Deck Combat Adjustment

Introduction

Per another thread on deck combat, @Ristra made a surprisingly simplistic and deep remark about combining the two systems, as have probably dozens (if not hundreds) of other backers to make the combat system not just "better" but "good". Many other threads have tried to make combat input less random or immersion breaking (from @Aetrion to @strumshot, off the top of my head, plus countless others who asked for auto-stacking since card combat was implemented), but this idea was significantly different in one way: instead of having two combat systems that had to be balanced against one another as well as against the AI, and without leaving in the random availability of skills, the card combat element (ie, drawing cards in a fight) would be an addition to the traditional combat styles of other MMOs.

Even with recent and opined changes in combat (such as making input less random and cumbersome), there are several immutable problems with the card combat system that are inherent in its design:

1. Skill Availability. You cannot rely on a skill being available when you need it. This removes a significant lure towards tactical gameplay and situational skills because those abilities (which cost precious skill points) may not be available when needed or applicable when available. This encourages min-max skillsets, to pick skills that are "100% useful, 100% of the time" versus other, more interesting and unique skills that will be sorely missed on the battlefield, having been sacrificed on the altar of efficiency.

2. Combat Accessibility. Card combat is not accessible to many players. It is among one of the biggest turn-offs of the game, if not the biggest, and that hurts the amount of players this community-based game requires. For a game that is focused on social mechanics and storyline, the combat is a thorn for many players; it should be accessible and easy to learn while remaining more than the standard "WoW hotbar", which in practice, is arguably similar in terms of button-mashing.

3. Micromanagement. Assuming that a heavy reliance on watching the hotbar to know skill inputs is somehow removed thoroughly enough with recent or upcoming changes, keeping more focus on the action, there is still a great deal of watching cards appear to stack and combo. The stacking and combo is meant as a reward for better gameplay and player skill, as well as an element of the entire deck building process. It still removes the player from much of the action, though, and breaks immersion as they're managing a deck of cards and fighting off a troll at the same time. To make the UI less invasive, feedback must come first and foremost from the action itself, not from hotbars and healthbars strewn about the screen.

4. Balance. Finally, having two combat systems based on two UIs in a classless, open skill-based game is a balancing nightmare. I would claim it's literally an impossibility to balance both locked and dealt combat systems in any practical measure; in the end, one will always be better than the other, even if only slightly. Throw advanced mob AI (we've been told) and suddenly the balance becomes more difficult. Are mobs balanced against reliability (locked) and tactical skills, or against multiple, rapidly dealt DPS-based combat decks? If they're balanced against the weaker combat system, then the "stronger" system will be even stronger against a gimped AI, or worse, the weaker combat system will be gimped against advanced AI. Don't even start with PvP.

Going forward, I will submit that my suggestion (and I hope the suggestions of others in this thread, which I will link in the aforementioned post) aims to not only make the combat tolerable in addressing these issues, but actually make it fun by doing more than simply fixing problems. It would be a well-rounded combat system that is both unique and engaging, while remaining simultaneously familiar to the last 20+ years of gaming as well as different enough to demand attention and practice to become skilled. In short, combat cannot be "better", it must be "good"; with today's recent revelation on possible direction, I think it can be "great".


Premise

To begin, the suggestion brought up by Ristra is that the combat system would be, at its core, traditional. We already have hotbars with both systems, so the argument against hotbars as a whole doesn't exist with dealt, locked or hybrid styles. Needless to say, there would only be one combat system, not two. Right away, this will help with the Balance issue of making two very different input and execution styles play nice. By traditional, I mean you would have access to any and all skills you've invested in, and have them readily available as expected in other games. This could mean multiple hotbars with abilities hotkeyed to more than just 1-0. It would be up to the player to determine how they want it set up; more simplistic playstyles could keep it equally simple and even hide the hotbar, knowing which key does what and how often. If anything, this removes the hotbar more than the current system we have (and have planned).

Because all skills are available in a traditional format, Skill Availability is no longer a problem. Being able to engage mobs or PvPers comes down to the player and their abilities in combat, not their abilities in wrangling a deck of cards, discarding and wiping until they get what they need. This keeps more attention on the action and makes combat feel less like a fight with chance or a race to out-DPS your health bar dropping, and more like a battle with your opponent. This also opens up mob AI to become far more interactive and engaging as having reliable skill availability puts the attention on the fight, and preparing for a monster is a matter of knowing how to use the skills you have (and will always have) to deal with their tactics. This is a big win in making mobs unique and do crazy stuff to take the grind out of leveling and mindlessly wailing on skeletons and wolves.

