area of the target when you hit a skill, it should land. If you are aiming 20 ft above a target, no it shouldn't land. We aren't talking head, leg, body shots that require quite a bit more skill that I'd never expect in a mmorpg.
You seem to forget that people get better over time, usually. ( no they don't.. People get adjusted to their class and learn to play it, but twitch aim skills barely ever change..)
Proof? LTP = getting better. Honestly you must be a really natural or really terrible COD player to think this. To say you have never improved is pretty odd. My skills from when I started playing CS years ago to today have improved a ton. Same for TF2. And even Smite, even though I have little experience with it.
This concept that people don't improve with practice is just really out there to me. Don't think I've ever seen someone say that lol.
(you are way OFF.. We are not talking power ratings, levels or whatever metric you want to use for progression.. I'm talking about simple talent.. It doesn't matter how much little Billy practices throwing the football, he will NOT become Peyton Manning.. There is a reason Peyton Manning is as good as he is, and it's not because he practices more then anyone else on the block.. There are golfers that practice more then the Golden Bear Jack Nicklaus ever did, but they will NEVER match his skill or records..)
I agree, that regular people won't become super star athletes through practice. They have a natural gift, but practice got them there. Hand someone that has never touched a football and tell them to throw it. Then have them throw it 1000000 times, toss in some teaching and how to do it properly. If they don't improve, they must have no arms.
(WRONG, designing things for the average is the safest option)..
Well I for one am glad that SOE isn't playing safe this time around. Safe doesn't make me think of challenge, risk/reward, accomplishment. You are right, but I don't agree that safe is the best option always.
If I'm terrible and never get better, everyone else should have to play at my level? To me that is poor design. (So your answer is to show all the less skilled players the door? ) NICE.. We are starting to see your true colors.. Gaming is not fair. If someone simply sucks, I don't believe a game should revolve around them. (BAM.. there you go, TY for admitting to us finally after all these post how you view social gaming.. Keep up or Get out? Some level of "skill" should be expected in an mmorpg designed for a wide variety. I won't be upset if a 7 year old can't master a Tier 5 Warrior.
I've said over and over that I want content for everyone. How is that showing someone the door?
You are suggesting that a crappy golfer should be able to join a pro tour and get a huge handicap so they can "win" or be equal to the actual pros?
Going back to above, I'm assuming that the Tiers will reflect some sort of difficult scale. Someone that isn't very good shouldn't just waltz into Tier 5 and own everything. It should take some degree of skill, knowledge of their classes, the game, how to play, etc.
This isn't about keeping up. Who are we keeping up with in a horizontal social game? It isn't a competition.
Lets use a swimming pool. Lets say it is 2-20ft deep. If I can swim, I can go from 2-20ft. If someone can't swim well, they probably shouldn't go past a safe height distance. I shouldn't drain the entire pool to 2ft so the lower skilled person can walk across the entire thing. We both are able to swim and enjoy ourselves, simply have a range of difficulty and risk involved.
(NO.. I think games should be designed on a bell curve average, and that everyone within that 99% distribution bracket should enjoy the game without feeling poor or godly.. But apparently you feel different.. The gap between poor and good should be MINIMALIZED to promote community, not esport segregation.. You claim to want social gaming without labels, but you clearly want combat to EXPOSE the less skilled player and force them out? WOW!!
You clearly like to twist things around, but that's okay. Alright, you got the math skills, how do you determine the 99% bracket. How do you account for players that might improve (just for arguments sake since you have strange views on improvement).
(Stats are a good thing, as long as they are not corrupted.. ALL combat is based on DPS numbers.. Too low, and you die, too high and you feel like a god.. Both extremes are bad.. EQ is a base example where a 30 level wizard will do the same damage as every other 30th level wizard.. Now over time, EQ1 changed to promote min/maxing and bs.. Then WoW generation of games come out with multiple skill sets.. Not ALL Mages in WoW did the same dps because of skill trees.. When you have 1 variable in the dps equation, you get a small gap between poor and good.. Add in a 2nd variable to the equation like Blizzard did and that gap widens.. It is simple math.. Now add in yet a 3rd variable of Aiming, and the gap will widen even more.. And we haven't even talked about technical issues such as ISP and computer speeds that have a GREAT influence on shooter games.. )
EQ and early WoW were very simple games. Skill level range wasn't very great for regular game play or at least the games didn't account for it. You could either handle the "end game" or not. No in between. The speed of combat was fairly slow. Pretty much anyone could solo from start to finish with enough time (more so WoW). Raiding and more challenging group content factored in team work as being a much needed skill in itself. Everyone did their part, but all the parts had to work together to succeed.
