Question I have then is.. I can understand some preferring free-aim reticle in PvP games such as WoT or CoD, etc.. By why demand it in a PvE setting? Are you so competitive that you have to apply a PvP mechanic in a PvE realm? For me free-aim combat is especially enjoyable for pve because it makes every encounter more exciting. I don't see it as a "pvp mechanic", all action/rpg type games I have played use some form of free aim combat and are completely pve. But at any rate our individual preferences have little relevance in terms of why it is difficult to mix tab targeting and free aim combat.
Look at this way.. 3 mobs almost on top of each other killing your teammate.. You want to assist, and the best way is to use some crowd control feature of "sleep" arrow for a distance (since I'm a ranger).. My target is that mob in the middle (healer), but in reticle aiming it is virtually impossible to target him, however with tab targeting, I can cycle thru the mobs and auto target him.. Can you now see how tab targeting has it's purpose and advantage over free aim.. This is why most free aim games use AOE combat, and virtually NO crowd control skills.. You have just hit on a prime example of why it would be almost impossible to allow players to choose between action and tab-targeting combat. By the way plenty of free aim games have crowd control.
Maybe I shouldn't of said PvP mechanic, but say it's an Esport mechanic.. It is just another variable that comes into play that separates the player base into skilled and unskilled groups.. Bragging rights? Ego? See for me, I take joy in finding ways to bring players together, to unite a community.. This does not mean everyone wins, what it means is that the gap between skilled and unskilled players are reduced.. In a PvE setting, the goal is for the player community to defeat the environment is it not? Or is the goal to be "better" then your neighbor using the backdoor instead of straight up PvP?
I don't consider free aiming combat as a pvp or esports mechanic. Many pve games have free aim combat, and no games I can think of outside of mmos use a tab targeting system like WoW etc. Btw rpgs like DA and FF do not use tab targeting, it is a completely different combat system. Because of that I really cannot understand your line of reasoning here. Basically free aim combat makes for more interesting combat encounters than tab targeting.
I don't see how you using free-aim interferes with my enjoyment of using auto aim, or vice versa.. This is no more different then some players prefer being range combat, vs those that prefer in your face combat.. What is next, no one is allowed to use bow and arrows anymore? and YES, that topic has come up many times on forums..
Well if it could be balanced in game it might be ok, but how would you balance for one person that is able to auto hit all skills because of tab verses someone who has to aim to hit against a rapidly moving target or land a skill in the midst of a crowd like in your example of the archer above? Maybe its not impossible, but it seems like it would create a lot of problems.
Prime example, do tell.. You didn't clearify yourself there.. And for the crowd control part.. Which game allows for SINGLE TARGET crowd control in a crowded area.. I would love to see that in action.. Personally, that is why I think way too many games focus on AOE combat.. Aren't you sick and tired of always mowing down 3,4 and more mobs at a time? I know I am.. It used to be that if you got adds, you died (hense: crowd control), but nowadays, it's just another mob in the pack to AOE down.. Zzzzzz
Ok so the prime example I was talking about was the scenario you mentioned where an archer wants to use a sleep arrow to cc one member of a group. Like you said it is very convenient to be able to tab through or "click" with mouse on the target you want so that you cc the correct mob, something that would probably be much more difficult with free aim combat. That is a prime example of how it would be difficult to balance encounters around a mixed free aim and tab targeting system. Would the cc last twice as long if you free aim hit? How would it be balanced across all encounters in a game?
There are plenty of free aim games that have single target CC- NWO even has a class called control wizard with a few single target cc, Tera has the Lancer with its leash, the archer with cc arrows, etc.
