Not just combat is part of this equation, but also the classes. With the full 12 classes in AOC the amount of things going on around you both in pvp and pve was amazing. Spell weaving and frenzy, lack of level/gear dependence, stealth for all.. everything added up to probably the best non-tab open world pvp experiences possible.
Someone proving they were the best with a broken oar, carried meaning.
Other games have been better(much better), but just based on combat.. I won't back down from the above.
blade and soul and tera for action combat. archeage and guild wars 1 for tab target combat and for some reason i really miss city of heroes combat, there was something oddly satisfying going into a big pack of mobs and destroying everything.
They are not the same due to that critical element I outlined. It is present in WoW and is vacant in SWTOR. And I haven't been the only one that reacted positively to the lack of AA. AA influences at the very least 25% or so damage. When it is missing(SWTOR, DCUO etc), you redistribute that power amongst the other present skills. Thus making the game about actually earning your dps as opposed to ~25% of your dps being given to you. Plus, just watching the AA or calculating when it will "proc" in order to create bursts...isn't terribly fun to many players. Managing your bursts through actual skill presses is(apparently).
edit: I also apparently managed to miss Neverwinter. Its combat is also very nice.
I don't see how auto attack affects combat generally in WoW. You don't calculate or wait for any procs, if there are any, they happen randomly. It would be like calculating how to win the lottery. Auto attacks are something that happens which you, the player, don't have to care about. It just happens...
Moreover, auto attack is not a factor at all for caster classes in WoW, being only used significantly for physical attack classes.
Essentially, auto attack is merely a combat mechanic that works mostly passively, adding a layer of chaos to build calculations but never hindering nor trivializing players' real time active gameplay (caveat: hunters some time ago, questing).
However, I do think that Gorwe is correct that SWTOR's combat is noticeably different, at times, from WoW's. Resource management for healer classes is a good example of this difference, where SWTOR's healers are capable of a burstier and a more dynamic style of healing than in WoW where healing is more paced and strategic. Both games in my view are excellent examples of the old tab target style MMO combat, though I would definitely want to acknowledge that WoW's raiding is more consistently challenging and of course polished (I think this counts as it's hard to assess combat outside of the actual combat--not simply punching a dummy).
I would personally, however, assert Warhammer Online's combat as the best, and certainly my own favourite. The complexity and symmetry of their defensive/offensive targetting system--along with an impressive host of interesting and powerful abilities--made this game great with even its woefully underdeveloped PVE systems and encounters. It makes me truly sad to think that we will likely not see a game of this type and this level of ambition attempted ever again, or at least in the foreseeable future (maybe I should say developed in the West, to be fair).
I would personally, however, assert Warhammer Online's combat as the best, and certainly my own favourite. The complexity and symmetry of their defensive/offensive targetting system--along with an impressive host of interesting and powerful abilities--made this game great with even its woefully underdeveloped PVE systems and encounters. It makes me truly sad to think that we will likely not see a game of this type and this level of ambition attempted ever again, or at least in the foreseeable future (maybe I should say developed in the West, to be fair).
Warhammer's combat was certainly interesting, it had a lot more depth to it than SW:TORs and some really interesting abilities on all the classes.
However, I feel it's combat system only came into it's own when doing balanced group pvp. Premade 6v6 was awesome - the interclass skills (such as guarding healers / dps) meant that fights actually went the distance and allowed a ton of tactics to come into play. Used to love it in scenarios where we'd all stack up our morales, then CC and dump all morales on the 12 opposition and wipe them out in a few seconds. Very satisfying!
The rest of the time, the combat system was just a little too skakey. Solo pve and group pve, there really wasn't much to it. DPS had simple rotations and you didn't need to worry about everyone dumping their morales at the same time, or careful use of CC. Tanks usually only had a few skills they actually had to use and healing was pretty straight forwards. In the majority of the pvp, the time-to-kill was so low that the combat system didn't get to shine.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Well, it is a difficult thing to say, so I'll just list every MMO that had something special / good when it comes down to combat:
Tab target:
WoW: Very responsive and polished feeling. While not very good per se, it is comfortable, no doubt about that.