Since then, yes games have increased the variables which requires an increase in the scale of challenging content. The number of players and the range of skill has also increased immensely.
You can't expect what worked 15+ years ago to work today, just not realistic. Seems that is what you want.
I agree that with each variable, the skill gap increases, but that is fine. As long as the game accounts for it which is what I've been going on about. Don't design a game for the average, design it for all.
Instead of having 1, 2, 3 difficulties, have 20+. And make every one have enough content that players will enjoy themselves. Instead of easy = rats that drop rat skin and hard = dragons that drop amazing swords. Give reasons for a "good" player to play in the lower difficulty areas and a way for "bad" players to improve and work towards the more challenging content.
If what I'm saying makes sense, who would be negatively impacted and in what way? If there is content for the worst to the best players, a reason for the best to go back and play with the worst and within their content, and a way for the worst to improve to play in more challenging content, what is the downside?
As far as the lag and aiming, again, play a mmorpg with aiming and tell me how much the lag impacts gameplay. Heck even in most FPS it isn't an issue these days. If you have dial up and a Dell from 2000 ya maybe, but generally gamers and even average people have cable modems and half way decent computers these days. Sorry Grandma won't be owning people in EQN?
How do you feel about WoW's difficult settings for dungeons/raids? For or against? What if that concept was give many more variations and applied to the world itself?
ooof.. There are solutions to all this, but until you understand what is being said, why bother.. Happy Holidays
There are solutions that turn what they are doing into what you want. But as you or I have no say in the matter, it is rather a "why bother" situation. I just like typing
Rydeson the game you want would go belly up in the first six months due to the fat that it would be the most boring game in the world. The pool analogy made is the correct one, you would want a swimming pool that only is 2 feet deep when asking someone to be able to swim is not an unreasonable demand. EQN combat will sink or swim based on the amount of skill it takes to "master" the combat whether that be through aiming, skill numbers, etc. Rydeson the game you want to play is called Second Life, you're welcome.
I dropped Wildstar because of the combat. It was quite impossible for me to heal and play in that game and enjoy myself. I was no longer enjoying myself so I quit. I was also suffering from wrist and elbow and shoulder pain while holding down mouse button to mouse turn it and move since all my skills are mapped to my Logitech 600 and it became very bad and I decided no thank you . I am also no spring chicken am around 54 years old so I guess old dog new tricks thing decided to show its ugly side too.
I liked Guildwars 2 that was the right amount of action combat and even Tera was okay except for the combat animation locked in place rubbish which turned me off too and the godawful quests. I did not have much issue with ESO combat either but something about their camera angle gave me my dreaded FPS headaches after about 60 minutes or so in beta I decided the game was not for me plus I did not really like it so it was easy for me to drop it without looking for a solution. I played Age of Conan too very well had no issue with the combat in that game .What I have seen of Landmark combat however makes me think I shall avoid EQ Next until more information comes out but I do not like what I am seeing. Constantly moving camera angles and me is a no go I will get physically ill. If I have to move constantly and get flush against the terrain in odd camera angles, the game no longer becomes about playing but fighting the awkward angles .
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert and DCO. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
There are probably also older players that like character building, social aspects of mmos, and action combat. To be honest I was actually surprised that some people prefer the "traditional" mmo tab targeting type combat.
I remember the first mmo I played- Warhammer online - and I was so excited, but I couldn't believe how lame the combat was, it was like a joke. At the time I thought "how can people like this crap, its so boring". Then I found the rvr area and I started to understand the attraction.
I played several other mmos, but the only ones where the pve was actually somewhat enjoyable were the action combat titles like Tera, GW2, NWO, and ESO. Tera was especially interesting because it had a lot of mobs that were kind of smart, both in dungeons and wandering around.
At any rate I think enjoyment of combat is intrinsically linked to mob AI. Even with an engaging combat system, if the mobs just stand around dumbly waiting to be slaughtered or just charge dumbly at you it doesn't make for good gameplay. Even if the combat is just pretty good, if the mobs act more like you would expect in say a good rpg than in most mmos, the overall combat experience should be fun (at least that's what I'm hoping).
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
There are probably also older players that like character building, social aspects of mmos, and action combat. To be honest I was actually surprised that some people prefer the "traditional" mmo tab targeting type combat.
Some people prefer "traditional" mmo tab targeting because it's slow and not as demanding in term of concentration/movement as action combat. These people want a relaxing experience while playing, not a chaotic one.