For me free-aim combat is especially enjoyable for pve because it makes every encounter more exciting. ----- why it is difficult to mix tab targeting and free aim combat.How does it make it more exciting? Details please.. Remove the "hit/miss" variable from the combat equation and explain how it's more exciting.. For me, shooting using Free Aim at a 100 ton dragon is the same as using auto-target.. In fact I could actually say that since I don't have to concentrate on looking at my reticle, I can devote my attention to other elements of the fight that you can NOT do with Free Aim.. So technically, auto-targeting opens up more challenges, that Free Aim can't give you
You have just hit on a prime example of why it would be almost impossible to allow players to choose between action and tab-targeting combat. By the way plenty of free aim games have crowd control.Which is?.. and What free aim games out give me the ability to CC the healer, that is mingled in with a pack. You said their are plenty of them, you only have to name 1.. TY
I don't consider free aiming combat as a pvp or esports mechanic. Your opinion Many pve games have free aim combat, and no games I can think of outside of mmos use a tab targeting system like WoW etc. Btw rpgs like DA and FF do not use tab targeting, it is a completely different combat system. Because of that I really cannot understand your line of reasoning here. Probably cause you don't understand what Esport means.. Basically free aim combat makes for more interesting combat encounters than tab targeting.Again, explain to us how it's more exciting.. details please.. TY
Well if it could be balanced in game it might be ok, but how would you balance for one person that is able to auto hit all skills because of tab verses someone who has to aim to hit against a rapidly moving target or land a skill in the midst of a crowd like in your example of the archer above? Maybe its not impossible, but it seems like it would create a lot of problems. The issue is, are you designing combat for esport or pure rpg? The warrior will always bitch that range dps is owning him in combat, unless he can go toe to toe with him.. But as soon as that happens, the weak range dps class bitched that he gets owned in toe to toe fight (hence: range).. When you use reticle targeting, we all see what happens.. Everyone becomes a bouncing bunny on steriods, to avoid being shot.. Don't deny that.. Now devs can turn around and restrict the bouncing bunny moves by using game mechanics, and rightfully so.. Now here is the catch, and PLEASE pay attention.. Using free aim requires you to NERF the combat, or you gimp yourself because you can NOT keep moving, hit hotkeys and use mouse all at the same time.. Do you have 3 hands? Sure load 2 simple skills on your mouse (L and R buttons) but what happens when you have to go to other skills down on your hotbar, and you have to keep moving at the same time.. If I have to take my left hand OFF the WASD keys to press my hotkeys, then I'm standing sill and dead duck.. If I have to take my right hand off mouse (aim), then I can't shoot at moving target.. See the problem?
Ok so the prime example I was talking about was the scenario you mentioned where an archer wants to use a sleep arrow to cc one member of a group. Like you said it is very convenient to be able to tab through or "click" with mouse on the target you want so that you cc the correct mob, something that would probably be much more difficult with free aim combat. That is a prime example of how it would be difficult to balance encounters around a mixed free aim and tab targeting system. Would the cc last twice as long if you free aim hit? How would it be balanced across all encounters in a game Except you are viewing this as an either / or option.. I said both are available.. If you choose to use free aim on 90% of the mobs, go for it.. but if you need to or want to auto target one mob, you can tab cycle that target to preform your skill, then go back to free aim.. World of Tanks does this perfectly.. I can easily go from free aim to auto aim in less then a second..
There are plenty of free aim games that have single target CC- NWO even has a class called control wizard with a few single target cc, Tera has the Lancer with its leash, the archer with cc arrows, etc.