DAoC / Mythic MMOs: The very fact that Tanks could body block and had a bigger character...stamp I guess meant a lot. With all those active shield defence systems as well as Guard system...very good indeed. Just not wieldable or comfortable in any sense of the word.
SWTOR: The lack of AA means more than one could imagine. Not only that but it was actually a pretty fun game system up until 4,0 imo. It mixed comfort with quality pretty nicely.
Other systems:
TERA / BnS: Well, sure, what did you expect. I am personally more on TERA's side, but both are very good, sure.
AoC: I was NEVER a fan of this system(mostly because I saw the potential and it completely ruined it for me), but it is innovative and entertaining. It's just not comfortable at all.
DCUO: This game actually has deceptively good and fun combat. Comfortable too, but it can get complex, sure. It could very well be the best one.
ESO: I wasn't a fan of this one either, but it has merit.
GW 2: I personally hate it(the whole game), but let's be objective. It isn't a BAD or UNCOMFORTABLE system by any stretch of imagination. And hence should be at the very least mentioned.
If you ask me: SWTOR for tab target and DCUO otherwise.
Interesting that you praise SWTOR while bashing WoW, when both combat systems are actually the same, with WoW still having the edge when it comes to smoothness and responsiveness.
They are not the same due to that critical element I outlined. It is present in WoW and is vacant in SWTOR. And I haven't been the only one that reacted positively to the lack of AA. AA influences at the very least 25% or so damage. When it is missing(SWTOR, DCUO etc), you redistribute that power amongst the other present skills. Thus making the game about actually earning your dps as opposed to ~25% of your dps being given to you. Plus, just watching the AA or calculating when it will "proc" in order to create bursts...isn't terribly fun to many players. Managing your bursts through actual skill presses is(apparently).
edit: I also apparently managed to miss Neverwinter. Its combat is also very nice.
It makes me truly sad to think that we will likely not see a game of this type and this level of ambition attempted ever again, or at least in the foreseeable future (maybe I should say developed in the West, to be fair).
We will see that kind of ambition fulfilled again if I have anything to say about it.. Only time will tell..
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
This is kinda hard for me to answer because I just don't enjoy tab-target gameplay all that much. I end up settling for somewhat more hybrid or even flawed titles just because I enjoy the style of the gameplay slightly more in spite of the other mechanics in the games, which is a wee bit frustrating.
Planetside was a big game for me and I did really enjoy it's combat mechanics. It was a title that employed a good variety of things on the battlefield to make it less of just a run and gun affair, and you had distinct strategies for sieging different types of buildings using different factions and vehicles.
I agree with @somersaultsam too about Defiance. Most the game was/is really not good, but they did make the third person shooter combat pretty good.
If I had to give a call out to a distinct best combat system, I would be remiss to claim any title actually deserves it at present though. They all have their niches for type of gameplay to consider, and moreover flaws by virtue of age or design. Maybe a categorical best of the moment, but it's hard pickings for most categories.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Warhammer's combat was certainly interesting, it had a lot more depth to it than SW:TORs and some really interesting abilities on all the classes.
However, I feel it's combat system only came into it's own when doing balanced group pvp. Premade 6v6 was awesome - the interclass skills (such as guarding healers / dps) meant that fights actually went the distance and allowed a ton of tactics to come into play. Used to love it in scenarios where we'd all stack up our morales, then CC and dump all morales on the 12 opposition and wipe them out in a few seconds. Very satisfying!
The rest of the time, the combat system was just a little too skakey. Solo pve and group pve, there really wasn't much to it. DPS had simple rotations and you didn't need to worry about everyone dumping their morales at the same time, or careful use of CC. Tanks usually only had a few skills they actually had to use and healing was pretty straight forwards. In the majority of the pvp, the time-to-kill was so low that the combat system didn't get to shine.
