Let's settle this once and for all. Card combat, Good or Bad

It started right after a large influx of PVPer's arrived, mostly from UO as I recall. Before this influx of combat lovers, it was a fixed deck with no focus penalty. If it distracts you and keeps you from being a better fighter, especially in PVP, then that is the reason it is happening. It is probably temporary because it is not Richard Garriott's style of combat, nor I think Starr Long's. So just test it and have fun. I have gone back to the fixed deck and will just grind more to make it powerful and make sure I move a lot so I don't die. It is a challenge I have given myself. However, I will not use fire spells because they damage over time. I am going for electrocuting everything with the lightening spell. It kills animals on contact and is known to stun a human player. Then I will go for the kill. Wish me luck. Maybe SoTA could let us use the water spell and then the lighting spell and just fry everyone--bzzt. I better invest in some rubber boots. Of course they will nerf the spell in a later release for awhile and then fix it. Testing a game can be tough. I haven't used the lightening spell since about January. Do you know if SoTA has nerfed it yet?

 

A scrum team for locked hotbar combat? Why when it works as intended?

A stepping stone for new players to transition into the random deck system.

Let's face it. The random deck system is the real combat system here. The locked deck is a false choice. You can play the whole game with it but at a disadvantage and not getting the actual SOTA experience.

 

I actually meant for a UI less combat and it should have been done when he first announced it in Kickstarter. But hey...

Which is

As may be, but Chris Spears announced it before the first combat conversation in Kickstarter/early (don't remember exact date, but just before everyone went on camera to talk about it). This has always been some of the dev teams plan.

 

Yeah, I wish I had known about this system before, I would not have pledged. The biggest draw to an RPG for me is killing things with other people. The combat plays a huge role in my enjoyment.

I'll likely only ever play to get my monthly hat, in hopes that they change the system in the future. We're still probably over a year from release, so there will always be hope I guess.

 

Same. I won't play the game again unless it takes a radical departure from what it is now and transforms into a traditional Ultimaesque system.

 

Im hoping for many changes also but Im also willing to test out what we have. Did you watch Envys video? I liked the tactical information he provided. Its a good video.

 

Zero GUI experience. So I decided to get deeper into zero GUI experience, and here is another video example. (Locked Deck).

Less UI more combat: The more I get used to it the more intuitive is combat, you can concentrate on real action as there are no GUI distractions.

Immersion: More exciting and challenging, combat is getting more and more natural and fluid a real immersive experience, learning from mistakes,
you have real feeling of achievement when killing mobs. (more RPG less DPS)

Visual/Audio feedback: New audio sounds are a nice addition helping to know delivered damage, proving that simple visual/audio effects are great feedback info.

I miss combos, a pity that Locked Deck users cant use them.

I found no way to get your own stats visible, health, mana, ofc you should know your own condition. ( I would suggest Devs giving us more freedom to show/hide GUI elements)

I lost my cloak in 3:18 after a backward double tap. (possible bug)

I would suggest everyone to give it a try, you will be surprised how fun and exciting it is and how fast you adapt to it.

 

Agree Borg, it looks soooooo much better without the UI/hotbar. Excellent!

 

Possibility of addons to get a minimalist UI?

 

I have to ask, do you think this system matches an RPG?

After all there actually was chaos in another game which this game could well copy for people who like chaos, Baldur's gate 2. It had a Chaos mage where there was X% chance of the spell you cast doing something completely different and you as the player actually signed up for that right up front. You also got different spells to take advantage of/control that randomness which fit the game world

So I ask, if this is what you think fits the game world then why not use it for EVERYTHING? you want to walk forward card comes up, if its the walk forward card you can walk forward
If you want to make a sword if the card comes up you can, otherwise you make a tea kettle or whatever else comes up
If you want to put your statue of the oracles head out the front of your house, if the card comes up you can otherwise no go
If you want to put a house on a plot you have to rely on whatever house card comes up
Even conversation, you want to act like this



but instead the cards decide you do this



This would be a good system right?

 

Since you quoted me... I can only respond... 3 words

Awww, you're cute

 

Sorry if that sounded different from what I intended (its early in the morning here and I haven't had much sleep), I wasn't trying to start a fight, I am just trying to understand why people think that everyone's combat should be hampered because a couple of people want to play chaotic characters. You really could set up a system where a character is completely insane, bloodlines the masquerade comes to mind where you can play Malkavian and the game actually adds a little chaos, not just in the form of the character acting differently and being able to effect other characters but you as the player can't trust what your choices are, you are never sure if it means what you think it does till you do it. That's AWESOME as long as that's what you sign up for up front. I haven't personally played that character yet but I watched a full "lets play" of someone playing it and it was SOOOO funny when he clicked on something intending to do one thing and his character suddenly lost the plot completely and did something completely against what he was trying to do as if the character really WAS insane and your the sane portion BARELY managing to hold him/her together

BUT this never effected anyone else, you could play the game completely normally and it has to be one of the best RPGs out there

The same with the chaos wizard, in this case it didn't effect your whole character but rather what they had available to cast because suddenly you cast the last spell you have left, some piddly little magic missile and OMG SHIIIIIIII HUGE FIREBALL. That's was the character I chose to play that time but again it had no effect on any other character