Yes, they might have that skill, but how reliable is it and how often is it used in a gaggle of mobs all bunched together? I suspect rarely if at all
For me free-aim combat is especially enjoyable for pve because it makes every encounter more exciting. ----- why it is difficult to mix tab targeting and free aim combat.How does it make it more exciting? Details please.. Remove the "hit/miss" variable from the combat equation and explain how it's more exciting.. For me, shooting using Free Aim at a 100 ton dragon is the same as using auto-target.. In fact I could actually say that since I don't have to concentrate on looking at my reticle, I can devote my attention to other elements of the fight that you can NOT do with Free Aim.. So technically, auto-targeting opens up more challenges, that Free Aim can't give you
You have just hit on a prime example of why it would be almost impossible to allow players to choose between action and tab-targeting combat. By the way plenty of free aim games have crowd control.Which is?.. and What free aim games out give me the ability to CC the healer, that is mingled in with a pack. You said their are plenty of them, you only have to name 1.. TY
I don't consider free aiming combat as a pvp or esports mechanic. Your opinion Many pve games have free aim combat, and no games I can think of outside of mmos use a tab targeting system like WoW etc. Btw rpgs like DA and FF do not use tab targeting, it is a completely different combat system. Because of that I really cannot understand your line of reasoning here. Probably cause you don't understand what Esport means.. Basically free aim combat makes for more interesting combat encounters than tab targeting.Again, explain to us how it's more exciting.. details please.. TY
Well if it could be balanced in game it might be ok, but how would you balance for one person that is able to auto hit all skills because of tab verses someone who has to aim to hit against a rapidly moving target or land a skill in the midst of a crowd like in your example of the archer above? Maybe its not impossible, but it seems like it would create a lot of problems. The issue is, are you designing combat for esport or pure rpg? The warrior will always bitch that range dps is owning him in combat, unless he can go toe to toe with him.. But as soon as that happens, the weak range dps class bitched that he gets owned in toe to toe fight (hence: range).. When you use reticle targeting, we all see what happens.. Everyone becomes a bouncing bunny on steriods, to avoid being shot.. Don't deny that.. Now devs can turn around and restrict the bouncing bunny moves by using game mechanics, and rightfully so.. Now here is the catch, and PLEASE pay attention.. Using free aim requires you to NERF the combat, or you gimp yourself because you can NOT keep moving, hit hotkeys and use mouse all at the same time.. Do you have 3 hands? Sure load 2 simple skills on your mouse (L and R buttons) but what happens when you have to go to other skills down on your hotbar, and you have to keep moving at the same time.. If I have to take my left hand OFF the WASD keys to press my hotkeys, then I'm standing sill and dead duck.. If I have to take my right hand off mouse (aim), then I can't shoot at moving target.. See the problem?
Ok so the prime example I was talking about was the scenario you mentioned where an archer wants to use a sleep arrow to cc one member of a group. Like you said it is very convenient to be able to tab through or "click" with mouse on the target you want so that you cc the correct mob, something that would probably be much more difficult with free aim combat. That is a prime example of how it would be difficult to balance encounters around a mixed free aim and tab targeting system. Would the cc last twice as long if you free aim hit? How would it be balanced across all encounters in a game Except you are viewing this as an either / or option.. I said both are available.. If you choose to use free aim on 90% of the mobs, go for it.. but if you need to or want to auto target one mob, you can tab cycle that target to preform your skill, then go back to free aim.. World of Tanks does this perfectly.. I can easily go from free aim to auto aim in less then a second..
There are plenty of free aim games that have single target CC- NWO even has a class called control wizard with a few single target cc, Tera has the Lancer with its leash, the archer with cc arrows, etc.
Yes, they might have that skill, but how reliable is it and how often is it used in a gaggle of mobs all bunched together? I suspect rarely if at all
Rydo I know you are on a crusade to get tab targeting into EQN because you like that style of combat, but you just seem to be ignoring everything we say. Just look at your last comment above. That is exactly why it will be hard to mix the two styles.
And the one above that, its like you didn't read what I said and then just say something almost totally unrelated to what I had written.
Also you have some fixation about free aim type combat being especially attached to eports or pvp. I have said several times now on this and the other thread on EQN combat that most of the free aim type games I have played are actually single player games, which naturally are not pvp games or esports games. Free-aim has no special connotation to pvp or esports for me, and I am not sure why it does for you.
I am not sure what your problem is that you try and explain about moving and fighting in a free aim game. From what I can gather you say it is difficult to move aim and fire off abilities (not sure what the preceding ideas have to do with that though). I never had a problem doing that (and I don't have three hands). Its pretty much the same as in a tab-targeting game, one finger is pressing a directional key and four other fingers are ready to press keybinds for skills.
Actually, I just recalled that ESO has something of a mix between tab targeting and free aimed combat, I will log in later today and check it out. So maybe there is hope for something along the lines you want.
On another note- is it really 2 or 3 years away?
Update, just checked it. In eso you can basically do what you are looking for Rydo, its not as easy as tab targeting in games like WoW, but once you choose a target you can lock on and all your attacks hit that mob (might be affected by body blocking not sure). Maybe EQN will have something like that?
I was just checking out a youtube video that shows what you're talking about.. They showed both types of targeting; the soft target, which is pretty much free aim with a large hit box.. So as long as you are facing the general direction you hit a target.. The other option being the tab auto target which gives you the ability to lock onto a specific mob and again, as long as you are facing in the general direction you hit the target..
