Best examples of Action Combat? Starting to Feel Like Tab > Action

We have not received permission from Nerror to share the quoted post.

Same.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

You keep dismissing L2's updates, but each of them added new mechanics, new gear, new mobs, new bosses, new locations (which brought new castles and fortresses in the older updates), new skills and rebalance to old ones, with some updates changing the world completely or adding new races and classes.

Here's a video that shows biggest bosses/locations in the updates and here's a video that tells about the updates in more detail (autosubs are passable for the overall info).

I'm sure that EQ's expansions are cool and big too, but if you combine 2 L2 updates (that came out ~every 6 months) into one yearly update, I bet they'd be close to EQ's in size and in quantity, even though L2 came out several years later.

There's also this small article that tells even more detail about a group of updates, just to show the approximate size of them better.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

I dunno how fast AA got its updates, but in L2 you could fight the same person across several updates and get different results because of the class rebalances or new gear that either of you acquired or new people that either of your parties got (cause usually you'd be pvping in parties instead of 1v1).

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Why would I, as a pvp player, care about the other player winning though? If I lost - I still lost, no matter if I lost in pvp or pve. Your example of 1% of wins in pve is literally the same as some newb only winning once against a better/more geared pvper out of 100 fights. Except for some reason people leave when that happens, while they continue bashing their heads against a dumb mob for 100 more times.

Why is that? Maybe cause the PvErs are the ones who're getting cuddled by easier pve? But, just as you said, if you only clear easy pve then you'll never get to hardcore stuff that only a few can clear. Then why wouldn't that apply to pvp too? If you're a casual, you don't go fighting lvl50 mobs at lvl25. So why would you go fighting lvl50 players when you're at lvl25? And Ashes will have a system that prevents those lvl50s from fighting you, so that part of the pvp gameplay won't even touch you. At which point, the pvp game is no different than a pve game.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Except it takes way more time to create content than to consume it. And if devs make content that takes months to clear, people complain that it's too difficult/grindy/etc. Which is why most companies these days just make fast content and are ok with people leaving the game until the next batch of content comes online.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

And how many of those games were faction-based and had free PKing of the opposite side? From what I've heard, not that many people complain about BDO's pvp system because it's way closer to L2's/AoC's karma/corruption one, so people can't just freely genocide others which allows casuals to enjoy their game w/o worry, while hardcores enjoy their own fights. Though maybe I just missed those complains, so if you have any source for them - I'd love to see it.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

What is the reward for those who fail to clear an instanced super difficult boss 100 times in a row? What keeps them coming back each time? They're losers for a 100 consecutive times, so why don't they just leave the game, just how pvp losers do (at least you claim they do)? Is it the potential reward? The dim light at the end of the loser tunnel?

Why not have the same reward for pvp? If anything, that's exactly what Ashes is trying to do. The reward is caravan, castle, node, loot, pvp-event-based rewards, etc etc. You can lose 99 times in a pvp battle, but get the reward on the 100th time. Except what's different, from you doing the same thing in pve, is that you're fighting against people rather than a mob.

And if the problem is "one side wins and gets stronger, while the other loses and has to catch up even more", then it's on Intrepid to balance the system in such a way that the winning side has diminishing returns, while the losers don't get set back by days because of a loss. I definitely agree that there should be snowball-preventing mechanics in the game, mainly in the form of good gear tier balance and higher costs of upkeep/progress for those at the top. And I've even proposed systems that would support this here and here .

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

You know what the funny thing is. Most people who still play L2 usually hop between new servers every few weeks or a month. So in a way, L2 went the way of the sessional games. Yes, there's a few big private servers that have been up for years at this point and they have quite a few thousand players there, but those are usually a rarity because it takes a lot of money and time to properly set up a server that would support thousands of people playing it for that long.

And obviously Intrepid should aim for the latter situation, though I would be interested in seeing a month-long mmo that resets characters and the world every month while giving them some sort of slow overall progress. Maybe some "generational mmorpg" where your character "dies" after some period of time, but your "family" continues. And you could have some cataclysmic events here and there that would wipe all the oldies and their gear, while introducing some new progress mechanic. This way you'd have the feeling of constant progress/leveling w/o having it all be at max lvl.

NiKr wrote: »

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Why would I, as a pvp player, care about the other player winning though? If I lost - I still lost, no matter if I lost in pvp or pve. Your example of 1% of wins in pve is literally the same as some newb only winning once against a better/more geared pvper out of 100 fights. Except for some reason people leave when that happens, while they continue bashing their heads against a dumb mob for 100 more times.

Why is that? Maybe cause the PvErs are the ones who're getting cuddled by easier pve? But, just as you said, if you only clear easy pve then you'll never get to hardcore stuff that only a few can clear. Then why wouldn't that apply to pvp too? If you're a casual, you don't go fighting lvl50 mobs at lvl25. So why would you go fighting lvl50 players when you're at lvl25? And Ashes will have a system that prevents those lvl50s from fighting you, so that part of the pvp gameplay won't even touch you. At which point, the pvp game is no different than a pve game.

I can give you a massive pile of reasons why Noaani is entirely right here, but I won't derail the overall thread with it if you don't care (technically, after all, we are still discussing good reasons to have Action vs Tab Combat even if it is shifting into PvP vs PvE reasonings). Here are the most important 3, and since they have entirely to do with the psychology of players, you can just dismiss them all as 'traits of people you don't consider important'.

1. Because players adapt and bosses don't , people who lose to bosses feel like they are unraveling a puzzle, and that 'because someone can do it, and it was designed by a person, it must be possible', so they are more willing to keep trying. PvP does not have this property.
2. Because players can look at a situation, know that in order to participate in an enjoyable and successful way in that situation means needing to defeat another player of potentially superior skill and investment , and then choose to avoid that situation. The problem arises when most of the game is 'that situation' for a player.
3. Because players are mostly 'regular human beings' and the 'regular human being' response to 'being defeated by a mob over and over is 'this sucks but I can deal with it on my terms' (see #1 and #2) whereas losing to other players tends to trigger feelings of bullying and social demotion which our species is conditioned to avoid, sometimes at extreme cost.

Azherae wrote: »

word

Yeah, I guess I'm just built different , cause I see none of those as good reasons But yes, this has gone too far from the og topic.

Though I think I might tie it back in. In yall's opinion, what's better for casual pvp players: an action combat system where the player has to be very mechanically good to even come close to the better players, or a tab/hybrid system where you can take your time learning about bot/all classes and come up with strategical ways of overcoming power differences (alternatively you could just look up a guide)?

Imo tab is way better for the pvp casuals because the floor is way lower and allows them to "take it at their own pace", while if a casual player doesn't know how to noscope360fromabackflip - they ain't winning in pvp. Well, that is, if the game is even a step above the usual "action combat is just aoes".

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

word

Yeah, I guess I'm just built different , cause I see none of those as good reasons But yes, this has gone too far from the og topic.

Though I think I might tie it back in. In yall's opinion, what's better for casual pvp players: an action combat system where the player has to be very mechanically good to even come close to the better players, or a tab/hybrid system where you can take your time learning about bot/all classes and come up with strategical ways of overcoming power differences (alternatively you could just look up a guide)?

Imo tab is way better for the pvp casuals because the floor is way lower and allows them to "take it at their own pace", while if a casual player doesn't know how to noscope360fromabackflip - they ain't winning in pvp. Well, that is, if the game is even a step above the usual "action combat is just aoes".

I believe that the optimal method for a wholistic game where people want to continue playing and are willing to play it in addition to, or more than, a different genre, is that the game must have Action-Lite combat. The design of such a system could be easily determined from the principles of the desired experience for the game. I certainly believe that if the overall community or Director can define exactly what the psychological goals of PvP situations are, someone like the aforementioned Douglas Miller (hi!) could do this.

Heavy Action style combat has too many performance flaws and too high a learning curve while not mechanically adding much that is useful to the Genre, imo. BDO fits in here.

I as usual don't believe in 'Hybrid' in the way it is discussed by most posters, because the word does not have a meaning, but as usual I will not hold Steven to 'the meanings of old terms used', and it's a good buzzword.

The precise system needed to please the maximum number of players is 'Spacing matters for attack abilities, defensive buffs matter, defensive skills are tab targeted, offensive debuffs can be tab targeted but have a range limit (usually short)'.

Pure Tab is bad because it removes 'Spacing Matters for Attack Abilities'. Note that I refer to positional spacing, not range. MOBAs perfected this system so hard that even FFXIV's newest 'PvP arena' is literally just a gear-homogenized MOBA. They know what people want, so they do it.

Azherae wrote: »

Pure Tab is bad because it removes 'Spacing Matters for Attack Abilities'. Note that I refer to positional spacing, not range. MOBAs perfected this system so hard that even FFXIV's newest 'PvP arena' is literally just a gear-homogenized MOBA. They know what people want, so they do it.

Could you extrapolate on this? Cause I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, if you're not talking about range-based spacing.

Do you mean smth like "I stand here, my enemy is at the front and does X amount of damage, but if they're at the back then it's Y dmg, and Z dmg from the sides"?

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Pure Tab is bad because it removes 'Spacing Matters for Attack Abilities'. Note that I refer to positional spacing, not range. MOBAs perfected this system so hard that even FFXIV's newest 'PvP arena' is literally just a gear-homogenized MOBA. They know what people want, so they do it.

Could you extrapolate on this? Cause I'm not sure if I completely understand what you mean, if you're not talking about range-based spacing.

Do you mean smth like "I stand here, my enemy is at the front and does X amount of damage, but if they're at the back then it's Y dmg, and Z dmg from the sides"?

That's basically correct, yes. Sometimes this means that the ability will feel exactly like Action, sometimes it doesn't. Let's take a 'draw in' Javelin style ability. We assume an attack cone in front of the player. If the enemy is within the cone, they are hit and pulled in. The enemy knows 'If I want to avoid being in range of this attack I can move backward or to the side'.

Similarly a leaping downstrike shockwave with a weapon doing damage in a circle, with damage being reduced when the enemy hurtbox is toward the edges of the circle. The Attacker wants to kill the Healer, they have to target the ability so that the Healer is in the center of the attack, the healer can react by repositioning. They all end up being what most people call 'ground target', though it isn't usually quite that simple if the game is trying to be complex, because the requirement of movement creates interplay.

All I'm saying is that Tab in some games makes it so that the player can't 'see the position of their opponent and make a decision' unless the ability is limited in basically the same way, which frustrates people because they don't 'know the range'. In the case of the leaping downstrike, you'd get more of a 'I am targeting the Healer, this ability will hit the Healer as the center even if they move, and the only aspect of the shockwave damage is who was standing closer to the Healer'. The attacker no longer needs to have the skill to threaten, reposition, feint, or anticipate the enemy, so all the related interactions are lost.

Actually I can more specifically illustrate the concept using exactly the same two abilities @NiKr

With the Javelin, assume it has priority, it pulls one enemy, the enemy 'closest to the center of the cone' (this calculation is fine since skill calculations can be complex).

Now you have 'I can hide behind another player'. 'I can coordinate with another player who leaps into the way', 'I can backstep and and trick my enemy into pulling my Summon to them instead'.

With Tab Targeted Javelin (not saying that Ashes would have this) you can't do THOSE things, explicitly, you couldn't 'be in range, and remain in range due to a scheming plan'.

For the leap, if the leap has a set distance, or a minimum distance of 2m (after all, it's not really a leap then and you should probably be using a different skill) then 'using that leap while close up' would fail, but there would be no case for any 'autocorrection' for 'I chose to leap and my enemy charged at me'.

Whereas in many Tab games, the outcome of that interaction would be 'I leapt at my Tab Targeted enemy but their charge did nothing to help them evade my leap, I just hit them anyway'. That sort of thing reduces the skill and complexity of the combat enough both in PvP and PvE that some people find it too simplistic for a modern game.

Azherae wrote: »

word

L2 played great with this system. Daggers had abilities that only worked if you hit your target's back. And they'd have a chance to work from the side, but quite rarely, and 0 dmg from the front. Tanks had a cone of their shield def, where if they met an attack with their shield - their "shield dmg mitigation" passive would work and decrease that dmg. So phys attackers would always try to CC them and move to the non-shielded side. There'd be several abilities that were action-based or ground-targeted.

Azherae wrote: »

All I'm saying is that Tab in some games makes it so that the player can't 'see the position of their opponent and make a decision' unless the ability is limited in basically the same way, which frustrates people because they don't 'know the range'.

Do they not see/know the range of the ability because of the UI? Cause L2 just had a "range" descriptor on abilities, both for distance moved and aoe radius. You had abilities that had a tab target and worked as you explained in the example, or you had pure action that worked based on your character's direction and you had to know/feel the distance to properly hit your target, which imo is the skill-testing part of the ability.

Azherae wrote: »

Whereas in many Tab games, the outcome of that interaction would be 'I leapt at my Tab Targeted enemy but their charge did nothing to help them evade my leap, I just hit them anyway'. That sort of thing reduces the skill and complexity of the combat enough both in PvP and PvE that some people find it too simplistic for a modern game.

And the best solution to this kind of problem that I see is to have a tab target system that has action abilities, which, to my knowledge, is most tab games.

So, at the end, it always comes down to developers and how they wanna make it. And, as you said, we gotta tell Intrepid what we wanna have in the game and Intrepid will need to find a way to realize those suggestions within their chosen system.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

word

L2 played great with this system. Daggers had abilities that only worked if you hit your target's back. And they'd have a chance to work from the side, but quite rarely, and 0 dmg from the front. Tanks had a cone of their shield def, where if they met an attack with their shield - their "shield dmg mitigation" passive would work and decrease that dmg. So phys attackers would always try to CC them and move to the non-shielded side. There'd be several abilities that were action-based or ground-targeted.

Azherae wrote: »

All I'm saying is that Tab in some games makes it so that the player can't 'see the position of their opponent and make a decision' unless the ability is limited in basically the same way, which frustrates people because they don't 'know the range'.

Do they not see/know the range of the ability because of the UI? Cause L2 just had a "range" descriptor on abilities, both for distance moved and aoe radius. You had abilities that had a tab target and worked as you explained in the example, or you had pure action that worked based on your character's direction and you had to know/feel the distance to properly hit your target, which imo is the skill-testing part of the ability.

Bear in mind that every one of us who has played different games have different priors and base assumptions.

If you played a 'Tab Target' game where range matters that much, then calling it 'Tab Target' might miss some people's perspectives. This is why I don't like the terms (though I don't fault Intrepid for using them).

There are Tab Target games that involve 'autofacing', 'abilities that hit even if your opponent moves perfectly as if to avoid it', 'interactions that mostly involve no repositioning or commitment so you can stand pretty simply around relative to the enemy'.

At that point, Tab vs Ground Target is decided by 'will my ability strike my opponent even if I don't anticipate their movement'. A game where you 'select' a target but your abilities don't auto-target your selection and don't auto-track their movement, I would question what the Tab Targeting is for (beyond changing priority of a target within a group that would all be hit, or Tab-Targeting allies for heals and buffs).