Also, some people have carpal tunnel or other hand injuries and action combat is a big NO for them (GW2 cause me major wrist pain for example, I can't play more than one hour of it).
I'm trying to get at.If A > B and they are given the same challenge, A will do better. Which is fine, but I'd rather see a game where A, B, C to Z have challenging content. Not just A B C and everything is designed around most being B. This is the typical shallow design. So what you want is to split the community up to skill groups, segregating players into different tiers.. EQ1 did this long ago with PoP tiering and it caused mass EXODUS of players, and guild hopping like a new fad. I loathe any game that categorizes play and splits up players based on skill level.. Which is EXACTLY what you are promoting..
With the exception of some esport mechanics that WoW has, they do a damn good job with game design) Well that clears up a lot if you think WoW is great. I never said WoW is great.. There you go reading things not said, and putting words in others mouth never said..
We could both have our way. You play the easy stuff, I'll play the harder stuff. Win/Win. If you practice and get better, you could try the harder stuff as well. Not seeing the negative. BINGO, we have a winner.. TY for admitting you believe and promote splitting players up into content levels.. So worst players don't get access to tier 3 or tier 5 content? Yeah, that will work well.. NOT..
If you were good and screwed up, you died. If you were bad, you were just bad and content was locked out. EQ1 prior to PoP NEVER had skill lockouts in raids.. If the guild was doing a ToV raid, or just a simple Dragon spawn in Skyfire for example, it didn't matter how poor or good you were, everyone had access and was welcome.. For you to claim EQ1 had raid lockouts tells me you NEVER played it.. After PoP and their stupid ass tiering bullshit, I wouldn't know.. I quit I hated not playing with friends because they didn't have tiers unlocked..
You seem to go on about the community and doing what is best for the whole. If I'm a "good" player and want a challenge, yet you seem to want a game designed for those that can't handle ever greater challenges, where would I fit in? I play below my skill level? Honestly your point is somewhat confusing since you rely on your "stats" which aren't very realistic. It's pretty clear you want EQN to split the community up based on skill level.. Sorta Esportish if you ask me, just like games today have different levels and rewards for instances.. EQN will NOT have instances from what we are hearing, but YOU want and believe the tiers will be the "boundaries" that separate good and bad players, and it WON'T.. Tiers in EQN are just unlockable zones/equipment just like earning XP.. The only issue is that hardcore good players will unlock tier 5 faster then a casual poor player.. But guess what bro? That poor player you want to avoid, will eventually join your tier 5 group and YOU think somehow his performance won't be accounted for in the design of tier 5 zones? I think you misunderstand what tiers in EQN are.. or I do.. and if EQN does use tiers as a skill wall.. OMG.. Say good bye to EQN..
I understand bell curves, (sorry, but no you don't so I won't even try again to explain) just not how your example applies to gamers with a wide range. Some examples maybe?
(A statistician doesn't need experience on the subject to know how to crunch numbers) What numbers are you crunching? You just made up numbers and those are your facts. You told me based on your made up numbers that don't represent anything 80 = ? 80% of ? Numbers relating to a bell curve such as 90% bracket, and deviation spreads are NOT made up numbers.. They are description of what the population looks like..
(WRONG, designing things for the average is the safest option).. Well I for one am glad that SOE isn't playing safe this time around. Safe doesn't make me think of challenge, risk/reward, accomplishment. You are right, but I don't agree that safe is the best option. Well, get ready for disappointment, cause if you believe and want EQN to to split the community up using tier walls as it relates to player skill, it won't happen.. Your suggestion that only the elite players should get to tier 5 zones will destroy the game..
The speed of combat was fairly slow. Pretty much anyone could solo from start to finish with enough time (more so WoW). (now I know you never played early EQ1, because many classes could not solo all the way through the zones) Raiding and more challenging group content factored in team work as being a much needed skill in itself. Everyone did their part, but all the parts had to work together to succeed. (yep and it didn't matter if you were Mr Elite god player or piss poor hold my hand player.. Everyone worked together. So using your assumption how does Mr poor player get to do a tier 5 raid?) He doesn't? hmmmm
I agree that with each variable, the skill gap increases, but that is fine. (really?) As long as the game accounts for it which is what I've been going on about. Don't design a game for the average, design it for all. If there is content for the worst to the best players, (such as tier 1) a reason for the best to go back and play with the worst and within their content, (THEIR content? wow talk about talking like an elitist) and a way for the worst to improve to play in more challenging content, what is the downside? ( Ahh so you want the best players to enjoy ALL of the game, but the worst players will be locked out from high skill content unless they improve and earn it?.. Boy talk about elitist attitude) How do you feel about WoW's difficult settings for dungeons/raids? For or against? What if that concept was give many more variations and applied to the world itself? And that is why I and friends LEFT WoW years ago.. It was an esport design and became exclusive in nature, not inclusive.. I hated the raid limits and lockouts.. If 50 less skilled players wanted to go in and attempt to take on a dungeon designed for 40 average players.. LET THEM.. Who cares? I don't..
