MOBAs are still quite far from the style of PvP found in MMOs. The word you're looking for is competitive PvP or instanced PvP. It is just more fun. It is pointless to resist.
If I wanted a small scale instanced PvP game, I'd play a moba. If I want large scale PvP, I'd play an MMO. MMOs that don't play to their strengths just aren't very good games. An MMO's strength is not small scale PvP.
Nope. If i want a small scale instanced PVP game, i'd play a MOBA *or* a MMO. If a MMO has good small instanced PVP, why shouldn't i play it as such just because it is called a MMO?
Because MMOs are more expensive than mobas, and generally involve more grind, and because mobas can do them a lot better. Pretty dumb question.
What does x better... a game devoted to x, or a game that tacked x on as an afterthought, amongst a million other features?
MOBAs are still quite far from the style of PvP found in MMOs. The word you're looking for is competitive PvP or instanced PvP. It is just more fun. It is pointless to resist.
If I wanted a small scale instanced PvP game, I'd play a moba. If I want large scale PvP, I'd play an MMO. MMOs that don't play to their strengths just aren't very good games. An MMO's strength is not small scale PvP.
Nope. If i want a small scale instanced PVP game, i'd play a MOBA *or* a MMO. If a MMO has good small instanced PVP, why shouldn't i play it as such just because it is called a MMO?
Personally, I couldn't care less which way you go. As long as you're not playing elitist-bastard and deriding those who play the MMO for something other than just the MOBA-like aspects. Or bitch too much about the elements of the game that I believe are natural consequences of that style.
Same goes for those who want their MMOFPS (with or without RPG elements involved.)
I have a prototype running with RT combat in full first person view.
A mage can dump as many aimed fireballs as they want (and as fast as they want), up to the point where they run out of mana when they're forced to regenerate leaving them unable to attack except with melee (something a mage is not good at). Mage projectiles are non-ballistic, fully aimed, physics based collision (server side), but with limited range currently about 100 meters.
Melee combat is aimed and based on a weapon swing volume with range based on the weapon used. Physics is done server side, and a weapon swing will hit all who are in the swing area. Mob AI works to avoid being hit by moving to where the player attacker is not swinging. In most cases this keeps the player from bunching up mobs so weapon swings hit more than one.
It's never been tested in PVP, but the PVE is quite engaging. There's no sleeping through combat like in tab - mash mas mash style games. It's sort of a mix of Unreal and Morrowind. Personally I find the combat style refreshing.
I don't see this as something the fantasy MMORPG genre needs on a wide scale. But as a poster above stated, there might be room for a niche game with true "twitch" combat.
What I find unnerving is that players assume that twitch combat automatically means a PVP oriented e-sport lobby game or a FFA full loot gank fest. Why can't open-world PVE be something other than tab-targetting?
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 think by the time the next gen consoles come out we are going to see a lot more twicth based mmos and more mmos developed for consoles soon. I am looking forward to defiance the shooter mmo.
Originally posted by JRRNeiklot I, on the other hand, would kill for an mmo with true turnbased combat.
Just to let the minority's voice heard as well, I join to neikloT in this: true turn-based combat +1.
(and leave the action combat for the console kiddies )
Adults like action combat as well... By the way to posters saying there are no games with that style, as some posters said.. We have plenty out there
Asheron call 1 which is been out since 1998 you can dodge spells and aim to a point , not as much as you can in Darkfall, mortal online, Planetside, fallen earth, the list goes on.
Sadly most of those games are FFA PVP, I should not say sadly because i like it, people today cry and there ego's are hurt so they run from FFA PVP which I just don't understand its just pixels, and its easy to replace items.
But I do understand like asheron call 1 they have PVE servers, which being a game designer myself, I would have PVE servers because I do understand NOT everyone likes PVP, I know many family and friends who dislike it .
But I for one would never build a game with Tab targeting, because its boring and played out, I would do more twitch base, with active blocking and such.
MOBAs are still quite far from the style of PvP found in MMOs. The word you're looking for is competitive PvP or instanced PvP. It is just more fun. It is pointless to resist.
If I wanted a small scale instanced PvP game, I'd play a moba. If I want large scale PvP, I'd play an MMO. MMOs that don't play to their strengths just aren't very good games. An MMO's strength is not small scale PvP.