Indeed ESO is exactly what I'm talking about, which I was not aware of.. Maybe I should go spend some time there.. If SOE wishes to attract customers they need to give them a reason, not chase them away like their current ideas are doing.. lol And how long would it take for EQN to switch to a system similar to ESO? About a week's worth of work, so that isn't an excuse..
Actually, I just recalled that ESO has something of a mix between tab targeting and free aimed combat, I will log in later today and check it out. So maybe there is hope for something along the lines you want.
On another note- is it really 2 or 3 years away?
Update, just checked it. In eso you can basically do what you are looking for Rydo, its not as easy as tab targeting in games like WoW, but once you choose a target you can lock on and all your attacks hit that mob (might be affected by body blocking not sure). Maybe EQN will have something like that?
Smed said sometime 2015 but most are guessing thats way off as the dev team keeps adding more and more to the project because of the round table polls and requests players have made in Landmark and on the forums. They are really listening to the community. Like the game only had one starting city and now they are adding many starting cities due to player request. If it comes out later we have no one to blame but ourselves as we keeping asking for more.
Smed said sometime 2015 but most are guessing tats way off as the dev team keeps adding more and more to the project because of the round table polls and requests players have made in Landmark and on the forums. They are really listening to the community. Like the game only had one starting city and now they are adding many starting cities. If it comes out later we have no one to blame but ourselves as we keeping asking for more.
I'm not so sure about that part.. As of this week on their last "round table" they mentioned only one starting city and it having a "cosmopolitan" look and feel that represents ALL the races (aka combine?) I think they call it that.. That starting city is suppose to be basic and will grow as the community gets involved..
Which I'm not sure I like that path.. Sure this all sounds great initially, but what happens to the game months and years later when ALTs or new players join in.. They obviously miss out on the early stages of city development.. Plus I'm sure there are many of us that just simply like multiple starting zones, with new fresh scenery, etc etc.. That was one thing I really enjoyed and miss from EQ.. There was absolutely no way of confusing Halas, Qeynos, Neriak and Rivervale, to name a few from each other..
Smed said sometime 2015 but most are guessing tats way off as the dev team keeps adding more and more to the project because of the round table polls and requests players have made in Landmark and on the forums. They are really listening to the community. Like the game only had one starting city and now they are adding many starting cities. If it comes out later we have no one to blame but ourselves as we keeping asking for more.
I'm not so sure about that part.. As of this week on their last "round table" they mentioned only one starting city and it having a "cosmopolitan" look and feel that represents ALL the races (aka combine?) I think they call it that.. That starting city is suppose to be basic and will grow as the community gets involved..
Which I'm not sure I like that path.. Sure this all sounds great initially, but what happens to the game months and years later when ALTs or new players join in.. They obviously miss out on the early stages of city development.. Plus I'm sure there are many of us that just simply like multiple starting zones, with new fresh scenery, etc etc.. That was one thing I really enjoyed and miss from EQ.. There was absolutely no way of confusing Halas, Qeynos, Neriak and Rivervale, to name a few from each other..
The dynamic world they are trying to make is also the closest thing to horizontal progression we have seen a dev team try and make. So if they pull it off two things will happen. 1. Tier one starting areas will still be fun to play when you are tier 4 geared. 2. The world will change dynamicly and each area of the game from month to month will pose new challenges for players, thus bring back tier 2, 3 and 4 geared players back to tier 1 zones to team with new players. If they pull this off, starting areas will never be empty. This game will always be changing and people who join 2 years later will not get the same game players got at launch. Matter of fact, if SoE pulls off what they are trying to create, 2 players who join 2 different servers will not encounter the same challenges in the same zones.
I'm not so sure about that part.. As of this week on their last "round table" they mentioned only one starting city and it having a "cosmopolitan" look and feel that represents ALL the races (aka combine?) I think they call it that.. That starting city is suppose to be basic and will grow as the community gets involved..
Which I'm not sure I like that path.. Sure this all sounds great initially, but what happens to the game months and years later when ALTs or new players join in.. They obviously miss out on the early stages of city development.. Plus I'm sure there are many of us that just simply like multiple starting zones, with new fresh scenery, etc etc.. That was one thing I really enjoyed and miss from EQ.. There was absolutely no way of confusing Halas, Qeynos, Neriak and Rivervale, to name a few from each other..