Being that the system is far more traditional, at its core, it will appeal to the casual MMO gamer who is accustomed to some style of this system from the myriad of games they've played and enjoyed. In short, Combat Accessibility is no longer an issue; the familiarity is enough to get players interested, and if combat isn't their strongsuit or what keeps them playing long-term, it isn't a detriment or a distraction to their gameplay and they can enjoy the many other elements SotA has to offer, especially all the social elements which keeps MMOs alive past their peak anyway (arguably SotA's major selling point).

The last issue would be that of Micromanaging your available skills in a fight, drawing more attention to the "game within the game" and breaking immersion, which is being actively polished currently with R18 but still not "fixed" in the long term. With a traditional hotbar-style combat system, the hotbar and much of the UI can, in theory, be turned off or minimized severely to enjoy more of the action on screen. The "feel" of combat becomes more intuitive, requiring less hotbar-gazing and cooldown monitoring, replaced by experience and muscle memory.

Doing all right? Deep breaths!



Good. So, where do cards come in at all, you ask?

Combos and "stacks".


Card Combat Modifiers

This is where, I hope, the suggestions may differ, if they differ at all. I'd like to think the above is favorably accepted by the majority of players after reading the rest (or divergent suggestions in this particular area). Per Ristra's suggestion, decks would still be developed and cards drawn, but they would be used for combos or perhaps modifiers ("stacking" as we have it now). One of the consistent arguments for card combat comes down to the combos and stacks, to keep it interesting and less repetitive, forcing players to stay focused on changing circumstances and quickly taking initiative to benefit from opportunities. I love this theory, but I stress theory because that doesn't exactly apply with the current system. For one, without reliable skills, you also cannot rely on combos being available, going back to picking skills that are always useful whenever they're available (stuns/mezzes, heals, DoTs, nukes) that are, again, good enough on their own. Additionally, locked hotbars cannot gain access to stacks or combos, and without completely throwing off balance further, likely can't ever be given such access without additional penalties elsewhere.

The cards, then, would be used to execute combos and "stacks" (or bonuses, modifiers, buffs, etc.), which will enhance skills, not determine skills. It still directly affects the fight and requires planned deck-building skills and that sort of pre-battle strategy, but it doesn't depend on deck building. You can ultimately fight with little to no reliance on cards or decks at all, but at an obvious cost in terms of raw power in a fight. More on this later, though; for now, know that cards will be behind the combo system, and will directly influence modifying attacks.

Still with me?




Skill Tree Changes

The system (which will further be explained below, patience please!) will still allow for deck-building, but open up combat for just aboutevery single playstylethis game is reaching out for. It also won't do it in shades of black (locked), white (dealt) or grey (hybrid), but rather varying colors from vibrant reds to deep purples and verdant greens. The way it does this is by making the cards and deck building a skill tree rather than the backbone of the entire system.

Think about it: one of the ways card combat was presented and celebrated was as a way of "crafting combat". This is exactly what this suggestion does, except this time, it doesn't chase off players who aren't thrilled by it nor does it penalize people for playing more "traditionally." However, it's still inherent in all of combat, and whether you spec into it or not, you will still be involved with using cards during combat; you can just be more efficient at it than someone who doesn't! Best of all, being that it's a skill tree, it becomes far easier to balance than incorporating every glyph of every skill between both combat systems and still incorporating new trees and skills down the line! It truly does what the box says when Chris and others say, "It's about freedom to play how you want to play"; love building decks for combat? Go for it, and have way more control over it than before!

So before we continue, we have to recognize a few changes to the skill trees and skills themselves:

1. Focus is no longer about deck building. Focus is one of the most oversaturated skills in the game, because it both covers Intelligence and casting buffs, fizzle chance decreases, Focus management, and the entirety of the card combat system. This makes even the most grizzled warriors invest heavily in a primarily mage-based tree, taking much of the "free form character customization" in terms of skills and abilities out of the game. Focus can then be more about tailoring to Focus benefits, fizzle chance decreases, cooldowns, and Focus management (regens, restores, second winds, etc.).

2. Create a Fortune Skill. This will be the new card skill tree. It will have many of the benefits and skills you see currently with Focus in regards to deck building and card combat, plus many more! This will include things like draw speed, deck hand sizes, cost to use cards (for combos and stacks), potency of combos/stacks, increasing chances of different types of cards and so on. More on Fortune later.