Nope. If i want a small scale instanced PVP game, i'd play a MOBA *or* a MMO. If a MMO has good small instanced PVP, why shouldn't i play it as such just because it is called a MMO?
Because MMOs are more expensive than mobas, and generally involve more grind, and because mobas can do them a lot better. Pretty dumb question.
What does x better... a game devoted to x, or a game that tacked x on as an afterthought, amongst a million other features?
So you are in favor of producing an expensive game and then alienate most of your potential customers?
Some MMOs have done their instanced PvP pretty damn well. To have an e-sport you first have to have a good game. GW1 and WoW both had e-sport PvP. Players arenas for championships and money. In the case of GW1, competitive PvP was one of the main selling points.
Its mad to drop succesful and popular features because someone somewhere arbitrarily decides it doesn't belong there. You've lost your touch with reality. Nobody gives a f*** if it doesn't fulfil your personal criteria for an MMO - the only thing matters if its entertaining or not. You can have whatever opinion on the matter, but what you can't do is to dictate how other people should enjoy their games.
Furthermore, It is completely anal to say what the games should and shouldn't have by invoking to what the acronym MMORPG stands for. It doesn't have to be massive, people don't need to RP. They can enjoy their games exactly how they want to and you shouldn't have word in it. If you don't like it, just quit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I think by the time the next gen consoles come out we are going to see a lot more twicth based mmos and more mmos developed for consoles soon. I am looking forward to defiance the shooter mmo.
Hmm... i dont know, but i cant bring console and twitch based together. For me games like BF, UT, Quake, Halo, CS or even Mount & Blade are twitch based, played with a mouse & keyboard. All those console, gamepad played game are somewhat awkward, somewhat slow.. everything but twitch based.
Well.. maybe its just me, maybe i just dont like gamepads.
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
But if i think about those console action titles.. it isnt even real real time for me, i just think meh.
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
MOBAs are still quite far from the style of PvP found in MMOs. The word you're looking for is competitive PvP or instanced PvP. It is just more fun. It is pointless to resist.
If I wanted a small scale instanced PvP game, I'd play a moba. If I want large scale PvP, I'd play an MMO. MMOs that don't play to their strengths just aren't very good games. An MMO's strength is not small scale PvP.
Nope. If i want a small scale instanced PVP game, i'd play a MOBA *or* a MMO. If a MMO has good small instanced PVP, why shouldn't i play it as such just because it is called a MMO?
Because MMOs are more expensive than mobas, and generally involve more grind, and because mobas can do them a lot better. Pretty dumb question.
What does x better... a game devoted to x, or a game that tacked x on as an afterthought, amongst a million other features?
Most MMOs are F2P and NOT more expensive than MOBAs. In fact, aside from WOW, i don't see a prominent sub MMO. Where have you been?
Just look at WOW, it does a million other features, and better than games have fewer features. A game devoted to x is not a guarantee that it is better.
Plus, why should i look at hypotheticals? The games are there for me to check out. If i find that i like wintergrasp in WOW, is there a reason why i should not have fun and play WOW for small instanced PVP? In fact, i checked out LOL too, and found i like the WOW pvp content better. Is there a problem with that?
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Fun is a relative term. Some gamers clearly enyoy "e-sports" style combat...others don't....others may enjoy it some of the time, but certainly don't want it to be the only option availble to them.
Edit: Also important to note that "instanced PvP" is not neccesarly synonymous with "e-sports" PvP..... I think pretty much all e-sports style (not a big fan of that myself) use instances, but not all "instanced PvP" is actualy e-sport style.
For example if you look at Heroes and Generals (currently in beta), the FPS portion of the game is instanced but the sides in any given instance are not even remotely equal. The number of lives/tickets each side has, the type of equipment and where it can spawn for each instance is entirely determined by whats been moved to that map location on the strategic map, which is the Strategic/Operational portion of the game, played on a single open map. I'm not sure the "e-sports" crowd would consider that in-line with thier style of play...but it clearly is making use of instances.
