I voted tab targeting, but would like to see a "good" turn based combat system.
My troubles with the turn based systems I have played is that moving and attacking is not very well informed. Too many times have I tried to move into a position (because the "auto-move and attack" option does not get me where I wish to go), and find I can't attack once in position. Pirate101 gave me that trouble way too often.
I briefly tried Atlantica Online and had trouble figuring out how to move and attack. I may just be dense
Dragon's Dogma Online is stepping up the "Action" standard of the genre by removing dice rolling from Critical Strikes. The task of scoring a critical strike falls unto the player's domain. Which is great for me, as I believe that Dice Rolling is the antithesis of "Action" combat, now if only they could work the dice rolling out of the boss loot we'd have the perfect storm.
[...] I believe that Dice Rolling is the antithesis of "Action" combat
I agree.
I honestly wonder if some "action" combat systems are nothing more than virtual tab targets, with dice rolls, and "dodge" button dice roll modifiers.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I quite enjoyed WoW's combat system but PVP for me (if this is what we're talking about) in any game has been eclipsed by text-based-MUD combat. Sure it might be 25 years old but it's so much more thrilling. Unpopular opinion I am sure but the allure is that in 90% of these games there's no gear curve, skilled newbies can beat overgeared veterans etc.
For the actual combat I like Wildstar. It has the exceptional flow that WoWs combat has plus rolling/dodging to avoid being hit. Some of the areas lend even more fun with decreased gravity that very few if any games offer. For building my characters combat I like TSWs ability wheel even though it is somewhat confusing.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
I remember on certain Quake 2 maps I instantly knew where my opponent was just by the sounds he was making.
This. This is the meta that makes the combat in my game of choice so worth it.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Dragon's Dogma Online is stepping up the "Action" standard of the genre by removing dice rolling from Critical Strikes. The task of scoring a critical strike falls unto the player's domain. Which is great for me, as I believe that Dice Rolling is the antithesis of "Action" combat, now if only they could work the dice rolling out of the boss loot we'd have the perfect storm.
Monster Hunter has somewhat alleviated the stress of randomness from item drops with targeted drops. Need a tail from a certain monster? Cut it off....granted you still have a chance you won't get the specific item you need, there is often still a chance you can loot the item from the monster once it's dead as long as you cut off or broke the specific piece you were supposed to. If Dragon's Dogma Online implements something like that, I agree that it would be the perfect game.
I remember on certain Quake 2 maps I instantly knew where my opponent was just by the sounds he was making.
This. This is the meta that makes the combat in my game of choice so worth it.
The former or the latter? You want to wear a helmet and pose like a spanner?
Well, it was meant as a comical reference to the fact that the internal dialogue during an energy duel evokes feelings ostensibly similar to those encountered in a lightsaber duel, when to outward appearances the battle resembles nothing of the sort; one of those "bigger on the inside than the outside" deals, like a TARDIS, or Narnia.
For example, to what should I compare the difference between seeing that a target is objectively 100m away, and knowing the relative velocities, ranges of motion, and potential displacement vectors can lead to one of a series of studied, practiced, named gambits?
I suppose it's the difference between the way a novice player sees a chessboard and an intermediate player understands a chessboard along with a moderate toolbag of tactics; the Sicilian Defense, Queen's Gambit, translated into exchanges of blaster fire.
Although this is undoubtedly true of a number of games, the surficial simplicity of Vendetta leads to a level of romanticism in this player regarding the various strategies and tacit knowledge built up over years and years of playing triggered by @immodium in his reference to Quake. Nonetheless, there is a real difference in VO between a player that can see 'okay, that target is 100m away' and a player that is versed in tactics and strategy. It's a sense of foreknowledge, and confidence.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
However, this is a poll about "Favourite method of targetting an enemy" rather than favourite combat system.
For example, I loved LotRO combat at launch. It was extremely tactically, group combat was really fulfilling and it took a lot of player skill to get properly good at it. However, I hated SW:TORs combat because it was too easy and generic. Both were tab-targetting, but with vastly different outcomes.
Something that is the underlying guide for my personal enjoyment is the route to success. Will I get better simply by playing more often, or do I have to actually use my brain?
This is why I don't really like FPS or twitch-based combat. Whilst there is a degree of thinking involved, success is largely based on your reflexes and so the longer you play, the better you get as muscle memory improves. There is no satisfaction for me in these types of games. With something like LotRO, WAR etc, you aren't really relying on reflexes to do well. There is much more planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities etc. You can't get good at these games simply by playing more, you have to actually use your brain.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I voted tab targeting, but would like to see a "good" turn based combat system.