I personally feel like no game, before including actual encounters whether pve or pvp, has had the depth of Warhammer's combat. But I also think the term depth is quite difficult to pin down and I wouldn't look forward to defending my preference given that ambiguity.
But I absolutely agree with your view that WAR combat didn't really function very interestingly until you hit a numerical sweet spot in small scale, skirmish style, pvp. Part of this is owing to the fact that the pve combat was nearly non existent (not saying I didn't love some of the pve, regardless--hinting at public quests). Additionally, I would state that WAR's large scale pvp encounters didn't synergize particularly well with its defensive/offensive mechanic, though you might fairly point out that WAR's large scale pvp was not particularly well done, or again WAR's constant refrain underdeveloped.
From a fan service and lore/immersion point of view it might've been problematic, but I feel like WAR would've been more mechanically successful had it limited itself to the small scale pvp it actually had and added some small group pve dungeons (well designed and difficult, need i say?). I know someone out there wants to reply WAAAGH RVR!, and I just don't know what to do with that but I do feel it would've been a shame to cut it out altogether, if that means anything to the faithful.
I would personally, however, assert Warhammer Online's combat as the best, and certainly my own favourite. The complexity and symmetry of their defensive/offensive targetting system--along with an impressive host of interesting and powerful abilities--made this game great with even its woefully underdeveloped PVE systems and encounters. It makes me truly sad to think that we will likely not see a game of this type and this level of ambition attempted ever again, or at least in the foreseeable future (maybe I should say developed in the West, to be fair).
While interesting mechanic and skill wise, WAR combat always felt a bit "laggy". It definitely wasn't as responsive (you see what you press) as WoW or SW:TOR.
Too true, JLP. The optimization was beyond horrible.
I want to add my provocative point of view about TOR vs WoW responsiveness here, so I will. TOR's combat, while initially at launch very very not good and embarrassingly bad at times, ended up being more responsive than our ever-loving pinnacle of pristine response time combat overlord of the MMORPG World of Warcraft. There really was no point to that but I always wanted to post that.
Warhammer's combat was certainly interesting, it had a lot more depth to it than SW:TORs and some really interesting abilities on all the classes.
However, I feel it's combat system only came into it's own when doing balanced group pvp. Premade 6v6 was awesome - the interclass skills (such as guarding healers / dps) meant that fights actually went the distance and allowed a ton of tactics to come into play. Used to love it in scenarios where we'd all stack up our morales, then CC and dump all morales on the 12 opposition and wipe them out in a few seconds. Very satisfying!
The rest of the time, the combat system was just a little too skakey. Solo pve and group pve, there really wasn't much to it. DPS had simple rotations and you didn't need to worry about everyone dumping their morales at the same time, or careful use of CC. Tanks usually only had a few skills they actually had to use and healing was pretty straight forwards. In the majority of the pvp, the time-to-kill was so low that the combat system didn't get to shine.
I personally feel like no game, before including actual encounters whether pve or pvp, has had the depth of Warhammer's combat. But I also think the term depth is quite difficult to pin down and I wouldn't look forward to defending my preference given that ambiguity.
But I absolutely agree with your view that WAR combat didn't really function very interestingly until you hit a numerical sweet spot in small scale, skirmish style, pvp. Part of this is owing to the fact that the pve combat was nearly non existent (not saying I didn't love some of the pve, regardless--hinting at public quests). Additionally, I would state that WAR's large scale pvp encounters didn't synergize particularly well with its defensive/offensive mechanic, though you might fairly point out that WAR's large scale pvp was not particularly well done, or again WAR's constant refrain underdeveloped.
From a fan service and lore/immersion point of view it might've been problematic, but I feel like WAR would've been more mechanically successful had it limited itself to the small scale pvp it actually had and added some small group pve dungeons (well designed and difficult, need i say?). I know someone out there wants to reply WAAAGH RVR!, and I just don't know what to do with that but I do feel it would've been a shame to cut it out altogether, if that means anything to the faithful.