Sure fun is subjective, but preferences are not even distributed. The popularity of instanced pvp shows that many do like them, probably a lot more than open world pvp (which was available early in WOW, and later on taken away due to unpopularity).
People certainly want options. There are battlegrounds, arenas, and a million different variation of instanced pvp. However, it is pretty clear that open world pvp is not that popular, because it interferes with other types of gameplay.
Not sure you can say that with any degree of authority. Clearly not popular with you. Probably not popular with WoW's specific case (although I certainly enjoyed it while I was there). Popular with other games... ???? More to the point, it really doesn't matter which is more popular then the other....in a crowded market (which MMO's are) products succeed by differentiating themselves from the competition and catering to market segments that are currently underserved, not neccesarly by always trying to go with whats most popular...because then you end up having to fight all the other guys for the same piece of pie and you have to be better at it then they are (i.e. produce a better WoW then WoW). For example even though pizza is undenialbly more popular then chinese food in the U.S., there are still quite a number of chinese food places that do quite well here.
There are even games who's entire premise is built around the concept of open world PvP (Planetside, WWII Online, upcoming PS2).
I'm fine with twitch based games, and enjoy some often (Mount&Blade series), and some less often (Looking at you GW2), but what I would -really- want my MMOs to be is Turn-Based. Preferably D&D 3.5 E (Would be more than satisfied with Pathfinder too.)
This way the Devs could implement -every- possible rule, some just can't be made to work in real time or even the real time with pause option, which is used in NWN, BG, IWD and so on... Turn based is the way to go, I say! o
I must also say that I dislike these huge Zerg events in MMOs. Don't get me wrong, I love myself some party-play. Preferably with 3 - 8 people. DDO had it perfect with the 12 person raids, and normal party size being 6.
MOBAs are still quite far from the style of PvP found in MMOs. The word you're looking for is competitive PvP or instanced PvP. It is just more fun. It is pointless to resist.
If I wanted a small scale instanced PvP game, I'd play a moba. If I want large scale PvP, I'd play an MMO. MMOs that don't play to their strengths just aren't very good games. An MMO's strength is not small scale PvP.
Nope. If i want a small scale instanced PVP game, i'd play a MOBA *or* a MMO. If a MMO has good small instanced PVP, why shouldn't i play it as such just because it is called a MMO?
Because MMOs are more expensive than mobas, and generally involve more grind, and because mobas can do them a lot better. Pretty dumb question.
What does x better... a game devoted to x, or a game that tacked x on as an afterthought, amongst a million other features?
So you are in favor of producing an expensive game and then alienate most of your potential customers?
Some MMOs have done their instanced PvP pretty damn well. To have an e-sport you first have to have a good game. GW1 and WoW both had e-sport PvP. Players arenas for championships and money. In the case of GW1, competitive PvP was one of the main selling points.
Its mad to drop succesful and popular features because someone somewhere arbitrarily decides it doesn't belong there. You've lost your touch with reality. Nobody gives a f*** if it doesn't fulfil your personal criteria for an MMO - the only thing matters if its entertaining or not. You can have whatever opinion on the matter, but what you can't do is to dictate how other people should enjoy their games.
Furthermore, It is completely anal to say what the games should and shouldn't have by invoking to what the acronym MMORPG stands for. It doesn't have to be massive, people don't need to RP. They can enjoy their games exactly how they want to and you shouldn't have word in it. If you don't like it, just quit.
I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
There are even games who's entire premise is built around the concept of open world PvP (Planetside, WWII Online, upcoming PS2).
The most popular pvp game is LOL .. more so than WOW. I don't think all the open world pvp game (planetside, WW2 online ... and so on) add up to 11M active players that LOL has, do you? If that is not what popular, what is?
I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?
This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?
Also, the full potential of a MMO is meaningless to me. For example, If i want to play an instanced dungeon with a small group, D3 is no different to me than WOW (except the class, combat mechanics and actual dungeon content). Now you may argue that WOW cost $15, so it is a pitty not to utilitize its full potential.
But how about LOTRO? DCUO? Those are f2p games. If i want to play just a part of it, i am not wasting money on not "utilizing its full potential".
I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?
This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?