My troubles with the turn based systems I have played is that moving and attacking is not very well informed. Too many times have I tried to move into a position (because the "auto-move and attack" option does not get me where I wish to go), and find I can't attack once in position. Pirate101 gave me that trouble way too often.
I briefly tried Atlantica Online and had trouble figuring out how to move and attack. I may just be dense
There was a great one, Neverwinter nights (the original SSI game from 1991). It blow away anything since.
I did enjoy AoCs semi tab based system where you only tab for ranged combat, sadly did the shield and combo system ruin the greatness of it all.
This is why I don't really like FPS or twitch-based combat. Whilst there is a degree of thinking involved, success is largely based on your reflexes and so the longer you play, the better you get as muscle memory improves. There is no satisfaction for me in these types of games. With something like LotRO, WAR etc, you aren't really relying on reflexes to do well. There is much more planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities etc. You can't get good at these games simply by playing more, you have to actually use your brain.
To me, this is an unfair comparison. You have to use your brain in both styles of gaming; it's just that one type of gameplay relies more heavily on a different set of mental skills.
There is a lot of "planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities" to both.
AIMonster had a great post about this a while back:
Games that rely on skill and reflex often also rely on tactics and knowledge just as much as any game that doesn't.
Take a FPS for example. At high end play you not only need to have quick reflexes, be fast, and accurate, but you also need to know every single map, popular spawn points and routes people take, have knowledge of chokepoints and camping spots, be able to employ tactics such as counter routes you can take to flank or trick your enemies, etc. Simply having quick reflexes and great precision of the mouse won't win you games.
RTS games require quick reflexes and the ability to micromanage hundreds of units at once. These are also twitch based in my opinion, in fact I have a harder time playing a RTS like Starcraft than a Shooter or Fighting Game simply because I'm overwhelmed by the amount of actions I have to perform and how quickly I need to execute it, but RTS games are still strategy games at their core and require strategy.
Fighting games also require high skill and precision, but as someone who played them competitively I can tell you no matter how good you become at executing combos and reacting if you don't understand some fundamentals you will consistently lose to players who are less precise and have slower reaction times. I'm not the best at 1-frame links yet I can still compete on a high end level in fighting games. I've seen plenty of players who can execute all their combos perfectly, but consistently get beat by players who aren't as fast and precise with a stick, because they are too predictable and don't understand fundamentals like zoning and how to play footsies.
Frankly, if you were to do a study of brain activity of someone playing EVE and someone playing a FPS you'll find they both probably use equal brain power, but likely use different areas of the brain.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
There is much more planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities etc. You can't get good at these games simply by playing more, you have to actually use your brain.
Theory crafting sure. But teamwork, timing of using weapons is also important in recticle/aimed based combat.
Also positioning is hugely more important to think about in FPS games than tab based. As is sound which I've mentioned.
The downside with most tab targeting is all based on virtual dice rolls and gear.
Combat system itself? Vindictus. GW1 is the runner up with lots of fun as a nice team (Mark of Pain and Barbs + Hundred Blades and your screen is full of numbers..) as well as the unique concept of Mesmer: Punishing enemies for whatever they do, even if they don't do anything.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
ESO action combat is pretty special. It's my favorite system. Age of Wushu would be second. Because of both of them I can't play a mmorpg w/o a block button.
I voted action combat, but my ideal action combat would not be ESO, the closest it's Mount & Blade Warband or even Tera if you talk about more combo focused ones.
Went with tab-targeting, mostly since it's produced the deepest combat I've experienced in MMORPGs (WOW.)
I do think there's potential as more games experiment with ESO and Defiance style systems. But so far those attempts fell short of where WOW ended up. It boils down to whether the games can offer interesting dynamic decisions in their combat.
That said, I think there will always be a market for RPGs with a lighter (if any) twitch requirement, as RPGs have always been targeted at a more casual group of players who solve problems partly with progression instead of purely with player skill. (And while that might sound a little negative, I play RPGs too since they're good relaxing fun. But I can be honest about how they're clearly more casual than many genres.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I've done the tab target games, and hell, still play EQ (on Lockjaw). However, the combat is generally bland by comparison to other games. I've done the action/twitch games, but there are days where I just don't feel like jiving to the right at the correct time, or spam clicking my mouse button.
I feel Hybrid games are the way to go. GW2 is by far the best there is. I'd still be playing it if there was more depth to their character advancement/progression. However, that is an issue with action based games. Fewer abilities, less depth. I'd much rather have a wide range of abilities that I have to choose from.
Anyways, I digress. This is about combat, not game design
Raquelis in various games Played: Everything Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6 Wants: The World Anticipating:Everquest NextCrowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
I can't vote in a poll where EQ and WoW are lumped together. The combat in those games is very different. Both are among the top MMO combat systems, but for vastly different reasons.
EQ is closest to FFXI, both those games are heavily group oriented and class mix matters, whereas WoW and SWtOR are built so that only role really matters to the group game. Also much more rotational and gcd based whereas EQ was more resource management (both aggro and mana). Both sets of games have both elements, but the weighting is very different.
Comments
My troubles with the turn based systems I have played is that moving and attacking is not very well informed. Too many times have I tried to move into a position (because the "auto-move and attack" option does not get me where I wish to go), and find I can't attack once in position. Pirate101 gave me that trouble way too often.
I briefly tried Atlantica Online and had trouble figuring out how to move and attack. I may just be dense
VG
I agree.
I honestly wonder if some "action" combat systems are nothing more than virtual tab targets, with dice rolls, and "dodge" button dice roll modifiers.
8 years and counting addicted to
Avalon: The Legend Lives - the longest running online RPG in history
For building my characters combat I like TSWs ability wheel even though it is somewhat confusing.
Death is nothing to us, since when we are, Death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Though, I do have a hybrid system in mind.
Now, which one of you will adorn me today?
On the other hand I dislike WoW, RIFT, FFXIV etc combat despite i love or loved in the past those games.
All Time Favorites: EQ1, WoW, EvE, GW1
Playing Now: WoW, ESO, GW2
And it's coming back!
For example, to what should I compare the difference between seeing that a target is objectively 100m away, and knowing the relative velocities, ranges of motion, and potential displacement vectors can lead to one of a series of studied, practiced, named gambits?
I suppose it's the difference between the way a novice player sees a chessboard and an intermediate player understands a chessboard along with a moderate toolbag of tactics; the Sicilian Defense, Queen's Gambit, translated into exchanges of blaster fire.
Although this is undoubtedly true of a number of games, the surficial simplicity of Vendetta leads to a level of romanticism in this player regarding the various strategies and tacit knowledge built up over years and years of playing triggered by @immodium in his reference to Quake. Nonetheless, there is a real difference in VO between a player that can see 'okay, that target is 100m away' and a player that is versed in tactics and strategy. It's a sense of foreknowledge, and confidence.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
However, this is a poll about "Favourite method of targetting an enemy" rather than favourite combat system.
For example, I loved LotRO combat at launch. It was extremely tactically, group combat was really fulfilling and it took a lot of player skill to get properly good at it. However, I hated SW:TORs combat because it was too easy and generic. Both were tab-targetting, but with vastly different outcomes.
Something that is the underlying guide for my personal enjoyment is the route to success. Will I get better simply by playing more often, or do I have to actually use my brain?
This is why I don't really like FPS or twitch-based combat. Whilst there is a degree of thinking involved, success is largely based on your reflexes and so the longer you play, the better you get as muscle memory improves. There is no satisfaction for me in these types of games. With something like LotRO, WAR etc, you aren't really relying on reflexes to do well. There is much more planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities etc. You can't get good at these games simply by playing more, you have to actually use your brain.
I did enjoy AoCs semi tab based system where you only tab for ranged combat, sadly did the shield and combo system ruin the greatness of it all.
There is a lot of "planning, theory crafting, teamwork, proper timing of abilities" to both.
AIMonster had a great post about this a while back:
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Also positioning is hugely more important to think about in FPS games than tab based. As is sound which I've mentioned.
The downside with most tab targeting is all based on virtual dice rolls and gear.
GW1 is the runner up with lots of fun as a nice team (Mark of Pain and Barbs + Hundred Blades and your screen is full of numbers..) as well as the unique concept of Mesmer: Punishing enemies for whatever they do, even if they don't do anything.
I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore
I do think there's potential as more games experiment with ESO and Defiance style systems. But so far those attempts fell short of where WOW ended up. It boils down to whether the games can offer interesting dynamic decisions in their combat.
That said, I think there will always be a market for RPGs with a lighter (if any) twitch requirement, as RPGs have always been targeted at a more casual group of players who solve problems partly with progression instead of purely with player skill. (And while that might sound a little negative, I play RPGs too since they're good relaxing fun. But I can be honest about how they're clearly more casual than many genres.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I picked action, but I actually enjoy them all.
Variety is the spice of life
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I feel Hybrid games are the way to go. GW2 is by far the best there is. I'd still be playing it if there was more depth to their character advancement/progression. However, that is an issue with action based games. Fewer abilities, less depth. I'd much rather have a wide range of abilities that I have to choose from.
Anyways, I digress. This is about combat, not game design
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
EQ is closest to FFXI, both those games are heavily group oriented and class mix matters, whereas WoW and SWtOR are built so that only role really matters to the group game. Also much more rotational and gcd based whereas EQ was more resource management (both aggro and mana). Both sets of games have both elements, but the weighting is very different.