Depth is generally defined as the number of meaningful decisions one has to make during combat. Not to be confused with complexity, which is simply a function of the number of moving parts.
So, yeh, WAR had a decent amount of depth from what I remember. I played a black orc for 6 months after release, then returned for a further 3 months later on. I didn't play any other classes to a high level, so experience is somewhat limited.
WARs depth came primarily from situational abilities which were mostly CC related from what I remember. Certainly my blorc had a ton of CC, so you'd have to pick and choose your timings for best effect. The morale abilities were also another good example of depth - do you blast off your morale 1 / 2 / 3 or wait to build up further?
Where WARs depth comes up short is in group abilities and resource management. There were really very few group abilities (e.g. buffs) that added any depth. Most tended to be group wide and on short cooldowns so didn't require any decision making, you just folded the skills into your rotation. On resource management, the fact that your energy replenished in 10s or so meant you never really had to make decisions about whether you could use a skill or not, there was no saving up for big burst phases or anything like that.
With that in mind, LotRO is the only game I've played with more depth. It didn't have as much CC, but it had a ton of inter-group abilities, situational abilities and much harder resource management. It meant that you, as a player, had to constantly make meaningful decisions about what skills to use and when to be able to get the most out of your character. Again though, depth only really came into play in group situations as when playing solo, a lot of skills became meaningless.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Hands down TERA. I have not tried Darkfall though and hear it has great combat as well.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
played all above suggested games by other posters..
Believe me if you have patience to learn the ropes and grind
Darkfall has by far the best combat FPS pvp..
If only population and progression imbalances didn't render that potential meaningless.
You can take an incredibly deep game like chess, and the moment you let players bring more friends (population imbalance) it becomes an incredibly shallow game, and if you allow players to gain significant progression advantages that makes things even shallower (one of my early Darkfall fights involved me dealing ~10% damage to someone by striking them 21 times in melee, during the time it took them to kill me in 3 swings. It was a really shallow, really casual PVP game back then and I doubt much has changed.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Tbh, B&S has had the best combat I've experienced so far, but maybe that's because I main force master which can pretty much cheese everything in the game. That said, even playing a summoner or KFM, the overall combat is pretty relaxing and there have been many times I'll be grinding for hours doing dailies and such without even noticing how long I've been playing.
Agreed. I've always tended towards slower tab-target combat but my KFM in B&S felt fantastic. I think it's the first action combat in an MMO that I've really enjoyed. Unfortunately the game was visually overwhelming in group content and it made me feel epileptic.
played all above suggested games by other posters..
Believe me if you have patience to learn the ropes and grind
Darkfall has by far the best combat FPS pvp..
If only population and progression imbalances didn't render that potential meaningless.
You can take an incredibly deep game like chess, and the moment you let players bring more friends (population imbalance) it becomes an incredibly shallow game, and if you allow players to gain significant progression advantages that makes things even shallower (one of my early Darkfall fights involved me dealing ~10% damage to someone by striking them 21 times in melee, during the time it took them to kill me in 3 swings. It was a really shallow, really casual PVP game back then and I doubt much has changed.)
Part of what made Darkfall's combat so great was the fact that if you were a great player, it wouldn't matter that the other guy can kill you in 3 hits if he doesnt get to land them in the first place.
I've seen entire parties of mid to high stat/geared players get wiped out by a single vet in a robe and starter Leafblade who went and created a new alt account just to troll people on.
Doesn't matter how much stronger your character is when you can't aim, dodge, land spinning jump shots while kiting people, are easily outsmarted, etc.
Depth is generally defined as the number of meaningful decisions one has to make during combat. Not to be confused with complexity, which is simply a function of the number of moving parts.
Sure (and possibly), but I was angling at something like defining meaningful decisions type ambiguity, if you follow me.