3. Skill Glyphs unlock cards. Since combat will be more traditional, the skills themselves will unlock cards as you invest in them. When you upgrade a glyph to its max potential (5 glyphs for active skills, for example), you will unlock a card from that skill tree. If you master all skills in a given tier, you will unlock an additional card (so 5 glyphs at Tier 1 = 2 cards; 15 glyphs for the three abilities at Tier 2 = 4 cards, for 6 total, and so on). This means if you just take 3-4 upgrades to a glyph to gain access to it or to reach prereqs for another skill, you won't get cards out of the investment. Upgrading your glyphs will inherit faster cooldowns and bonuses to using that skill (focus costs, adjusting min-max damage results, buff/debuff longevity and potency, etc., representing specializing in that type of attack or defense). But, at the same time, it will also unlock those cards needed to combo!

4. Combos only exist for mastered abilities (by default). If you have Thrust and Double-Slash, for example, but only mastered (5 glyphs) Thrust, just because you have the card to match with your Double-Slash (say, 4 glyphs) doesn't mean you can combo with it. So even though it's powerful and upgraded on its own, you cannot combo and create Quadruple Slash; that ability is no longer a strategic option for you in combat. This shoots a lot of min-max issues in the knees by dissuading people to take bare minimums to have their cake and eat it, too, and encourages players to use cards effectively rather than threaten them to or penalize them for not doing it. I say it is by default because other skills (in their given skill trees as well as in Fortune) may alleviate some of those prereqs by investing in skill capstones or in card building. Hooray, cross-training and hybrid skillsets!

Read all that? I mean, really read all that? You're not lying are you? Really?




The Cards

Currently, we get glyphs/cards of the skills we invest in. Those cards pop up in our hotbar and we stack or match for combos; they are strictly the ability itself, and if we have it, we can use it. If our skills are always available, though, how then do we use those same cards? If I have Thrust and Double-Slash in my hotbar already, how does a Thrust card help? Doesn't this just merge the two systems together rather sloppily?

Each tree will give you cards for that tree. For example, getting 5 Thrust glyphs gives me a Blades card (this could even look like traditional tarot, for all intents and purpose). I need to have a card to either buff a skill or use it to create a combo. Each skill tree has different modifiers on their cards; for example, Blades could be +10% Accuracy and +5 melee damage (just arbitrary right now). We have two options for this Blade card - watch how cool this can be:

1. We use the Blade card to buff an attack. This could be for a halberd or a mace, not just swords and daggers. Suddenly it isn't just about having a bunch of the same card to get more chances to stab as opposed to slash someone (yawnfest), but rather modifiers to make my attacks carry more weight. This can become super cool if you get a Moon card (say, +25% damage/health restored at night, briefly roots if backstabbing) and match it with an attack from stealth. Perhaps a Sun card with an arrow shot grants an accuracy debuff on the target during the day and reveals them and any stealthers around the target (cool glittery, radiant streamer visual effect would make it seem more impressive). Fire card on a gust to push and DoT; Earth card on a heal to increase defense while healing; Mace card to put some armor/stamina damage on a lightning bolt; Polearm card to knockback with a death field. These are just examples and no way implies what they would be, just what they could be (all off the top of my head).

OR

2. We can use the Blade card to create a combo. Instead of buffing, it would link up two skills, one of which would have to be a Blades skill. This will allow for a combo, which would be inherently stronger or more potent than just a buffed attack, but not overpoweringly so. Let's say a Quadruple Slash does a lot more damage, but it also has a chance to bleed or dizzy/stun or AoE attacks 180-degrees in front, as well. Combos will have those extra inherent side effects to make them not only more powerful, but tactically pertinent as well, rewarding players for using them efficiently.

The mechanics would be relatively straightforward: select the card you want to use, then either tap the two hotkeys for the skills to combo and execute them (on the second hotkey press) or double-tap the skill you want to buff and it'll execute it. Pretty simple, right?

Now, one thing I'd say is that another option for combos is that the cards themselves determine the combo. Instead of mixing skill and skill for a combo, you mix the type of skill (Blade) with Fireball to get a flaming blade attack. Or maybe a Blade card and a Fire card. Personally, I like the idea of mixing skills instead of cards, creates way more combinations, but it's a thought I'd throw out there.

Still going strong?



So now we understand what the cards are, how do we get them dealt? This could be through a lot of different ways, perhaps a small hotbar or series of icons that appear. Being color-coded with icons will help to let you know what's available out of your peripherals. Glyph or card/skill tree symbols could appear transparently around your character to let you know what your deck is drawing. We don't want to make it too intrusive, but it would only get "busy" for those dedicating a lot of skills into deck building, in which case it would still be less babysitting than what we have currently.