Happy Holidays..
Originally posted by nodvia Rydeson the game you want would go belly up in the first six months due to the fat that it would be the most boring game in the world. The pool analogy made is the correct one, you would want a swimming pool that only is 2 feet deep when asking someone to be able to swim is not an unreasonable demand. EQN combat will sink or swim based on the amount of skill it takes to "master" the combat whether that be through aiming, skill numbers, etc. Rydeson the game you want to play is called Second Life, you're welcome.
Not sure what you are even talking about.. EQN next will sink or swim depending on how many enjoy the game.. And I don't see anything Earth shattering that is causing competitors to shake in their boots..
Originally posted by cheyane
I dropped Wildstar because of the combat. It was quite impossible for me to heal and play in that game and enjoy myself. I was no longer enjoying myself so I quit. I was also suffering from wrist and elbow and shoulder pain while holding down mouse button to mouse turn it and move since all my skills are mapped to my Logitech 600 and it became very bad and I decided no thank you . I am also no spring chicken am around 54 years old so I guess old dog new tricks thing decided to show its ugly side too.
Exactly.. I'm 52 and right behind you there.. I just started experience issues with carpel tunnel, and playing with the mouse NON STOP gets numbing.. PLUS, people forget that most mouse only have 2 active buttons (left and right).. So.. how does ONE hand do the mouse aiming, Second hand uses the WASD keys for moving, and a THIRD? hand to use the other skills on the hot bar?
I liked Guildwars 2 that was the right amount of action combat and even Tera was okay except for the combat animation locked in place rubbish which turned me off too and the godawful quests. I did not have much issue with ESO combat either but something about their camera angle gave me my dreaded FPS headaches after about 60 minutes or so in beta I decided the game was not for me plus I did not really like it so it was easy for me to drop it without looking for a solution. I played Age of Conan too very well had no issue with the combat in that game .What I have seen of Landmark combat however makes me think I shall avoid EQ Next until more information comes out but I do not like what I am seeing. Constantly moving camera angles and me is a no go I will get physically ill. If I have to move constantly and get flush against the terrain in odd camera angles, the game no longer becomes about playing but fighting the awkward angles .
My thoughts too.. I'm glad you jumped into this conversation since you have FIRST HAND experience with the problems I'm trying to discuss..
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert and DCO. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
TY Chey.. I vote you for social gamer President.. Well said and informative post..
I dropped Wildstar because of the combat. It was quite impossible for me to heal and play in that game and enjoy myself. I was no longer enjoying myself so I quit. I was also suffering from wrist and elbow and shoulder pain while holding down mouse button to mouse turn it and move since all my skills are mapped to my Logitech 600 and it became very bad and I decided no thank you . I am also no spring chicken am around 54 years old so I guess old dog new tricks thing decided to show its ugly side too.
I liked Guildwars 2 that was the right amount of action combat and even Tera was okay except for the combat animation locked in place rubbish which turned me off too and the godawful quests. I did not have much issue with ESO combat either but something about their camera angle gave me my dreaded FPS headaches after about 60 minutes or so in beta I decided the game was not for me plus I did not really like it so it was easy for me to drop it without looking for a solution. I played Age of Conan too very well had no issue with the combat in that game .What I have seen of Landmark combat however makes me think I shall avoid EQ Next until more information comes out but I do not like what I am seeing. Constantly moving camera angles and me is a no go I will get physically ill. If I have to move constantly and get flush against the terrain in odd camera angles, the game no longer becomes about playing but fighting the awkward angles .
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert and DCO. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
I almost completely agree with your games list and why you like or don't like them. But the statement that rang true with me was:
"They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat"
In a recent thread, I posted that Anarchy Online was the best MMO ever made IMO. And it was for this exact reason. It has probably the most complex character building system I've ever experienced in any RPG ever. It's also the only game I've played where I still maintain a measure of communication with a former Org member on Facebook. I've never had any game that gave me better reasons to interact with my fellow gamers. And to say it's combat was "less strenuous"......well, I guess that's one way to put it. LOL.