Where WARs depth comes up short is in group abilities and resource management. There were really very few group abilities (e.g. buffs) that added any depth. Most tended to be group wide and on short cooldowns so didn't require any decision making, you just folded the skills into your rotation. On resource management, the fact that your energy replenished in 10s or so meant you never really had to make decisions about whether you could use a skill or not, there was no saving up for big burst phases or anything like that.
With that in mind, LotRO is the only game I've played with more depth. It didn't have as much CC, but it had a ton of inter-group abilities, situational abilities and much harder resource management. It meant that you, as a player, had to constantly make meaningful decisions about what skills to use and when to be able to get the most out of your character. Again though, depth only really came into play in group situations as when playing solo, a lot of skills became meaningless.
You make good points, CT. I certainly feel like WAR was at least several iterations away from getting to the great combat that I feel very strongly was at its core, ready to be fleshed out and fully realized. But of course we know how it ended, so I just have my personal feelings about the combat as testimonial--not much good to the rest of you.
Also, good call on LotRO, another memorable game with strong combat mechanics. I'm not personally that excited about either game's group ability systems, I have to add though. I feel like we differ in our opinions of those games to the extent that we differ in our esteem of those abilities. Not that I hated them but I always felt they were mostly gimmicky and not quite implemented with any sort of artistry or immersion. I tend to focus much more on the defensive/offensive targeting system in WAR, and in LotRO the classes like Captain and Minstrel that offered some real challenge to play very well, with always an eye on ally synergies and not personal glory.
For hotbar it was Blade and Soul's Assassin. For anything else it'd have to be EVE Online and no, not just clicking orbit and cycling your weapons. When you're doing shit like balancing ranges, working angles and distance as a frig when you're webbed by a larger hull, manually aiming against little targets with big guns, shutting off webs at the perfect time to force people using the ui commands to approach or fly away in a straight line for a second so you can nail them with one volley and a thousand other things then eve's combat is very deep. Having something on the line every time you undock doesn't hurt either.
The "what you press is what you get" feeling of WoW's combat is unmatched to this day. Some games came close, but none perfected combat responsiveness and smoothness the way WoW created it 12 years ago. And it's even better now in Legion with the new enhanced animations.
We are opposite people. I press 3 and I get a fireball. I press 2 and I stab someone with both daggers. I want to do these things, not press a button and watch it happen. The responsiveness is unmatched, but for me what it's built upon is fundamentally flawed.
Part of what made Darkfall's combat so great was the fact that if you were a great player, it wouldn't matter that the other guy can kill you in 3 hits if he doesnt get to land them in the first place.
I've seen entire parties of mid to high stat/geared players get wiped out by a single vet in a robe and starter Leafblade who went and created a new alt account just to troll people on.
Doesn't matter how much stronger your character is when you can't aim, dodge, land spinning jump shots while kiting people, are easily outsmarted, etc.
Uh, no. My 21 hits did ~10% damage. Meaning I would've had to have landed 210 hits to kill him.
I was objectively more skilled than my opponent (21 hits vs. 3) and lost by a landslide.
So in the vast majority of combat, population and progression end up being what carries players to victory (even if they're less skilled by a significant margin, as was the case in my example). Perhaps this balance has shifted since DF's original launch when I played, but I doubt it's shifted much.
Either way, games like Overwatch exist with just as much combat skill but zero non-skill factors (population is always balanced, and progression offers no advantages). So there's no reason to waste time in games like Darkfall, because superior (skill-centric) PVP exists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
I liked Champions Online combat too.
Not just combat is part of this equation, but also the classes. With the full 12 classes in AOC the amount of things going on around you both in pvp and pve was amazing. Spell weaving and frenzy, lack of level/gear dependence, stealth for all.. everything added up to probably the best non-tab open world pvp experiences possible.
Someone proving they were the best with a broken oar, carried meaning.