Also, the full potential of a MMO is meaningless to me. For example, If i want to play an instanced dungeon with a small group, D3 is no different to me than WOW (except the class, combat mechanics and actual dungeon content). Now you may argue that WOW cost $15, so it is a pitty not to utilitize its full potential.
But how about LOTRO? DCUO? Those are f2p games. If i want to play just a part of it, i am not wasting money on not "utilizing its full potential".
I could be wrong, but I believe he was speaking from the perspective of the Developer. If the primary thing you are going to feature in your game is MOBA style combat...why go through all the difficulty and expense of building and operating an MMO...build a MOBA instead.... it's much cheaper. If it's just one of a laundry list of features...that's fine. However if that's the full extenet of your PvP play (as opposed to one of a number of options) you are not neccesarly taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO.
Using LOTRO as an example is interesting....because it's NOT actualy the style of instanced/e-sport PvP that you guys have been talking about. PvMP in LOTRO is "zoned" not "instanced". The Moors are seperated from the rest of the world...but they aren't limited to a set number of players...and they are persistant (i.e. there is no match timer). It's sort of a hybrid of the two....and one of the major things that players have been clamoring for in LOTRO (at least when I played it)...was more zones like the Moors.
There are even games who's entire premise is built around the concept of open world PvP (Planetside, WWII Online, upcoming PS2).
The most popular pvp game is LOL .. more so than WOW. I don't think all the open world pvp game (planetside, WW2 online ... and so on) add up to 11M active players that LOL has, do you? If that is not what popular, what is?
That's kind irrelevant to the discussion. The issue isn't whether some or even a large number of gamers enjoy MOBA style combat. Clearly they do, otherwise MOBA's wouldn't exist. You can even. QED that. The discussion is are there other styles of combat that gamers and specificaly MMO players enjoy? I think that gets a QED too.
For example I enjoy playing Turn Based Strategy games.....I also enjoy playing FPS games. I might even play both in the same day. Vastly different combat styles (although there are some common elements), both enjoyable. Room for both in the gaming world.
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
How is this any different?
Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.
While dodging/parrying etc may be nice at certain times, in certain games many don't want those.
I don't think I've played an MMO that had turn based combat.
No, but OP means semi turned base systems.
The game mechanics really have a turn based pen and paper system behind it. This is most obvious in DDO where you can see the rolls but most MMOs have it in the background.
Many MMOs have given up to-hit rolls atleast. Can you remember which was the last one to used them?
World of Warcraft had it, I haven't played in years~ not sure if +Hit/Expertise is still required.
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
How is this any different?
Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.
What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game that i find the combat engaging, then one that allows for more players but the combat is meh.
In fact, small group is also better to coordinate. Have you ever played a large FPS batter? There is zero coordination aside from "zerg point A". More != better.
I could be wrong, but I believe he was speaking from the perspective of the Developer. If the primary thing you are going to feature in your game is MOBA style combat...why go through all the difficulty and expense of building and operating an MMO...build a MOBA instead.... it's much cheaper. If it's just one of a laundry list of features...that's fine. However if that's the full extenet of your PvP play (as opposed to one of a number of options) you are not neccesarly taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO.
Sure .. but i don't care about what the devs think. If they put good pvp instanced in a MMO, and i like it, and charge me nothing, i will play.
And i doubt anyone is "taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO". MMO has so much stuff. Some people never raid. Should devs take out raids because of that? Of course not.
There are pet collection, crafting and a thousand other systems. MMOs are essentially collection of games under one setting. Heck, the new WOW expansion even has pokemon. Are you telling me i shouldn't play it even if it is fun?
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
How is this any different?
Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.
What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game that i find the combat engaging, then one that allows for more players but the combat is meh.
In fact, small group is also better to coordinate. Have you ever played a large FPS batter? There is zero coordination aside from "zerg point A". More != better.
Well. about FPS i played BF with 64 players. Not really a zerg, but a few more. But i also played Shadowbane with battles involved a few hundreds each side. More players make a more living world. Combat is good and all, but the combat(aka pvp) should have a purpose. You should fight over something, you should have targets, fullfill it and benefit from it. Like conquering a territory, and gain so and so much tax income, recource spots(another source of taxes and resources for war material and so on). With other words, you should have something to fight, something on the line. Risk vs. reward. Darkfall was not that bad in that regard. Although it was more or less a empty world, a tremendous grind, and the combat was not that great(but at least the right direction), and it was for zerg only in most cases.