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Whereas in many Tab games, the outcome of that interaction would be 'I leapt at my Tab Targeted enemy but their charge did nothing to help them evade my leap, I just hit them anyway'. That sort of thing reduces the skill and complexity of the combat enough both in PvP and PvE that some people find it too simplistic for a modern game.

And the best solution to this kind of problem that I see is to have a tab target system that has action abilities, which, to my knowledge, is most tab games.

So, at the end, it always comes down to developers and how they wanna make it. And, as you said, we gotta tell Intrepid what we wanna have in the game and Intrepid will need to find a way to realize those suggestions within their chosen system.

Maybe so, but then we're back to interacting with OP's point.

"When is Action good, why don't we just always use Tab?"

Short of 'asking Tyranthraxus to fill out a questionnaire about what they feel Tab Targeted abilities should and should not do', there's no way to be sure. I'd assume that L2 players will be talking about what you described. Similarly, there's no quick and easy way to understand what someone means when they say "I want Action Combat".

Cleric has a 'Javelin' style skill that I would expect to be thrown forward at the first target within a cone and ignore any Tab Targeting. As of Alpha-1 (at some point) that ability sort of 'homed in on' my Tab Target. I wouldn't want this. If a player said "I don't see the point of Action Combat, I don't want my Javelin to miss because my opponent moved (even out of a cone)", that person 'doesn't want spacing to matter' and 'doesn't want movement to matter'.

When that person hears from Intrepid 'You can choose skills to be Tab Target', sees Alpha-1 footage of that attack 'homing in', and goes 'that looks great, why would you ever want anything else', the question is what to tell that person.

Azherae wrote: »

If you played a 'Tab Target' game where range matters that much, then calling it 'Tab Target' might miss some people's perspectives. This is why I don't like the terms (though I don't fault Intrepid for using them).

True, pretty much any/every ability in L2 had its range stat and the better players would know those by feel and move on the battlefield accordingly.

Azherae wrote: »

There are Tab Target games that involve 'autofacing', 'abilities that hit even if your opponent moves perfectly as if to avoid it', 'interactions that mostly involve no repositioning or commitment so you can stand pretty simply around relative to the enemy'.

And L2 had those too If you were out of range of the ability you wanted to use, and had a target selected, your character would auto-move towards the target to get in range. All weapon in the game were melee if you wanted to auto-attack with them, so mages that had action-based cone abilities with short range would usually select a target, press auto-attack so that their character turns and runs towards their target, and then use the action ability as soon as they thought they were in range.

And most tab ranged abilities would allow you to just stand in one place and spam them, because your character would turn/move with your target.

Azherae wrote: »

At that point, Tab vs Ground Target is decided by 'will my ability strike my opponent even if I don't anticipate their movement'. A game where you 'select' a target but your abilities don't auto-target your selection and don't auto-track their movement, I would question what the Tab Targeting is for (beyond changing priority of a target within a group that would all be hit, or Tab-Targeting allies for heals and buffs).

Tab is there for other abilities. The more updates L2 got, the more variety in abilities it had. With my favorite class of Soul Hound having mage and phys abilities, with several of those being purely action-based or purely tab, so you had to know ranges of your abilities and move across the field appropriately so that you could use your whole skillset.

Azherae wrote: »

When that person hears from Intrepid 'You can choose skills to be Tab Target', sees Alpha-1 footage of that attack 'homing in', and goes 'that looks great, why would you ever want anything else', the question is what to tell that person.

Yep, that's the biggest issue Intrepid have ahead of them if they go with their currently planned combat system. I myself don't know how they'll balance that system cause I'd have similar issues. If I have a choice - why choose the one that can miss. L2 had no choice so it was just "ok, this one is action so I gotta learn how to use it in the best way, and this one is tab so I'll just use it when the timing's right", and the combat required you to use both of those in the best way.

But if Ashes decides to keep the "change the base system for the ability" feature, I expect some intricate design where both version of the ability have their own benefits, so it's a choice instead of one being just better than the other.