Other games have been better(much better), but just based on combat.. I won't back down from the above.
archeage and guild wars 1 for tab target combat
and for some reason i really miss city of heroes combat, there was something oddly satisfying going into a big pack of mobs and destroying everything.
WoW
WAR
EQ1 as a necro (but melee combat was kind of boring)
Essentially, auto attack is merely a combat mechanic that works mostly passively, adding a layer of chaos to build calculations but never hindering nor trivializing players' real time active gameplay (caveat: hunters some time ago, questing).
However, I do think that Gorwe is correct that SWTOR's combat is noticeably different, at times, from WoW's. Resource management for healer classes is a good example of this difference, where SWTOR's healers are capable of a burstier and a more dynamic style of healing than in WoW where healing is more paced and strategic. Both games in my view are excellent examples of the old tab target style MMO combat, though I would definitely want to acknowledge that WoW's raiding is more consistently challenging and of course polished (I think this counts as it's hard to assess combat outside of the actual combat--not simply punching a dummy).
I would personally, however, assert Warhammer Online's combat as the best, and certainly my own favourite. The complexity and symmetry of their defensive/offensive targetting system--along with an impressive host of interesting and powerful abilities--made this game great with even its woefully underdeveloped PVE systems and encounters. It makes me truly sad to think that we will likely not see a game of this type and this level of ambition attempted ever again, or at least in the foreseeable future (maybe I should say developed in the West, to be fair).
However, I feel it's combat system only came into it's own when doing balanced group pvp. Premade 6v6 was awesome - the interclass skills (such as guarding healers / dps) meant that fights actually went the distance and allowed a ton of tactics to come into play. Used to love it in scenarios where we'd all stack up our morales, then CC and dump all morales on the 12 opposition and wipe them out in a few seconds. Very satisfying!
The rest of the time, the combat system was just a little too skakey. Solo pve and group pve, there really wasn't much to it. DPS had simple rotations and you didn't need to worry about everyone dumping their morales at the same time, or careful use of CC. Tanks usually only had a few skills they actually had to use and healing was pretty straight forwards. In the majority of the pvp, the time-to-kill was so low that the combat system didn't get to shine.
..because we're gamers, damn it!! - William Massachusetts (Log Horizon)
Planetside was a big game for me and I did really enjoy it's combat mechanics. It was a title that employed a good variety of things on the battlefield to make it less of just a run and gun affair, and you had distinct strategies for sieging different types of buildings using different factions and vehicles.
I agree with @somersaultsam too about Defiance. Most the game was/is really not good, but they did make the third person shooter combat pretty good.
If I had to give a call out to a distinct best combat system, I would be remiss to claim any title actually deserves it at present though. They all have their niches for type of gameplay to consider, and moreover flaws by virtue of age or design. Maybe a categorical best of the moment, but it's hard pickings for most categories.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
But I absolutely agree with your view that WAR combat didn't really function very interestingly until you hit a numerical sweet spot in small scale, skirmish style, pvp. Part of this is owing to the fact that the pve combat was nearly non existent (not saying I didn't love some of the pve, regardless--hinting at public quests). Additionally, I would state that WAR's large scale pvp encounters didn't synergize particularly well with its defensive/offensive mechanic, though you might fairly point out that WAR's large scale pvp was not particularly well done, or again WAR's constant refrain underdeveloped.
From a fan service and lore/immersion point of view it might've been problematic, but I feel like WAR would've been more mechanically successful had it limited itself to the small scale pvp it actually had and added some small group pve dungeons (well designed and difficult, need i say?). I know someone out there wants to reply WAAAGH RVR!, and I just don't know what to do with that but I do feel it would've been a shame to cut it out altogether, if that means anything to the faithful.
I want to add my provocative point of view about TOR vs WoW responsiveness here, so I will. TOR's combat, while initially at launch very very not good and embarrassingly bad at times, ended up being more responsive than our ever-loving pinnacle of pristine response time combat overlord of the MMORPG World of Warcraft. There really was no point to that but I always wanted to post that.