The strategy of the deck building would come in investing in Fortune, below, but to preface that section, cards would not be this button-mashing mini-game it currently is. It'd be far more delicate; cards would have significant cooldowns on them by default. You draw a card in combat and use it, that card isn't available again for some time, even after the fight. It may only be 5 minutes, but long enough that without points invested, you have to use those cards sparingly in a battle; you can't simply spam stacks and combos to out-DPS your opponent (the whole issue we have now). You'll want to use those cards more carefully. Even with the points invested, you'll get to redraw those cards faster but not any faster than every 2 minutes or so. However, those points invested in Fortune will mean larger decks to set up hands accordingly, less cost for swapping decks, bonuses for drawing cards more frequently and so on.

Finally, when you draw the cards are situational. Yes, you'll draw them eventually, but you'll draw certain types of cards more easily and when you need them if you place yourself in circumstances that raise those chances. Examples would be near water (lakes, beaches) would draw Water cards first and foremost with more regularity; caverns for Earth; getting attacked by multiple enemies would get your Defense and melee combat cards out faster. Hit with Death magic? Life cards would pop out quicker. It doesn't mean it will always pop up just because you got hit with that spell, but if you have a Water card in your deck and you're fighting around water, it'll get a bonus chance of being pulled more regularly.


Fortune Skills

Like Ultima and the Virtues SotA is so heavily based upon, fortune tellers were key to determining who you were. It's only right and natural that it does so again for those who feel destiny and fate are but sisters to whom we respect and admire, lest we suffer their indignation. The skill tree will allow players to specialize in using cards effectively in combat, their prayers or soothsaying divining what happens next to take advantage of it. Suddenly, cards don't represent character incompetence but foresight and wisdom, if not divine providence or outright "luck" (much in the way a Force-sensitive person may get lucky a lot and not know why).

Some ideas I had for Fortune, outside of the typical deck building options we already have, would be:

Doomsayer: Death, Fire and Moon cards draw more regularly (inherent bonuses on top of situational bonuses mentioned earlier).

Runesayer: Earth, Air and Focus cards draw more regularly.

Soothesayer: Life, Water and Sun cards draw more regularly.

Fortune's Favor: Chance a card is immediately returned to the deck to be redrawn without cooldown.

Divination: Cost for combos and stacking is less.

Foretelling: Decreases cooldown timers on spent cards.

Fool's Star: Discards a random card from the opponent.

Prognosticate: Temporary bonus to make Chaos spells less... chaotic?

Prophesy: Increases card bonuses when stacking.


Closing Statements

The way this system differs, now that you've read it all (you did read it all, right??), is that card combat is still about deck building and making it important to the combat gameplay. Whether you invest heavily in it or not, you still have access to the card decks. You may only have 3 cards in your hand without the Fortune skill, and when you use the cards you have to wait for 5-7 minutes or something between uses, making them more precious, but that means you have points to invest elsewhere.

So you can have someone who is totally cool with the current system still able to fight relatively the same way, with increased output and deck building control to create a really devilish strategy, and then someone who absolutely hates the card building and decides to use those points and pick up another skill or two. Doesn't have access to a lot of cards for stacks and combos, but he can dual wield swords and light armor against a mage, then pull out a poleax and heavy armor to beat up another warrior. He sacrifices the utility of fortune and chance to get those abilities off more regularly for sheer versatility, able to reliably handle any problem presented to him.

Likewise, you can have someone in the middle, investing enough points to get some more out of the cards, but also saving some points to buffer his other skills or pick up another skill altogether, depending on his build. As you can see, this quickly creates a lot more skill combinations than the current system. With reliable skill availability, tactical skills are important. Because you don't have to invest heavily in card combat, you can rely more on versatility and reliability rather than cards popping up or dropping off to hope for combos and stacks. Or you can pick something up in the middle and do a little bit of both, relying on several set skills while still benefiting from stacks and combos.

In essence, it takes the idea of dealt, locked and hybrid decks and fleshes them out, makes them feel less reliant on card combat no matter what you do or how you want to play, and becomes far more accessible to players not interested in card combat at all. More players = bigger community = more events, more PvPers, more guilds, more activity, more longevity. I'd also argue that the system brings more creativity and control over it than simple button-mashing, hoping good cards come up when you need them, and encouraging different builds from a wide variety of interesting skill trees.

 

I like this premise a lot, having the cards be separate from the skills retains the depth of an MMO without abandoning the deck building concept. The point of the draw should be to make you think how you can apply what you have in the most meaningful way, and that idea benefits from a two-dimensional system, where draw + ability creates the final effect, since that means you have to choose what ability you apply your draw to.