I believe the point to going with a more "sandbox" design is for the dynamic and forward moving story, world, and experience.
They've already said that players that come after X time has passed will experience the game differently, just as those that come later on will. Same goes for the servers to some degree. All intentional. We are in their world, instead of the world revolving around us.
Also have given solutions to possible problems this causes. Such as "What happens when all cities are built?" Dragons, Orc Horde, or natural disaster comes and makes a mess and players get to relive the previous event in a different way. As in Qeynos might be built after the first month, but a year later, new players might have to repair or defend it when they start. Or it might be Halas instead this time. They seem to fully intend for us to rebuild the world, which I would rather be a part of instead of logging in and everything is completed until the next expansion comes out and dumps another bunch of static content.
This also opens up the possibility that 1, 2, 5 years after launch, there could be several built cities or starting areas as players have returned home and aren't just washing up on the shore from their trip from Kunark. Allowing more choices. Having a dynamic world allows for them to go in pretty much any direction without being stuck with static cities/npcs/quests, etc.
While I don't doubt there will be plenty of static content, the focus of Storybricks, Voxels, and the more "dynamic" features seems to move the world, story, experience forward.
If you make an ALT, you are starting where the world is at that time. Much like being born in real life. I sure missed a lot that came before me
Themeparks have spoiled us with being able to "see it all" by making it all about the individual. I'm very glad to see that many/most upcoming games are moving toward the more open, player driven, "sandbox" design. All with varying degrees of it of course.
I believe the point to going with a more "sandbox" design is for the dynamic and forward moving story, world, and experience. Sandboxes are a great concept, but I've played too many that just fail from a PvE point of view. Linear themeparks are just as bad too.. I support a "sandpark" idea that contains both static and dynamic content with lots of lore, but NO storyline..
Also have given solutions to possible problems this causes. Such as "What happens when all cities are built?" Dragons, Orc Horde, or natural disaster comes and makes a mess and players get to relive the previous event in a different way. As in Qeynos might be built after the first month, but a year later, new players might have to repair or defend it when they start. Or it might be Halas instead this time. They seem to fully intend for us to rebuild the world, which I would rather be a part of instead of logging in and everything is completed until the next expansion comes out and dumps another bunch of static content. And these solutions to a problem they freely admit will occur are "gamey".. I think that is the word you use to describe artificial mechanics to band aid a problem..
This also opens up the possibility that 1, 2, 5 years after launch, there could be several built cities or starting areas as players have returned home and aren't just washing up on the shore from their trip from Kunark. Allowing more choices. Having a dynamic world allows for them to go in pretty much any direction without being stuck with static cities/npcs/quests, etc. And what is wrong with a reasonable static world? There is a huge difference between a static geography, and static life.. Too much dynamic sandbox puts too much control in the hands of players, which can be quite annoying (unless policed).. I've been on this Earth for over 50 years, and I have seen a lot of change, but for the most part, the world is still 90% what it was decades ago (well, except Vegas).. lol
Themeparks have spoiled us with being able to "see it all" by making it all about the individual. I'm very glad to see that many/most upcoming games are moving toward the more open, player driven, "sandbox" design. All with varying degrees of it of course. I have yet to see or experience a Sandbox system that isn't all about PvP tho, or some form of Esport..
OK anyways.. this thread I wanted to keep it about targeting systems.. The pro/cons and the why & why nots to allowing choice of targeting.
There is no such thing as a game that has both or a hybrid style. Games are either lock on/auto targeting or they're non-targeted. It's about hit detection, not control schemes. You can change the control scheme of any game but that is merely a cosmetic change.
TERA is non-targeted, Landmark combat is non-targeted, FPS games are non-targeted. You aim and the skill hits exactly where your reticule is aimed at, regardless of whether a player or mob is there or not and doesn't follow any players or mobs that may be nearby.