So, yeh, WAR had a decent amount of depth from what I remember. I played a black orc for 6 months after release, then returned for a further 3 months later on. I didn't play any other classes to a high level, so experience is somewhat limited.
WARs depth came primarily from situational abilities which were mostly CC related from what I remember. Certainly my blorc had a ton of CC, so you'd have to pick and choose your timings for best effect. The morale abilities were also another good example of depth - do you blast off your morale 1 / 2 / 3 or wait to build up further?
Where WARs depth comes up short is in group abilities and resource management. There were really very few group abilities (e.g. buffs) that added any depth. Most tended to be group wide and on short cooldowns so didn't require any decision making, you just folded the skills into your rotation. On resource management, the fact that your energy replenished in 10s or so meant you never really had to make decisions about whether you could use a skill or not, there was no saving up for big burst phases or anything like that.
With that in mind, LotRO is the only game I've played with more depth. It didn't have as much CC, but it had a ton of inter-group abilities, situational abilities and much harder resource management. It meant that you, as a player, had to constantly make meaningful decisions about what skills to use and when to be able to get the most out of your character. Again though, depth only really came into play in group situations as when playing solo, a lot of skills became meaningless.
You can take an incredibly deep game like chess, and the moment you let players bring more friends (population imbalance) it becomes an incredibly shallow game, and if you allow players to gain significant progression advantages that makes things even shallower (one of my early Darkfall fights involved me dealing ~10% damage to someone by striking them 21 times in melee, during the time it took them to kill me in 3 swings. It was a really shallow, really casual PVP game back then and I doubt much has changed.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
TERA for magic combat. The acrobatics were incredible fun.
I've seen entire parties of mid to high stat/geared players get wiped out by a single vet in a robe and starter Leafblade who went and created a new alt account just to troll people on.
Doesn't matter how much stronger your character is when you can't aim, dodge, land spinning jump shots while kiting people, are easily outsmarted, etc.
You make good points, CT. I certainly feel like WAR was at least several iterations away from getting to the great combat that I feel very strongly was at its core, ready to be fleshed out and fully realized. But of course we know how it ended, so I just have my personal feelings about the combat as testimonial--not much good to the rest of you.
Also, good call on LotRO, another memorable game with strong combat mechanics. I'm not personally that excited about either game's group ability systems, I have to add though. I feel like we differ in our opinions of those games to the extent that we differ in our esteem of those abilities. Not that I hated them but I always felt they were mostly gimmicky and not quite implemented with any sort of artistry or immersion. I tend to focus much more on the defensive/offensive targeting system in WAR, and in LotRO the classes like Captain and Minstrel that offered some real challenge to play very well, with always an eye on ally synergies and not personal glory.
For anything else it'd have to be EVE Online and no, not just clicking orbit and cycling your weapons. When you're doing shit like balancing ranges, working angles and distance as a frig when you're webbed by a larger hull, manually aiming against little targets with big guns, shutting off webs at the perfect time to force people using the ui commands to approach or fly away in a straight line for a second so you can nail them with one volley and a thousand other things then eve's combat is very deep. Having something on the line every time you undock doesn't hurt either.
We are opposite people. I press 3 and I get a fireball. I press 2 and I stab someone with both daggers. I want to do these things, not press a button and watch it happen. The responsiveness is unmatched, but for me what it's built upon is fundamentally flawed.
I was objectively more skilled than my opponent (21 hits vs. 3) and lost by a landslide.
So in the vast majority of combat, population and progression end up being what carries players to victory (even if they're less skilled by a significant margin, as was the case in my example). Perhaps this balance has shifted since DF's original launch when I played, but I doubt it's shifted much.
Either way, games like Overwatch exist with just as much combat skill but zero non-skill factors (population is always balanced, and progression offers no advantages). So there's no reason to waste time in games like Darkfall, because superior (skill-centric) PVP exists.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver