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

I truly enjoyed the random deck and became really good at using it when I was fighting against the AI. However, I still miss being able to pay attention to the screen and not look at my keys or any glyphs. The better the devs. make the game look , the more I want to play with a fixed deck. I just wish the fixed deck did not have a focus penalty from the start. I know it is for balance and to get us to use the random deck, but I still prefer the fixed deck, even with all the balance challenges and nerfs. But I think the random deck would be fantastic for a turn-based RPG. I wouldn't mind if SoTA was one, but I think PVPer's would hate that.

 

What would it take for you to accept that public opinion on combat is at a level that is unacceptable? An official poll with public results? What would the number of respondents need to be? What percentage of those respondents answering negatively would you consider to be a significant amount that necessitated addressing?

Do you have faith that the dev team understands what is and is not fun about the game? Have you found combat prior to R18 fun?

 

People don't understand that even 70/30 FOR is unacceptable. There's this vibe that the polls aren't statistically relevant (funnily enough, back when the poll was sub-100, and yet now is over 200 - that's ironic) or that they aren't accurate ("not everyone who loves the game votes on forums") - if we are to assume, for a moment, that the split is even majority enjoy the system, more so than even a 60/40 split in favor of combat (basically opposite of what this poll suggests), that's still a game killer.

You cannot have a successful game, in any capacity, wherein a major, fundamental, primary game mechanic that is ultimately to be used by nearly 100% of the player population on a regular basis be, in any way, shape or form, controversial. There are no successful games with core mechanics that are so significantly flawed as SotA's combat; you simply cannot pull that off. Yes, R18 does a lot to make the combat easier and less frustrating, much in the same way chopping off your little finger is easier and less frustrating than severing your entire arm. Relative changes that make a bad system better does a lot for the people who are already "sold" on the game; for those who are not, or those who already find combat a deal-breaker in its current format, nothing short of "good" will change that.

We cannot accept controversial, core game mechanics at launch, nor should we from the likes of Lord British and Company.

 

Ristra, I'm honestly confused as to what you are even trying to say here.

 

The other polls are close to 50/50.

 

An official poll that went out(via e-mail) to players who have played the latest release (R18) and engaged in combat. and used the random system. (Preferably for multiple encounters)

Yes, I've enjoyed the combat since the random deck has come out.

Fun is in the eye of the beholder. What is fun for me is what is fun for everyone else, and vice versa. I tend to find most games (especially CRPGs) to be incredibly boring... It's rare I find a game I want to play for more than a few hours.

On a side note, I don't like the implementation of the static slots for the random deck. Mostly because I don't want to limit how many of something I can have. If they implemented it so a slot is a single spell/skill and opened up how many slots we had then that would work for me. hand size can remain, but hand size != # of slots, then when you draw multiples of the same spell it would have a number to indicate how many of those you have. Would work much better for my play style. As it is I don't want to use the static slots.

 

A) Sources? I see mine, and it is close, but it's also a much lower number of votes than this one.

B) This is the most recent active poll, it's our best bet on numbers. While I think mine was worded better it is almost a year and a half old, and dealing with a lot of "hope and dreams" still. This is post combat release.

C) This is after many people have already left over the exhaustion of having this same battle about combat for so long.

D) And? That's your sales pitch? That the community is divided down the middle (best case scenario) isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the system, nor is it fitting the narrative that it's just me wanting to ruin it for people. At worst half the people agree with me. At best, margin of error keeps it right were I say it is.

Here's the deal. Of the 50% most of them will end up leaving if it stays. Some of the people who vote for it to stay, don't actually use it, they just don't care, and really wouldn't be out anything if it stays, and even some who like it would be open to something else taking it's place as long as it's not a WoW clone. Right? Right.

So the real question is, how low is this roll of the dice, and how well could we score with another roll? Can they do better if given the chance? Or is this as good a core concept as it gets? Do you trust the devs to do better? Do you think they're up to it? I do. Or are you willing to settle for more people walking if they stay. How many would leave in the new system if it got implimented? How much would it cost? It's very hypothetical, drake equation esque... but from my stand point, short of every combat being handled with a coin flip, I can't imagine them doing worse than 50/50.

That's just the player numbers to worry about. In truth, this game is a risk for a lot of reasons, and not only is it's future on the line if they don't get done well, but Garriott's legacy is on the line as well. He doesn't get to say it was the publisher this time. I trust his vision to do well, and this isn't it. But even if it blows up, it should be his vision that takes him out. People pledged on his name. To me, this is the system robbing people. This is the vision that's keeping people from something awesome. You're the one pitching a fit and not letting the good stuff get done.

Lets stop wasting time on this. They want through R20... ok. Wow me. It may sound like my bar is to high, but trust me... it's very very low at this point. I WANT to like this. I want to squint my eyes and pinch my nose and say "Yeah... good enough" so I can get to all the other awesome in this game. But a disjointed combat system that doesn't fit the rest of the flavors presented? Don't see how they bridge that gap.

 

@Freeman,

I'm also in this game because I liked the nods to immersion and realism that the Ultima games have always had, so we have that in common. I don't have a big problem with the deck system though, and, although "UI less combat" sounds good in theory, I don't think locked hotbar combat is really UI-less or better, and I don't find the rotating hotbar very distracting. But then again, I have good peripheral vision, so I don't really find I have to take my eye off of combat just to see what's coming up.

From an immersion/realism perspective, I would pick at entirely different aspects of the combat. For example, I've avoided investing in Heal spells, because I find the way they work kind of "cheaty." Low-level spells don't require reagents, and you can cast them in a middle of a fight without being interrupted. You just keep a Healing Touch glyph locked, and press the button every time you get low and health. So the way this is implemented sucks out an element of strategy.

You've commented that you don't like how choices in combat don't seem meaningful. As I've pointed out to you, I've focused on a skillset that actually require strategy; light armor, blades and a shield, with a bow as secondary. I've learned I've had to manage defense and offense, use skills in combination with each other, one after another, and be careful about what combos I want to do.

So, I'd rather that more of the combat feel like that... and its possible within the rotating deck system.

Part of the problem, IMO, is that a lot of people who do powergaming complain about aspects of the game that put burdens on the player. So, if all spells required reagents or could be interrupted, people on the forum would complain. But it would end up making combat much more tactical even with the deck system.

But the deck system in itself, I've never minded so much; mainly because I didn't see a locked hotbar as better.

 

Very well said freeman. Indeed, the time for change is now. While there is still time. This is the chance to correct shrouds main weakness.

 

Interestingly, I haven't voted yet.

 

Hail Adventurers!


Chris, Thank you so much for taking your time and having the nerve to interject your answers into the thread "Let's settle this once and for all". I am finding more and more that developers reply with silence as they are too afraid to stick their neck out with answers and/or their own beliefs. VERY encouraging. I will be here adding to my backing level awaiting the day this game goes live, and every day after that. (C-64 Ultima 1 through UO player here.)
Thank you again.

Draggin

P.S. NEVER revive Trammel please!

LOL forgot to answer the Poll. Undecided as of yet.. I have to experience more... I am too new.

 

Going backwards to forward with your posts... then go vote? I want to know as many people's opinions as possible. Especially those that disagree.

I'm also going to pick some bits from the other post so it's not a wall of text, and can address the points in context.

Changing the system doesn't mean making a WoW clone. There are plenty of other options out there. This is a... appropriately called considering the user handle... red herring. There are lots of ways to do this, and expand on the interest that emerges from that type of realism as well.

Not finding it distracting, and finding it immersive and believable are two different things. For example, I liked the slugs for heavy armor. I felt that made sense within the context of the game rules. I may not like the combat system as a whole, but at least that was a step in that direction.

On being distracting, doesn't matter. Enough people have that even if they keep the system they're trying to fix it anyway. It is obviously a big enough problem that it's a concern.

Agree with your points, but it has nothing to do with deck combat. That is something that just needs to be addressed. The topic of debate is "should this stuff be randomly decided?"

It's the difference of choices 'in' combat as opposed to choices 'for' combat. You're talking about the latter, and again, those are choices that should need to be made in any system. What happens in a deck system that still requires a DPS model to succeed, is that I'm going to hammer my cards as fast as I can, and if I see a combo opportunity throw that too. Nothing is going to stay up there long, and so leaving it for the right moment isn't an option.

I'm not deciding what cards come up... I'm not thinking for my character... I'm operating a complex quick time event. That's not fun. It's not engaging. It's not what makes a good RPG. It's not realistic. It's not going to draw people into the game.

Me too! But I want it to feel that way IN combat. That things the other players do, or that I do, lead to something which leads to something, which leads to something. Cause, and effect. Consequences for actions, and opportunities to follow up on. I've listed several other ways in the past that do these very things without a deck.

Maybe and debatable. But it still leaves all the other problems I've harped on over the years.

Agree? And honestly, would LOVE to see some old school "Deal with it" mechanics. I'm not looking for Dark Souls, but the deck is actually something that caters towards more casual play by making each move it's own decision and not having players have to think ahead nearly enough.