Now aside from more obvious tab target games, games like ESO follow the same rule. ESO does allow you to aim, however it locks onto your target in the same way a tab target game does. The only difference is the method in which you acquire a target - via a reticule instead of a mouse or tab key (although you can use tab I believe in ESO). But once you acquire a target and use a skill, that skill will hit regardless of whether the mob/player moves or not, whether you move, etc. You can fire a projectile over your shoulder from behind if you wanted to in ESO. Many other games follow this such as Blade and Soul, Neverwinter, Skyforge, etc.
Edit: And to be quite honest, this discussion is pointless. Since Landmark is non-targeted, EQN will be as well. A lot goes into the aiming method in a game so at this point they really don't have the time to do a complete combat overhaul. Both player and mob attack animations and skill design need to be taken into account, hitboxes, etc. The entirety of combat is designed from the ground up to be either auto-target/lock on, or non-targeted. They might be able to adjust combat to make aiming easier as is the case with TERA for the most part, but you're not going to see an auto targeted/tab target style game with EQN.
There is no such thing as a game that has both or a hybrid style. Games are either lock on/auto targeting or they're non-targeted. It's about hit detection, not control schemes. You can change the control scheme of any game but that is merely a cosmetic change. You should stand corrected.. I have played World of Tanks and it supports both FREE AIM and Auto Lock targeting.. So don't tell me it doesn't exist.. Another poster also says it exist in ESO too, and from what I seen on video, he is correct..
Comments
Rydo I know you are on a crusade to get tab targeting into EQN because you like that style of combat, but you just seem to be ignoring everything we say. Just look at your last comment above. That is exactly why it will be hard to mix the two styles.
And the one above that, its like you didn't read what I said and then just say something almost totally unrelated to what I had written.
Also you have some fixation about free aim type combat being especially attached to eports or pvp. I have said several times now on this and the other thread on EQN combat that most of the free aim type games I have played are actually single player games, which naturally are not pvp games or esports games. Free-aim has no special connotation to pvp or esports for me, and I am not sure why it does for you.
I am not sure what your problem is that you try and explain about moving and fighting in a free aim game. From what I can gather you say it is difficult to move aim and fire off abilities (not sure what the preceding ideas have to do with that though). I never had a problem doing that (and I don't have three hands). Its pretty much the same as in a tab-targeting game, one finger is pressing a directional key and four other fingers are ready to press keybinds for skills.
Really!....who cares, the game is 2-3yrs. away....great marketing soe.
Ahh hemmm, most people come here to talk about games they are waiting for. If that upsets you, you dont need to chime in.
Actually, I just recalled that ESO has something of a mix between tab targeting and free aimed combat, I will log in later today and check it out. So maybe there is hope for something along the lines you want.
On another note- is it really 2 or 3 years away?
Update, just checked it. In eso you can basically do what you are looking for Rydo, its not as easy as tab targeting in games like WoW, but once you choose a target you can lock on and all your attacks hit that mob (might be affected by body blocking not sure). Maybe EQN will have something like that?
TY Yasha for the update..
I was just checking out a youtube video that shows what you're talking about.. They showed both types of targeting; the soft target, which is pretty much free aim with a large hit box.. So as long as you are facing the general direction you hit a target.. The other option being the tab auto target which gives you the ability to lock onto a specific mob and again, as long as you are facing in the general direction you hit the target..
Indeed ESO is exactly what I'm talking about, which I was not aware of.. Maybe I should go spend some time there.. If SOE wishes to attract customers they need to give them a reason, not chase them away like their current ideas are doing.. lol And how long would it take for EQN to switch to a system similar to ESO? About a week's worth of work, so that isn't an excuse..
Smed said sometime 2015 but most are guessing thats way off as the dev team keeps adding more and more to the project because of the round table polls and requests players have made in Landmark and on the forums. They are really listening to the community. Like the game only had one starting city and now they are adding many starting cities due to player request. If it comes out later we have no one to blame but ourselves as we keeping asking for more.
I'm not so sure about that part.. As of this week on their last "round table" they mentioned only one starting city and it having a "cosmopolitan" look and feel that represents ALL the races (aka combine?) I think they call it that.. That starting city is suppose to be basic and will grow as the community gets involved..