I dropped Wildstar because of the combat. It was quite impossible for me to heal and play in that game and enjoy myself. I was no longer enjoying myself so I quit. I was also suffering from wrist and elbow and shoulder pain while holding down mouse button to mouse turn it and move since all my skills are mapped to my Logitech 600 and it became very bad and I decided no thank you . I am also no spring chicken am around 54 years old so I guess old dog new tricks thing decided to show its ugly side too.
I liked Guildwars 2 that was the right amount of action combat and even Tera was okay except for the combat animation locked in place rubbish which turned me off too and the godawful quests. I did not have much issue with ESO combat either but something about their camera angle gave me my dreaded FPS headaches after about 60 minutes or so in beta I decided the game was not for me plus I did not really like it so it was easy for me to drop it without looking for a solution. I played Age of Conan too very well had no issue with the combat in that game .What I have seen of Landmark combat however makes me think I shall avoid EQ Next until more information comes out but I do not like what I am seeing. Constantly moving camera angles and me is a no go I will get physically ill. If I have to move constantly and get flush against the terrain in odd camera angles, the game no longer becomes about playing but fighting the awkward angles .
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert and DCO. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
I almost completely agree with your games list and why you like or don't like them. But the statement that rang true with me was:
"They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat"
In a recent thread, I posted that Anarchy Online was the best MMO ever made IMO. And it was for this exact reason. It has probably the most complex character building system I've ever experienced in any RPG ever. It's also the only game I've played where I still maintain a measure of communication with a former Org member on Facebook. I've never had any game that gave me better reasons to interact with my fellow gamers. And to say it's combat was "less strenuous"......well, I guess that's one way to put it. LOL.
The EQN forms here on mmorpg.com were filled with old time EQ1 and EQ2 players. After the info from SoE live 2013 most of them poofed. The combat is the one area of the game that has me wondering is EQN will be a MMO I visit or stick around playing for a long time. GW2 taught me I love the trinity system and it also taught me after a while, spam dodging gets old after a while. David (lead developer) says they have something unlike GW2 combat. So far in Lankmark I have not seen that but they are working towards their vision. Only question is will they pull it off?
Comments
My question was about EQN combat, and not about EQN landmark combat, i tought everyone knew that landmark combat is only a placeholder.... That has the physical part of the combat, but withouth the tactical and strategical layers...
this topic was meant to be about the combat system of The main game..
i have read up a little, which made me realise how these developers are trying to create a better version of the orriginal EQ...
- in EQ whilemleveling every few levels you got new spells, which could change your combat experience totally.... The game is build around collecting new skills, passive abillities and items, items have much more influence on your combat style then typical RPG items. They are much more then just stat holders.. This would result in people continually changing their playstyle based on the new stuff they find... There are no levels..
- fraction plays a very important role when collecting skills and abbilities. For example necromancer and paladin skills would be mutuall exclusive because of requiring different factions to aquire, someone that plays evil and takes evil actions might never be able to aquire good classes... Unless he starts working on factions and becomming a benevolent character..
-so far it seems like to perform well both solo and in groups people need to build there characters with a single role in mind, with only 12 skills there might not be room for jack of all (more) trades builds.. In the end however everyone will find a build to suit him with a role that suits him...
so back to my orriginal question, will combat have enough strategical and tactical depth with only 8+4 buttons? Thats my biggest worry for this game, i have seen to many games with few skillbuttons lacking the depth required to keep my attention, we will need to wayt and see how much buttonmashing will be left when the game releases.
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I think that wouldnt surprise me, i read up on EQnext over the last days and concludee for myself that they are in over their heads... So many game systems are still in early development.... They might have way to much hay on their pitchfork, lets hope the good bits dont drop off...
i think by now they have realised that with only 8 knobs, those skills must interact, seems to me that they have the fysical part under controll, as well as the strategy part ( which is mostly the building of your skillset and planning ahead). .. I guess they are still toying around with the tactical part, which concerns real time combat decisions, with only 8 buttons there needs to be a system that gives you at least 3 viable choices with every button you push...
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I am happy others are getting on board with the poor combat presented to us so far.
However, spending time hoping they will change it to something much better is a lost cause I think.
Combat is at the heart of EverQuest. And at the nucleus of EverQuest's heart is class structure and variety. They ruined it from the start with trying to appeal to those that want it all. I'm not expecting any fix that works.
Give us EQ 1 classes. Give us EQ 1 combat -- sure add some of the EQ2 improvements and maybe even pull from some other newer games, but if the core is not EQ 1 -- it is not EverQuest.