It certainly didn't come along and say "we are going to build a combat system around combos" and then say "but if you actually want to play like a normal person, controlling your character tough". It also didn't end up with spells being just different coloured particle effects rather than truly different spells because everything must be a viable choice because your reliant on what comes up. Instead it had a HUGE range of choices for spells which you could utilise in a world like this to make truly tactical combat ("there's a small gap between 2 cliffs and they have to come through there, if I use fire wall I can block that and then they will be stuck there and then if I cast fire ball they will have the choice of ruining through the wall and taking damage and then having to fight my melee companions or just standing there and eating the fire ball" for example). How awesomely tactical would THAT be? where you really had to make use of the environment and what was going on around you to succeed in combat

 

I guess I can see why you gave up on meaningful conversations regarding combat. You wont allow any facet of it to exist as it does today, simply for your own dislike of the system, regardless of how many others enjoy it. You go in with a defeatist attitude claiming it's impossible to balance. Which I disagree with completely. Or, you claim it will take too long, as if designing, implementing and balancing a whole new combat system would take less time. You are really reaching for excuses - you simply don't want it as even an option. And you gave no response to what the locked system could potentially be.

I am glad this game doesn't have ultima style combat, imo the combat was the worst part of all of those games. UO I thought had horrible combat. Yes, as most of you know I played since '99 and still have an active account (Recently moved to atlantic as pacific is fairly dead) Combat is still the weakest part of the system, although it has improved considerably since UO T2A.

 

High Baron Asguard - I was not trying to start a fight either ~smiles~ which is why i could only say the "your cute".. it was the best response i could give while trying to remain funny.

Now with the wording you have said. I can agree with that. I actually have RP'd and LARP'd a Malkavian for the longest time. They are not insane, they are just misunderstood ~laughs~

I can agree it is not for everyone. I would be open to choosing that is how I could play, choose to do it. Which we kind of are. They have now given us 3 ways to do it. Many choices, so absolutely not locked into any particular way. The new combat system kind of rocks.

I *Really* like the new method. You never know when your card is going to pop up, but you know WHERE it is going to pop up

I am just truly enjoying the random and chaos of it. Not surprising who I am and all. And, now that you have mentioned these other games that do it, I am actually going to look at them

 

@Mishri - waving your hands and saying it was strictly because "balance is too hard" is dismissing a lot of what I'm saying. Including the previous post where I laid out a TON of problems with it.

In terms of balance, I focused on that a lot in my response to you, because it directly applies to your question. And yes, balance will never be something nailed 100%. That can be a problem, but it isn't a deal breaker. Not on it's own because it isn't nailed 100% when you only have one system. It's why WoW still pushes patches. It's why games still change. Players find exploits, hammer them, the game changes, and the cycle continues. Having two distinct combat systems means having to balance all the skills twice. Every time there's a change.

And there's the second part of the balance problem, the resources to put into balancing it, and that it requires more resources to balance something that untested as opposed to an evolved combat or this revolution. That allocation raises the cost of running the game. You should be worried about that. But once again, you're missing my other point.

Not picking one style means both get held back. That's not balance, that's a quality of game issue. It's not hard to keep them locked up, but you don't even get a really good deck system out of it because it has to keep pace with a locked system. Neither does it's strengths to their best ability. Everyone loses as long as it's split.

Regardless of how many people enjoy it? (Looks up at the poll) That's the angle you want to argue on this? Are you sure? (Looks up at the poll again). We can... but I strongly advise you reconsider. Because it is actually one of the other points you waved your hands away and misrepresented. Public opinion. People are reporting that combat is something keeping people away from this game. It's not the style of combat many people want to play in a 3rd person RPG. It just isn't. Those who do want to play a game that focuses on that style of game. This isn't it.

Does that mean no one? Of course not. But lets not act like I'm one lone voice trying to destroy everyone else's fun.

Not that I would be. Because here's the other falacy, this is a new system being spun from very small pieces of work in other places. Taking a more traditional system and modifying it slightly would be the same amount, or less work from a balance issue, and from the game play so far, would work much the same way technically it does now. So no, I don't think it would be the end of the world... if they act soon. Because tick tick... time is running out.

And finally, there's the simple promise they made. If people don't enjoy it, if it doesn't work... they'll switch. That was point 6. People are saying they don't enjoy it. Are they going to switch? Or are we to head off defeated? Will they say "We aren't going to listen to you. " clearly and concisely? Or can we have a deadline that this will be fixed by?

 

That's an unofficial poll. If the dev's wanted to they can create one so each backer can vote. That poll means nothing. It's also the most skewed out of all the polls on the subject.

 

I say do a new pole after each combat update.

 

This is why it sucks to me,

Combat is mostly about running in circles until you get the right ability to be drawn, by chance mostly, but with quite a few options to configure the draw there is
no complexity to combat besides maneuvering - I see many stats but it seems a fraction of them are used in cards.. Usually I see one stat per ability?

I hate training abilities like it is currently, it's too much like a generic 2000's MMO and not enough like UO

Parrying and dodging is about "i used my parry card" instead of "is it possibly to successfully parry against a Hill Troll's slowed effect against him or other such things..

Negotiating enemies in the zones more about kiting enemies around or avoiding them all together than getting intelligently designed encounters. Too much action oriented and not really in a good way.

I admit I have had some fun but I don't think combat has had a big enough of a revolution thus far, I see it going in the wrong direction. The system is just totally underdeveloped IMHO. I think there are good elements to it but needs so much more development and background as well...

 

Would you like me to find more polls that say the same thing? Do you really think it's just wording? That really the people who said they don't like it got confused? Voted Buchanan by accident?

 

Totally agree.