A mmo should have almost all kind of battles in the open world, from small scale(a few ppl down to 1vs1) to huge battles with hundreds of players involved. Ok, granted, a lot of player with twitched based combat and in the best case more hitboxes is rather hard to accomplish, but not entirely impossible nowadays.
PS: And it is rather fun to kill with a few friends a horde of enemies. Shadowbane, DAoC were 1 group smashed 3 or 4 groups all together. It is just a rush to look after the fight over the battlefield and see all your dead enemies. Good old times, and with a good twitched based combat it would be even better.
BUT.. just because i want more twitched based dont mean i dont like a lot of tactical options, too. Rather often a lot of games lack one or the other.
Comments
Because MMOs are more expensive than mobas, and generally involve more grind, and because mobas can do them a lot better. Pretty dumb question.
What does x better... a game devoted to x, or a game that tacked x on as an afterthought, amongst a million other features?
Personally, I couldn't care less which way you go. As long as you're not playing elitist-bastard and deriding those who play the MMO for something other than just the MOBA-like aspects. Or bitch too much about the elements of the game that I believe are natural consequences of that style.
Same goes for those who want their MMOFPS (with or without RPG elements involved.)
I have a prototype running with RT combat in full first person view.
A mage can dump as many aimed fireballs as they want (and as fast as they want), up to the point where they run out of mana when they're forced to regenerate leaving them unable to attack except with melee (something a mage is not good at). Mage projectiles are non-ballistic, fully aimed, physics based collision (server side), but with limited range currently about 100 meters.
Melee combat is aimed and based on a weapon swing volume with range based on the weapon used. Physics is done server side, and a weapon swing will hit all who are in the swing area. Mob AI works to avoid being hit by moving to where the player attacker is not swinging. In most cases this keeps the player from bunching up mobs so weapon swings hit more than one.
It's never been tested in PVP, but the PVE is quite engaging. There's no sleeping through combat like in tab - mash mas mash style games. It's sort of a mix of Unreal and Morrowind. Personally I find the combat style refreshing.
I don't see this as something the fantasy MMORPG genre needs on a wide scale. But as a poster above stated, there might be room for a niche game with true "twitch" combat.
What I find unnerving is that players assume that twitch combat automatically means a PVP oriented e-sport lobby game or a FFA full loot gank fest. Why can't open-world PVE be something other than tab-targetting?
I think by the time the next gen consoles come out we are going to see a lot more twicth based mmos and more mmos developed for consoles soon. I am looking forward to defiance the shooter mmo.
Just to let the minority's voice heard as well, I join to neikloT in this: true turn-based combat +1.
(and leave the action combat for the console kiddies
)
Adults like action combat as well... By the way to posters saying there are no games with that style, as some posters said.. We have plenty out there
Asheron call 1 which is been out since 1998 you can dodge spells and aim to a point , not as much as you can in Darkfall, mortal online, Planetside, fallen earth, the list goes on.
Sadly most of those games are FFA PVP, I should not say sadly because i like it, people today cry and there ego's are hurt so they run from FFA PVP which I just don't understand its just pixels, and its easy to replace items.
But I do understand like asheron call 1 they have PVE servers, which being a game designer myself, I would have PVE servers because I do understand NOT everyone likes PVP, I know many family and friends who dislike it .
But I for one would never build a game with Tab targeting, because its boring and played out, I would do more twitch base, with active blocking and such.
So you are in favor of producing an expensive game and then alienate most of your potential customers?
Some MMOs have done their instanced PvP pretty damn well. To have an e-sport you first have to have a good game. GW1 and WoW both had e-sport PvP. Players arenas for championships and money. In the case of GW1, competitive PvP was one of the main selling points.
Its mad to drop succesful and popular features because someone somewhere arbitrarily decides it doesn't belong there. You've lost your touch with reality. Nobody gives a f*** if it doesn't fulfil your personal criteria for an MMO - the only thing matters if its entertaining or not. You can have whatever opinion on the matter, but what you can't do is to dictate how other people should enjoy their games.
Furthermore, It is completely anal to say what the games should and shouldn't have by invoking to what the acronym MMORPG stands for. It doesn't have to be massive, people don't need to RP. They can enjoy their games exactly how they want to and you shouldn't have word in it. If you don't like it, just quit.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Hmm... i dont know, but i cant bring console and twitch based together. For me games like BF, UT, Quake, Halo, CS or even Mount & Blade are twitch based, played with a mouse & keyboard. All those console, gamepad played game are somewhat awkward, somewhat slow.. everything but twitch based.
Well.. maybe its just me, maybe i just dont like gamepads.
But i would like a MMO with First Person View and real time.. i could witness it with DayZ again. I played it only in First Person View, and a good melee combat in first person and real time combat(improved upon Mount & Blade) would be a joy to play.
But if i think about those console action titles.. it isnt even real real time for me, i just think meh.
MMOs are played over a potentially slow internet connection.
Thus any reasonable design of a MMO takes this fact into consideration.
If not, then the guy with the better connection always wins.
Play Borderland 2. FPS, RPG elements, real time and online. If it adds crafting and AH, it is practically a MMO.
Most MMOs are F2P and NOT more expensive than MOBAs. In fact, aside from WOW, i don't see a prominent sub MMO. Where have you been?
Just look at WOW, it does a million other features, and better than games have fewer features. A game devoted to x is not a guarantee that it is better.
Plus, why should i look at hypotheticals? The games are there for me to check out. If i find that i like wintergrasp in WOW, is there a reason why i should not have fun and play WOW for small instanced PVP? In fact, i checked out LOL too, and found i like the WOW pvp content better. Is there a problem with that?
It is absolutely nothing like an MMO. It is limited to 4 players. How is that massively multiplayer?
Oh wait, I'm talking to narius, who is delusional and doesn't know what an MMO is.
Anyway, to the guy with the prototype, check out Darkfall. Your idea has been done, I hate to say. And done damn well. But maybe there's room for a purely PvE Darkfall.
Not sure you can say that with any degree of authority. Clearly not popular with you. Probably not popular with WoW's specific case (although I certainly enjoyed it while I was there). Popular with other games... ???? More to the point, it really doesn't matter which is more popular then the other....in a crowded market (which MMO's are) products succeed by differentiating themselves from the competition and catering to market segments that are currently underserved, not neccesarly by always trying to go with whats most popular...because then you end up having to fight all the other guys for the same piece of pie and you have to be better at it then they are (i.e. produce a better WoW then WoW). For example even though pizza is undenialbly more popular then chinese food in the U.S., there are still quite a number of chinese food places that do quite well here.
There are even games who's entire premise is built around the concept of open world PvP (Planetside, WWII Online, upcoming PS2).
I'm fine with twitch based games, and enjoy some often (Mount&Blade series), and some less often (Looking at you GW2), but what I would -really- want my MMOs to be is Turn-Based. Preferably D&D 3.5 E (Would be more than satisfied with Pathfinder too.)
This way the Devs could implement -every- possible rule, some just can't be made to work in real time or even the real time with pause option, which is used in NWN, BG, IWD and so on... Turn based is the way to go, I say! o
I must also say that I dislike these huge Zerg events in MMOs. Don't get me wrong, I love myself some party-play. Preferably with 3 - 8 people. DDO had it perfect with the 12 person raids, and normal party size being 6.
We?re all dead, just say it.
I think what he's saying is why buy a car if all you are interested in is the stereo system, why not just buy the stereo system? There is nothing neccesarly wrong with an MMO featuring that sort of combat...but it's not really utilizing the full potential of what an MMO can do. Hopefully such a feature is just one of many that the MMO offers...otherwise it's kinda like buying a car without wheels. Sure it may have a great stereo...but can you drive it anywhere?
Limited to 4 players.
WOW dungeon is limited to 5 playres. Raid limited to 10 or 25. DCUO mission is limited to 4 players. Almost all instanced dungeons in MMO limit the number of players.
In D3, you can match with millions of players into group of 4. In WOW you can match millions of players into group of 5.
How is this any different?
The most popular pvp game is LOL .. more so than WOW. I don't think all the open world pvp game (planetside, WW2 online ... and so on) add up to 11M active players that LOL has, do you? If that is not what popular, what is?
This analogy is only correct if you have to play a lot for the car. If the car is free, why shouldn't i get it if the only thing i like is the stereo system?
Also, the full potential of a MMO is meaningless to me. For example, If i want to play an instanced dungeon with a small group, D3 is no different to me than WOW (except the class, combat mechanics and actual dungeon content). Now you may argue that WOW cost $15, so it is a pitty not to utilitize its full potential.
But how about LOTRO? DCUO? Those are f2p games. If i want to play just a part of it, i am not wasting money on not "utilizing its full potential".
I could be wrong, but I believe he was speaking from the perspective of the Developer. If the primary thing you are going to feature in your game is MOBA style combat...why go through all the difficulty and expense of building and operating an MMO...build a MOBA instead.... it's much cheaper. If it's just one of a laundry list of features...that's fine. However if that's the full extenet of your PvP play (as opposed to one of a number of options) you are not neccesarly taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO.
Using LOTRO as an example is interesting....because it's NOT actualy the style of instanced/e-sport PvP that you guys have been talking about. PvMP in LOTRO is "zoned" not "instanced". The Moors are seperated from the rest of the world...but they aren't limited to a set number of players...and they are persistant (i.e. there is no match timer). It's sort of a hybrid of the two....and one of the major things that players have been clamoring for in LOTRO (at least when I played it)...was more zones like the Moors.
That's kind irrelevant to the discussion. The issue isn't whether some or even a large number of gamers enjoy MOBA style combat. Clearly they do, otherwise MOBA's wouldn't exist. You can even. QED that. The discussion is are there other styles of combat that gamers and specificaly MMO players enjoy? I think that gets a QED too.
For example I enjoy playing Turn Based Strategy games.....I also enjoy playing FPS games. I might even play both in the same day. Vastly different combat styles (although there are some common elements), both enjoyable. Room for both in the gaming world.
Well.. then i better stay with mount&blade or DayZ.. at least a few more players.
World of Warcraft had it, I haven't played in years~ not sure if +Hit/Expertise is still required.
What is the obsession with "more players"? I would much rather have a small group game that i find the combat engaging, then one that allows for more players but the combat is meh.
In fact, small group is also better to coordinate. Have you ever played a large FPS batter? There is zero coordination aside from "zerg point A". More != better.
Sure .. but i don't care about what the devs think. If they put good pvp instanced in a MMO, and i like it, and charge me nothing, i will play.
And i doubt anyone is "taking full extent of your abilities as an MMO". MMO has so much stuff. Some people never raid. Should devs take out raids because of that? Of course not.
There are pet collection, crafting and a thousand other systems. MMOs are essentially collection of games under one setting. Heck, the new WOW expansion even has pokemon. Are you telling me i shouldn't play it even if it is fun?
Well. about FPS i played BF with 64 players. Not really a zerg, but a few more. But i also played Shadowbane with battles involved a few hundreds each side. More players make a more living world. Combat is good and all, but the combat(aka pvp) should have a purpose. You should fight over something, you should have targets, fullfill it and benefit from it. Like conquering a territory, and gain so and so much tax income, recource spots(another source of taxes and resources for war material and so on). With other words, you should have something to fight, something on the line. Risk vs. reward. Darkfall was not that bad in that regard. Although it was more or less a empty world, a tremendous grind, and the combat was not that great(but at least the right direction), and it was for zerg only in most cases.
A mmo should have almost all kind of battles in the open world, from small scale(a few ppl down to 1vs1) to huge battles with hundreds of players involved. Ok, granted, a lot of player with twitched based combat and in the best case more hitboxes is rather hard to accomplish, but not entirely impossible nowadays.
PS: And it is rather fun to kill with a few friends a horde of enemies. Shadowbane, DAoC were 1 group smashed 3 or 4 groups all together. It is just a rush to look after the fight over the battlefield and see all your dead enemies. Good old times, and with a good twitched based combat it would be even better.
BUT.. just because i want more twitched based dont mean i dont like a lot of tactical options, too. Rather often a lot of games lack one or the other.