That is the only fix I will accept in a game named EverQuest.
Thank you SO much for your green text. If you had posted like everyone else I might have missed your very valuable post, obviously more valuable than everyone elses (hence the green). Once again a thoughtful poster only concerned about making sure we are all assured to read his most valuable post.
As for EQN, combat and class design... failboat. I and most of my guild all agrees that once they announced their new combat design, which is a massive departure from the Everquest franchise, our expectations for the game pretty much went out the window.
It's too bad. Another one has probably bitten the dust even before it launches.
If you don't say what you are talking about it kind of makes it hard to be on the same page. Communities are what? What games have had them at what time that you would like to see in EQN?
I'm competitive, but on the PVE end, I'm all about the team. How "good" I am takes a backseat to the success of my group, guild, whatever. PVP is a different story, but even then if I'm part of a team, WE will win, not I.
If you are talking about EQ's community, I understand. It was great and unfortunately not something devs or players can magically reproduce. Gaming and gamers are not the same and there are way too many of us now. The Cheers experience is over.
I'm not a fan of UI addons and other gamey features that allow for PVE competitiveness. Remove those and people can focus on having fun and socializing, instead of staring at numbers and trying to be #1.
As I said, please provide a game that didn't have mechanics that divided people or a time when we didn't naturally divide ourselves. It's what people do. I've never played a game where 100% of players are equal.
Again, provide solutions, not only problems. If you think EQN's design is anti-community or whatever, what could they do to avoid that?
I think you my friend want to play Everquest... They are making a new game, and ofcourse it is nothing like everquest, because that game allready excists
sure they are trying to catch the feeling of the good old EQ, but they are using 21st century mechanics and systems. But, they are hoping to make a game just as revolutionairie as the orrignial EQ
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)
I completely agree with Stevon and Uproar just above this post. Why not use a combat system that is proven to bring in subscriptions and that works? Use the old EQ1, WoW, DaoC, LotR, and Rfit combat system and skip this Tera aiming bullshit.
Seriously, gear stats will not matter that much as the weapon you wield? That didn't work in GW2 and it was crap for pve.
Seriously, using a combat system like aiming instead of tab/targeting? Have you guys not learned from all the failed games. People want complexity in their class, they want to min/max, they want a challenge and want to learn their class over the months of leveling.
Do you not get this yet? I'm sorry to be a little frustrated but why can't game makers learn to use a format that is proven and works for the past 15 years of mmorpgs? I get you want to change things up but look at the past games that did and how they lost subscribers/F2P'ers.
If this turns out to be anything like GW2 or Tera, you all will fail and lose players in the first 6 months. Trust me, I've been playing MMORPGS's since EQ1 and the server Velious being created.
All games lose players in the first few months/year. No magical solution for that. With EQN being F2P, this will happen for sure as people aren't even stuck for that 1st month or whatever.
Not sure how GW2 or Tera "failed" though. Both seem to be still running. Coming by that logic, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, LOTR failed right? Even WoW has lost huge numbers, still #1, but population is quite less today then years back. Guess it failed?
Aiming works in multiple games/genres and is simply a different style. Don't like it, don't play it. I'll be there to take your spot. If EQN was tab targeting, I'd less likely to play it as it doesn't allow for other mechanics to work in the game and overall wouldn't be what I'm looking for.
Instead of complexity of just one class, they are giving complexity for the character itself. 40+ classes, ~500 skills, tons of gear/achievements, and it is up to the players to learn it all or focus on whatever they want. Most games/classes have a cap of what gear and skill combos you can combine and master. Good luck doing that with EQN's system in the same time period.
GW2, Tera, NWO, ESO - none of them have failed and they are all pretty amazing games imo. Tab targeting combat is just so boring whether its pve or pvp. There is no real skill involved and its all about gear/stats. Just stand there pressing your "rotation", maybe throwing in an interrupt.
In all four "action-combat" mmos I mentioned you have to be on your toes in nearly every fight. Dodging, ccing, positioning - you have to actually play the game instead of just pressing your macro while watching youtube. Its like playing an action rpg such as dark souls, dragons dogma, or kingdoms of amalur, while also having the social aspects of an mmo.
If it can get combat as good as GW2 or Tera- pretty much the pinnacles of action/semi-action based combat systems, and combat in general in mmos, SOE will be on a winner (assuming other elements of the game are at least good). However, I doubt they will be able to get combat to work as well as those games. From what I have seen in the alpha/beta Landmark first look at combat they are light years away from getting to the level of any of the four games I mentioned above.