Which I'm not sure I like that path.. Sure this all sounds great initially, but what happens to the game months and years later when ALTs or new players join in.. They obviously miss out on the early stages of city development.. Plus I'm sure there are many of us that just simply like multiple starting zones, with new fresh scenery, etc etc.. That was one thing I really enjoyed and miss from EQ.. There was absolutely no way of confusing Halas, Qeynos, Neriak and Rivervale, to name a few from each other..
The dynamic world they are trying to make is also the closest thing to horizontal progression we have seen a dev team try and make. So if they pull it off two things will happen. 1. Tier one starting areas will still be fun to play when you are tier 4 geared. 2. The world will change dynamicly and each area of the game from month to month will pose new challenges for players, thus bring back tier 2, 3 and 4 geared players back to tier 1 zones to team with new players. If they pull this off, starting areas will never be empty. This game will always be changing and people who join 2 years later will not get the same game players got at launch. Matter of fact, if SoE pulls off what they are trying to create, 2 players who join 2 different servers will not encounter the same challenges in the same zones.
I believe the point to going with a more "sandbox" design is for the dynamic and forward moving story, world, and experience.
They've already said that players that come after X time has passed will experience the game differently, just as those that come later on will. Same goes for the servers to some degree. All intentional. We are in their world, instead of the world revolving around us.
Also have given solutions to possible problems this causes. Such as "What happens when all cities are built?" Dragons, Orc Horde, or natural disaster comes and makes a mess and players get to relive the previous event in a different way. As in Qeynos might be built after the first month, but a year later, new players might have to repair or defend it when they start. Or it might be Halas instead this time. They seem to fully intend for us to rebuild the world, which I would rather be a part of instead of logging in and everything is completed until the next expansion comes out and dumps another bunch of static content.
This also opens up the possibility that 1, 2, 5 years after launch, there could be several built cities or starting areas as players have returned home and aren't just washing up on the shore from their trip from Kunark. Allowing more choices. Having a dynamic world allows for them to go in pretty much any direction without being stuck with static cities/npcs/quests, etc.
While I don't doubt there will be plenty of static content, the focus of Storybricks, Voxels, and the more "dynamic" features seems to move the world, story, experience forward.
If you make an ALT, you are starting where the world is at that time. Much like being born in real life. I sure missed a lot that came before me
Themeparks have spoiled us with being able to "see it all" by making it all about the individual. I'm very glad to see that many/most upcoming games are moving toward the more open, player driven, "sandbox" design. All with varying degrees of it of course.
OK anyways.. this thread I wanted to keep it about targeting systems.. The pro/cons and the why & why nots to allowing choice of targeting.
There is no such thing as a game that has both or a hybrid style. Games are either lock on/auto targeting or they're non-targeted. It's about hit detection, not control schemes. You can change the control scheme of any game but that is merely a cosmetic change.
TERA is non-targeted, Landmark combat is non-targeted, FPS games are non-targeted. You aim and the skill hits exactly where your reticule is aimed at, regardless of whether a player or mob is there or not and doesn't follow any players or mobs that may be nearby.
Now aside from more obvious tab target games, games like ESO follow the same rule. ESO does allow you to aim, however it locks onto your target in the same way a tab target game does. The only difference is the method in which you acquire a target - via a reticule instead of a mouse or tab key (although you can use tab I believe in ESO). But once you acquire a target and use a skill, that skill will hit regardless of whether the mob/player moves or not, whether you move, etc. You can fire a projectile over your shoulder from behind if you wanted to in ESO. Many other games follow this such as Blade and Soul, Neverwinter, Skyforge, etc.
Edit: And to be quite honest, this discussion is pointless. Since Landmark is non-targeted, EQN will be as well. A lot goes into the aiming method in a game so at this point they really don't have the time to do a complete combat overhaul. Both player and mob attack animations and skill design need to be taken into account, hitboxes, etc. The entirety of combat is designed from the ground up to be either auto-target/lock on, or non-targeted. They might be able to adjust combat to make aiming easier as is the case with TERA for the most part, but you're not going to see an auto targeted/tab target style game with EQN.
With a lot of trivial mobs in an area it can be pretty hard to target a mob using tab-targeting.
A mouse, a rat, a spider, a ... oh bugger the axe wielding giant is upon me; should have clicked on the mob!
(It's nice to have both - but tab targeting doesn't mean auto-win.)