 

From the PoV of getting someone who prefer locked to get bonus powerups this seems like a perfect setup.

From the PoV of someone who prefer the random draw, your system forces them to use a locked bar for the skills. Only every now and then would the random bonus appear or be used.

From the PoV of deck building, your system encourages min-maxing of combos and getting those powerups. Getting exactly to the level of that bonus powerup will be paramount, so we will see many more specialists since your system gives out these powerups at the highest levels. So less trees, but deeper into the trees seems to be the thing it promotes.


Now at its core I like the concept of powerups, it gives a warm fuzzy feel when I think of getting some juicy powerups or even combos I planned while deck building.
But I wonder how this will affect the balance between low levels with none or few powerups, and between high levels who have access to plenty of powerups.
What I also like about the concept of powerups is that it requires skill and timing to get the best effect out of it. Something which is hard to script or macro. Someone who uses their powerups as soon as they appear should be at a disadvantage to someone who time them right or wait for a tactical combo.

Now I personnally don't like that you take away the basic random draw, for me it is key in taking away the tedium of repetetiveness of combat grind.

 

This was written in 2004,( UOX) Ten years ago............

So what happened here? why did they forget that clear vision of combat.

Drawing random cards to random slots for every single basic skill, forcing players to micromanaging is nonsense.

I share with you the vision of a combat system with random extras, advantages, powers and abilities or even curses or penalties
randomly delivered while in combat. Powers, combos and extras you could obtain in quests, or just by hitting a skill level.

Keeping 2 different combat systems is a bad idea, a night mare balancing, nonsense extra work.

A real RPG player doesn't care about DPS, cares about having fun and exciting encounters, so
YES feedback should come from action (visuals/audio), the less UI involved the better.

 

Assuming you want to rely on cards during combat. Having those skill points freed up to pick up other skills or invest more points into more skills to upgrade them (having all twenty of your skills upgraded to 5 instead of half at 5 and the rest at 3 or less) means you have the flexibility to determine how your character fights. If you like drawing cards and managing this deck for power-ups and more efficient comboing, great, you got it; you may have less attacks, but they will be relatively more powerful because you invest in power-ups and combos. But if you would rather rely on chaining a wide variety of skills or utilizing multiple skill types to be more well-rounded and versatile instead of a specialist, it would still be a legitimate and effective form of combat. The example I gave was someone who doesn't invest in Fortune having less opportunity to use those power-ups and combos, but having far more skills to handle a variety of opponents. Someone who invests in Fortune will be able to enhance and strengthen their skill set, but it may be far less versatile. Or, somewhere in the middle.

But if you don't want anything to do with cards, you aren't completely writing off the rest of the game to avoid it.

I can't imagine it'll be too different from the current system of imbalance where someone starting out can't even attempt to use a dealt system until level 15-20ish, plus all the innates that make them superhumans at higher levels. But luckily, when beta comes and we start balancing things, as far as card combat is concerned this system has it as an individual skill - something that'll be much easier to balance.

Specializing in Fortune would make the bulk of your attacks based on combos and power-ups, but you'd have skills that you can always depend on between combos and stacks. The Fortune skill could also be fleshed out further post launch to make it more involved or interesting, like I hope Chaos will become. But again, since it would be it's own skill, it wouldn't require balancing each and every skill plus locked vs. dealt vs. hybrid, and easier to hone in what makes it great without it influencing other skills where pure randomness detracts from combat.

It was also echoed pre-SotA when this was called The Ultimate RPG, but what we have now is much different than what was proposed leading up to launch.

 

Can we have this even if we don't implement the rest of your system? As a blades warrior, it makes no sense for me to spend so many points in "Magic" just so that I can get faster decks and they don't discard as much. You can put Fortune in it's own category rather than the current two categories.

Having said that, I do like your ideas a lot. I could see myself putting a lot of points in Fortune to get cards to do combos or buff my skills!

 

The idea of faster decks or optimizing decks is less appealing every time I hear it.

 

I have only had time to read the introduction. Strong start, although it leans more to the Cons of the deck system. So I am thinking when I toss in my 2 cents I will come from the Pros prospective. A counter balance / devil's advocate so to speak.

Will take some time, I need to do more homework. And, well, wife's birthday today so, yeah.

 

Thanks! It was Ristra's comment that got me thinking about it differently. As far as your question regarding Fortune (as a skill tree), I think it's a major issue so many points are invested in making a fundamental card combat system easier to use. If it was everyone had the same ability to draw cards, discard, etc. and then take whatever skills you want (but the card element is even between all people), then it would help a little bit with skill balances (warriors not penalized for investing in skills that aren't inherently advantageous just to be able to switch decks in a fight).

But ultimately, the other issues with the system still exist, and those issues are repeatedly brought up as "deal breakers" for many people. This attempt is to simultaneously attract new players and old backers who prefer something more traditional while still making the card combat a focal point of the system and something that can be more easily balanced and fleshed out.

I hate it, too, personally, and this is far from my ideal combat system. But I know my ideal system won't be put into place, not in any real capacity. This system is a compromise that I feel would allow traditionalists like me to get in and enjoy the freeform character development that skills provide while giving me the option to invest in card combat for its benefits. Not even that, it gives me benefits not to invest in cards, too; with our current system, it's "You have these cons if you don't like card combat." It should be, "If you don't like card combat, you can invest those points to have more abilities and more reliability in your skillsets without the specializing or reliance on cards." It's about positioning.

The fundamental idea behind my suggestion falls back on two mantras they've recited over the years:

1. Giving players the ability to play how they want. Open skill trees, no classes, online or offline play, and so on. Being able to play with cards and enjoy that system or play more traditionally and enjoy that system is what they're already trying. The problem is they're "balancing" it poorly and creating more questions than answers. Locked decks can't have combos or stacks; with this system, they can, but simply can't rely on them with any regularity unless they invest in it. If you like card combat, this system makes it a skill to invest in and actually make it far more interactive and specialized, I feel. You still have traditional means of attacking, though, to fill in the blanks.

2. Making combat unique. I've seen them refer to it as "crafting combat" or keeping combat interactive. This can be done with more than just pressing hotkeys, though; feedback from the environment, mobs and other players keeps combat far more interactive than hitting keys, be it 1,2,3,2,3,2,3,1,2,3,2,3 or whack-a-mole card combat. Either system can quickly grow routine and lose its novelty.

It doesn't focus on them in the end, just as an opener to set the stage for the problems a lot of people are having. There are significant cons to the deck system as it's currently designed, not just from a mechanics perspective but also from a vision perspective. Tons of people want to get immersed in this game, but the combat is so polarizing that it is driving people away. A central game mechanic like combat cannot be split 50/50 or even 60/40, either way; it needs to be closer to 80/20 "for" or better. If it was a side system or mini-game, then that's different, but unfortunately it is pertinent to just about every system in the game.

I think approaching card combat as a playstyle (which Chris has said multiple times, hence why we have locked as well) means looking at it as an option to play, hence a skill tree to define how you play differently. Mages don't play the same as warriors as healers as... well, card combatants. That's more or less what I'm trying to do with that post, is to change the direction card combat is implemented so we can all play how we want to play.

 

Good opening post and an interesting idea.

Couldn't this be implemented now as is, by locking a few skill slots, but leaving a few others populated with rotating combos?

 

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, so excuse me for that. Are you saying that it'll basically be a hybrid deck with random combos popping up instead of individual cards (that you would individually stack/combo like you can now)?

 

One of the reasons I do not post direct suggestions thread is because anything I would suggest ends up being major course corrections. For example, my time based loot suggestion. While it fits into the overall intent of what SotA seems to be for loot. It would require several timers to be coded and a few UI changes. Not hard but when you consider all the issues with database access and multiple user... anyway running off in the wrong topic.

The reason I like this topic is the suggestion should really only be UI changes. Balance changes, while very important, can come later. Like the addition of a fortune skill to parse out some melee skills from the mage focus skill.

So I think what @Duke_Andaluz is asking is couldn't this be done right away with minimal changes. I think this is true.

 

If a computer game is going to aim towards roleplaying in first or third person, and feature combat with weapons against colorful monsters, the obvious strength of any UI is in how invisible it is. The more you can "not see" or "not have to use" buttons that you push, the more realistic feeling the combat feels. The more invisible you make it, the "better" the experience.

The ultimate game of this genre would be one where you really felt you were throwing lightning bolts or swinging a sword at a monster, and holding up a shield in defense.

Obviously.

That's why the best games let you rely on number keystrokes, lots of them, that you set. You get to memorize that number 1 swings a particular attack, and this is a good thing to be able to do. It becomes second nature, and "real" feeling. You work towards more than one button or combo of buttons to make a more complex attack. We have all played games of this nature before. It works pretty well. It becomes second nature, and it quite "invisible" and doesn't screw up your belief in the game's atmosphere. You "fear" creatures more in a game like this with an invisible or mostly invisible interface.

The most pointed weakness to SOA's clumsy combat system is the way it destroys it's own best feature- which is your avatar combating dark beasties, or a fellow armored player, by using a deck of cards.

The concept is utterly illogical. It is illogical because the reason people used dice or cards in pen & paper and card games is because they had too. The abstraction of dice or cards was used because there were no "monsters to fight".

Once any game introduces creepy cemeteries and evil skeleton's rising from graveyards, the introduction of a deck destroys all vestiges of the fun that this more modern way of playing brings to the game.

It can't be argued otherwise with any actual foundation to debate from, because there simply isn't any.

It's a poor system, one that is destined to the trash bin of bad ideas before the game is even released.

It goes against the most basic design principles of elegant, simple UI logic.

You want the MONSTERS and PLACES to feel REAL, and you want the MECHANICS as INVISIBLE as is HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

That is how it is, for a quality game, in my opinion, and as far as I know, in the opinion of most other modern game designers.

In my opinion a CARD DECK can be used in the game- it just HAS TO BE CONFINED to when you are DEVISING your character's future strategy and design OUT OF THE WORLD.

In other words, this game and all similar genre games function best if the deck/bar is locked, and the "variables" are left to the ACTIONS OF THE ENEMY.

Enemy jumps on a hill? That effects things and is unpredictable.

Enemy fights while in water up to his knees- it adds a variable.

Enemy uses extra big stick- best pay attention and respond accordingly.

Roof falls on player when he casts a fireball- variable.

These are logical "surprises" that require a player to think and respond in a "real world" feeling way that the deck, with it's senseless, arbitrary, chance element has no comparison. With the deck, you fight the deck with no sense of realism or immersion. The system destroys interest in what is actually happening in the "world".

Why does it even exist, except to "prove" to the player that it isn't a real world, that it's all abstract and boring and without substance?

The system is wildly inferior to most traditional MMO's general combat systems, which aren't that realistic to begin with, in my opinion.

I agree the combat system needs to be more than better. It needs to be "good".

I suspect that "good" is impossible in a system that is so very wildly flawed in it's original concept.

 

I used to believe that the new random deck took away from the tedium of leveling up in combat until I became so good at using the deck that I started thinking of anything else not related to the fight in the game. In other words it became tedious and non-mentally challenging. I just match the cards automatically. I have given up on changing the deck or recommending anything for it. I am concentrating on fighting in other games instead. However, I will not sell my pledge. I just use it now to test combat, decorate my house and craft things. SoTA will never be a fun combat game for me with a random, tedious deck and I will never try to change it because their are so many other games to play and test. I look forward to crafting and socializing in SoTA when it goes retail, but never fighting. I just fight now to test the game for everyone's sake but not my own.

 

I agree completely with Otha's post above. It echos how I feel.

 

Heartily disagree. You have just told everyone two things: that LARPing is the epitome of the RPG genre, and that simulation is the ultimate gameplay.

I play games because I like "gaming". I like stats and strategy and possibility and clever moves. I play Dominion because it's a fun card game, not because it really makes me feel like I'm raising my own feifdom and conquering territories. I don't play XCOM because it genuinely makes me feel like I'm under alien invasion. I don't like simulation. I like games.

It is 100% possible for Shroud to be a fantastic game and keep a UI. It should not keep the one it has now, but we need to move away from idealistic absentee/minimalist arguments and towards constructive ones.

 

Tekkamansoul, have you actually ever done any honest to goodness LARPing before?

Isn't "Simulation" what UO before it, and Shroud today is all about when you buy a house and furnish it with items that seem "real"?

Do you want less realistic furniture, or more realistic furniture? You want to be able to "move it around" like real furniture- not draw a jack and therefore not be able to place that potted plant, right?

You want to be able to actually "sit" in a chair, because that makes it more like a real chair.

You hang trophies of your adventures on the walls, because the memories SHOULD feel like your character went into an actual place, and had a memorable, realistic, fun quest where he found some secret tunnel, walked into a painful trap, solved some wizard's puzzle, killed the Wizard's fire breathing minion, and then finally slew the vile necromancer himself in a fight that felt scary, REAL and satisfying.

Your position that you can't have strategy in a realistic feeling adventure, that you can't have "clever moves" in a roleplaying world, or that sustaining believability somehow hurts the GAMING factor, is hard for me to comprehend.

Obviously, some people like to play video poker too. I'm not sure that is reason to meld video poker into a PC game that features fighting animated monsters on a screen with a sword-wielding, magic using avatar that features roleplaying, character building features if you have to concentrate on the card hand during the epic Beholder-battle, however.

Once one decides that their game is going to simulate a pretty realistic system of crafting using tools and plants, wildlife, and ores found in nature, and also include a quite immersive and realistic housing system that features extremely realistic looking items you can save, place, turn and keep as your own....it is quite puzzling, illogical, and un-immersive to find the combat system forces you out of the game world into another sort of much more abstract game world of cards and chance that is obviously at counter purpose to ALL of the rest of the game.

Which would be realistic immersion- making believe that your little avatar has a life, a house, a career.

All games have UI of one sort or another. All the ones that have deep and immersive "worlds" that succeed do not break the immersion with systems that counter the basic world itself by breaking it and taking you out of it at what most players would consider to be the "high point" or most adventuresome section of play. That is the area of the game where you most care about what happens to your personal avatar, is it not?

Yet, currently when you use experience combat in Shroud, you are the "farthest removed" from you character during combat itself. Instead of being concerned about where whatever is striking your character with what, you are busy with an abstracted and quite arbitrary card deck. All character immersion is lost.

I understand that roleplaying might not be your thing, that the idea of being immersed in another world isn't for everyone- but it is for me, and RG did build his reputation on the most immersive, roleplaying friendly, deep and interesting games of all time.

I figure that since I pledged some 800 plus bucks into the game, I can offer my opinion as an artist and gaming conceptual designer of some 20+ years experience, full time.

You don't have to agree with my opinions though, and, as you can probably tell, I do enjoy a good debate.

 

It is. The more of the core essence of a concept you can get into the partaking of that concept, the closer to the epitome it is. In truth, MMORPGS aren't as far off from LARPS as most players would like to think.

LARPing gets a bad rap because it's got an absolutely horrible community. (Source, I'm an ex-larper.) It's a lot of fun, but the people in it tend to ruin it for anyone who just wants to do something casual.

Some thoughts on that.

1) You're jumbling your game genres. You're liking aspects that role-playing games share with other genres. That's cool. But the "role-playing" part is the core of the game.

2) What you like is important, but remember this is a game where the lead designer incorporated the friends he made while ... something (they hate it being called a LARP, but it totally is)... at the Society for Creative Anachronism. His design values come from that background. Many of us pledged solely on his name alone, and the background he brings to design.

It is 100% possible for shroud to be a great game and keep the UI. But the guy in charge doesn't want a UI, he wants a game where that isn't needed. Where the world you're in cues you to what you're supposed to do.

Besides, this isn't a guy who shoots for a great game. He shoots for more than that.

 

With most game designs, there are times when a team pursues a section of their design for some time that just doesn't pan out. It happens a lot more than gamers think. I remember quite late in the production of the single player section of Neverwinter Nights, that the entire SP included adventure got shucked completely when the decision was made to make the SP portion a stronger section of the whole game, which originally was envisioned as, for the most part, a primarily MP game.

Many players today remember NN ONLY for it's included SP game. It's hard to believe that it almost had only a sort of "sample" SP adventure for people to experience so that they could "build their own".

You can imagine the team going nuts, when the whole SP story was tossed and they had to start over with only months left before the game was released. The lawyers decided to push the SP module on the box art. Suddenly this primarily MP game was also a SP game.

Stuff like this happens. It still is an absolutely classic game, even with that mis-step.

So, in my opinion, this combat system still COULD change a LOT. As in the deck system being tossed out. We shouldn't just accept it and pretend it's okay if it sucks bad, and neither should RG and company. There comes a point when a smart design head realizes that tossing more perfectly good money and resources into an idea that doesn't really work to begin with is a bad thing to do. Sometimes you have to bite that bullet, and go a different direction, if you want your game to be the best it can be.

Maybe it will take a 10$ bonus pledge from 5000 backers to do it.

I would be aboard that. I volunteer.

Just don't saddle me with a game with a fantastic housing system and nice immersive, busy crafting ideas, and that craptastic world-destroying deck nonsense. It's bad game design anyway you play out your hand. I can see that it's a sort of abstraction designed to save a lot of man-hours in AI work, but that is irrelevant if it makes the game creaky and largely unplayable as a roleplaying game in the lineage of the excellent Ultimas before it.

And don't you card playing wheeler-dealers give me any shenanigans that Shroud doesn't carry that herald, because it does. It has the same housing magnificence and interesting, detailed crafting details. There is no good reason on Tolkien's green Middle-Earth that it can't have a simple, elegant combat system that encourages RP and lets people fight e-vile monsters, rather than the horrid UI beastie itself.

 

I would second Otha's pledge with a match + another $10.

I want that "great" game.