Not much different then demonizing aim/action combat, that is is the downfall of community, or saying it is all about being button mashing twitchy or whatever silly generalizations.
All systems have their pros/cons, merits, reasons for existing, short comings, yadda yadda.
As someone that enjoys a variety of styles, I get a different type of challenge and accomplishment depending on the design.
However, in my experience, I've found more active aka having to move around, aiming or not, to require a bit more attention on my end. Aiming can up the skill requirement, but unless we are expecting to have FPS precision aiming, I don't find any problems in mmorpgs. Usually the hit box is the general area of a mob, not headshot accurate, so if someone is able to click on a target in a typical tab game, they should be able to aim at a target. Difference being they need to aim each attack instead of once and then only focus on the skill cycle. To me it is an even trade off.
Depending on marcros, how many buttons a mouse has, and other convenience features, tab systems can require less physical inputs or at least less need to use both hands. I've never experienced that with a more active game.
Doesn't mean my mind isn't active in both. Crap game designs that allow people to roll their face across the keyboard and win are the problem, not tab targeting, aiming, or action combat. Any of these can be attached to a poor game.
EQN devs have decided to go with action combat along with aiming. How much "skill" or brain power we will need to actually play at any challenge level has yet to be revealed. I'm highly doubting we'll need to be super button mashers to play. Like any game, there will be poor players, average, above average, amazing, etc. Just how it is. As long as everyone can play and have a good time, should work out fine.
Would be nice to see. They've shown skills (Bulwark) that are shield focused, but it would be fun to have active blocking along with just the regular dodge and movement defense. Not sure it fits into the combat they have shown, but would be interesting for them to at least give it a try.
Think about it.. and TRUST my math skills.. If you have a game that allows a range of skill between 80 to 100, it is easier for devs to create content for that range, knowing the bell curve average is 90.. Sure the uber players at 100 will have an easier time, and poorer players at 80 will have to work a little harder or need a little help to make up that 10 point deficit.. Now keep in mind too that the better players only have a 10 point cushion as well, so even the better players will not have a faceroll of a time.. EQ was much like that.. You can be a great player, but if you got careless.. POW (corpse run)..
Now you want to add in yet another variable to the combat equation, and when you do that, YOU WILL make that bell curve wider (60 to 100), and with that you have an average of 80 instead of the 90.. What this means that better players end up facerolling over most encounters, and poorer players will be unable to make up that 20 point disadvantage and quit.. Now are you catching on? From a SOCIAL community perspective, having a wider gap between poor and good is NOT a perk, but a problem.. Now if you are an Esporter (which YOU come across as), you don't care how wide that gap, because you are not playing as a member of a community, but as an individual that needs and wants to be labeled as to the skill level they are.. A true social gamer does not strive for fame or notoriety, or recognition, they play for the fun of the game.. Many like you seldom talk about what is best for WE, the community.. You spend more time talking about the singular person instead..
So YES, statistically adding in AIMING to a combat equation, is more of a divider not a uniter of social combat >> FACT.. If you truly cared about "everyone" being able to play and be challenged, you would want that gap to be as small as possible... I want a game that 99% of all the players are within a certain range.. Why don't you?
I want a game where as a solo player I can take on easy content and then as I improve, continue to find more challenging adventures. If I group with a few folks, I want the same. If I'm part of a guild/raid, I want the same. Allowing for ongoing progression and improvement. At the same time, going back to "easier" content is still rewarding by having a diverse amount of content.
That Orc Chieftan I struggled to defeat with 10 others when I started is still a challenge as a solo player after improving. To me this is how you balance around social and the community. By encouraging team work, not designing around individual skill. These are MMOs not single player games. While I don't want people forced to group to experience anything, I also don't want to be "The Hero" slaying dragons with one hand tied behind my back because it isn't fair that I don't get to =(
If I'm terrible and never get better, everyone else should have to play at my level? To me that is poor design. Gaming is not fair. If someone simply sucks, I don't believe a game should revolve around them. Some level of "skill" should be expected in an mmorpg designed for a wide variety. I won't be upset if a 7 year old can't master a Tier 5 Warrior.
You seem to be describing a game that cater to the lowest common denominator. Make everything within reach of all players regardless if they are terrible or not. We already have games like that. No need to repeat that in EQN.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but again, I'd love some solutions/examples of your ideas instead of your "stats." I also believe you lack enough knowledge/experience with the aiming/action system to know how it will work or if players can handle it. Sounds more to be exactly what you say I'm doing with talking from your POV and interests, not the communities.
As I've said, there is no perfect design that will be 100% optimal for everyone. It is subjective. SOE has already picked the system and it is already live. You can choose to dislike, hate, frown upon, think up 100s of reasons it is bad for the community, but there it is. Not trying to be an ass, but as you like to say "Are you catching on?" Fans of EQN don't seem to care, SOE doesn't care, not sure why you insist on going on about it. I here I am writing walls of text, I can't resist
ooof.. There are solutions to all this, but until you understand what is being said, why bother.. Happy Holidays
There are solutions that turn what they are doing into what you want. But as you or I have no say in the matter, it is rather a "why bother" situation. I just like typing
I dropped Wildstar because of the combat. It was quite impossible for me to heal and play in that game and enjoy myself. I was no longer enjoying myself so I quit. I was also suffering from wrist and elbow and shoulder pain while holding down mouse button to mouse turn it and move since all my skills are mapped to my Logitech 600 and it became very bad and I decided no thank you . I am also no spring chicken am around 54 years old so I guess old dog new tricks thing decided to show its ugly side too.
I liked Guildwars 2 that was the right amount of action combat and even Tera was okay except for the combat animation locked in place rubbish which turned me off too and the godawful quests. I did not have much issue with ESO combat either but something about their camera angle gave me my dreaded FPS headaches after about 60 minutes or so in beta I decided the game was not for me plus I did not really like it so it was easy for me to drop it without looking for a solution. I played Age of Conan too very well had no issue with the combat in that game .What I have seen of Landmark combat however makes me think I shall avoid EQ Next until more information comes out but I do not like what I am seeing. Constantly moving camera angles and me is a no go I will get physically ill. If I have to move constantly and get flush against the terrain in odd camera angles, the game no longer becomes about playing but fighting the awkward angles .
They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat but hey perhaps we are in the minority as evidenced by the League of Legends fame and other more actiony games like Black Dessert and DCO. They are going for that market well I wish them all the best but I will sit this one out. I am of no consequence and perhaps they really are not interested in my demographics and perhaps in their research I make up a very small percentage of the player base. I am playing FFXIV ARR now and I love that game.
There are probably also older players that like character building, social aspects of mmos, and action combat. To be honest I was actually surprised that some people prefer the "traditional" mmo tab targeting type combat.
I remember the first mmo I played- Warhammer online - and I was so excited, but I couldn't believe how lame the combat was, it was like a joke. At the time I thought "how can people like this crap, its so boring". Then I found the rvr area and I started to understand the attraction.
I played several other mmos, but the only ones where the pve was actually somewhat enjoyable were the action combat titles like Tera, GW2, NWO, and ESO. Tera was especially interesting because it had a lot of mobs that were kind of smart, both in dungeons and wandering around.
At any rate I think enjoyment of combat is intrinsically linked to mob AI. Even with an engaging combat system, if the mobs just stand around dumbly waiting to be slaughtered or just charge dumbly at you it doesn't make for good gameplay. Even if the combat is just pretty good, if the mobs act more like you would expect in say a good rpg than in most mmos, the overall combat experience should be fun (at least that's what I'm hoping).
Some people prefer "traditional" mmo tab targeting because it's slow and not as demanding in term of concentration/movement as action combat. These people want a relaxing experience while playing, not a chaotic one.
Also, some people have carpal tunnel or other hand injuries and action combat is a big NO for them (GW2 cause me major wrist pain for example, I can't play more than one hour of it).
I almost completely agree with your games list and why you like or don't like them. But the statement that rang true with me was:
"They are not appealing to the older players who enjoy a lot of character building and social aspects of these games having less strenuous combat"
In a recent thread, I posted that Anarchy Online was the best MMO ever made IMO. And it was for this exact reason. It has probably the most complex character building system I've ever experienced in any RPG ever. It's also the only game I've played where I still maintain a measure of communication with a former Org member on Facebook. I've never had any game that gave me better reasons to interact with my fellow gamers. And to say it's combat was "less strenuous"......well, I guess that's one way to put it. LOL.
The EQN forms here on mmorpg.com were filled with old time EQ1 and EQ2 players. After the info from SoE live 2013 most of them poofed. The combat is the one area of the game that has me wondering is EQN will be a MMO I visit or stick around playing for a long time. GW2 taught me I love the trinity system and it also taught me after a while, spam dodging gets old after a while. David (lead developer) says they have something unlike GW2 combat. So far in Lankmark I have not seen that but they are working towards their vision. Only question is will they pull it off?