Especially this bone of one they threw us. But again, is it worse? Especially since people have tried to argue that this is just a locked bar with a random cool down and cards that move? It really is by the way. Only, you also lose access to some skills if you don't have them in your deck because you're trying to mitigate the chance. While it's ok to think healing spells are cheesy, or make the game too easy, there a good example of "I know the skill, and I have the time, range, and desire to use it.... but I can't because....?" That's a problem. That the developer told me "That's what your character would think" when I asked why my character in an enclosed space holding a sword and shiled immediately though "Fireball, heal, dodge" when a kobold appeared in his face arround a corner. Lets decide my dialog too while were telling me what my character would think.

It's not just can it be done, it's should it be done. Is this what we think of when we think of Lord British. You've said you've given yourself internal limits to make you think more about combat. But like anything I 'can' think more about 'anything'. The question is, do I need to? Probably not. Will most people? Definitely not. I'm sure you put a lot of thought into building the deck, but I do question how much thought you use when fighting. If you're planning 3 moves ahead, or just using what you got, or running away until you get something you want (like most videos I watch on this).

Do vote. But when you do, consider that a locked bar isn't the only option. That we can do better. We have a dedicated community, a team of good devs, and all of us want something new. It's just that some of us aren't willing to settle for a card game, even if it's 'new'. Let's actually build a world.

 

I'm not sure what you have in mind with the distinctions you're making, but I'm talking about choices that make a difference. If you haven't, look at my light armor tactical guide. That doesn't even touch on stacking, which I haven't even played around with until the last two releases; mainly with stacking defenses. It has a lot to do with choosing your moves carefully because of opportunity costs, and because you have to manage your offense and defense right in battle.

Its not necessarily the perfect system, but I think it demonstrates its possible for it to be tactical.

Yep, slugs were one of those mechanics that made sense from a tactical perspective but got thrown out because people complained it was too much of a burden.

 

Read it, it's very nice and well done.

But, um, what does it have to do with decks? Those tactics could apply for a fixed game as well as a deck game. I don't see anything in there that makes it really special or worth all the extra hassle that comes from decks.

What I actually would point out is when you said "IF YOU CAN". This is where my problem comes in. The "If I can" isn't really based on me playing the combat right, or wrong, or even building the right deck. It's a matter of "Is it available for arbitrary reasons? Great. Go for it. No? Too bad. Nothing you as a player could have made that available." If I'm smart enough, fast enough, or patient enough, those things should be rewarded. Lucky enough is a fine bonus... but shouldn't have this much effect on the game.

Possible != necessary. Nor does it mean better. Nor does it mean more fun.

Yep. Sadness. It would have been one of the things that would have made it stand out as different. Now, it looks more like WoW than it wants to admit.

 

since the changes in r18 i no longer find luck has anything to do with whether i 'win' or 'lose' a contest and i have no locked glyphs.

 

At this point, I forget... is that in favor or against card combat? Or does it not matter at all? I'm going with the later.

Because if card combat doesn't make a difference once you get the hang of it, then what it really is, is a barrier to entry. It penalizes the newest players the most, or at least the ones who don't look up a guide online.

If it is something that does make a difference, and luck does make a good sized difference in outcomes, like we're told it's supposed to (regardless of whether it does right now or not... it's supposed to help balance level differences, which can only be done in this system by upping the luck).

But would love to hear more people chime in with the same response, because that doesn't seem to be what I hear from a lot of people, including my own experience.

So... when I say "It doesn't make sense that something isn't there when it should be" it has less to do with luck, and more to do with interface, controls and making sense in the context of the world, as well as maintaining the flavor of the rest of the game.

 

there is still luck involved to a certain extent in the form of one casting of an ice arrow may do 20 points of damage while my next might do 120 points of damage but there is definitely a strategy to what i am doing that allows me to remove the luck of the draw aspect of this combat design. And while this may be for me i have discussed with others that actually thrive off the capability of the randomization , some people like pushing there luck, in fact some people are down right good at it and i think this illistrates the direction they are taking this mechanic, its going to put the onus back onto the player to actually put some thought into character design and development. I have been as vocal as the next on the deck system but the fact that i can see the days of the 'best' build coming to and end has got my attention.

 

I'll begin by saying that I try not to use qualifications to surmise anything.... I'm in the industry and I build software for a living. This isn't just a job, it is a hobby and a passion.

I don't mean to personally attack Moonshadow. His quotes are just ripe for pointing out the major flaws in the developers thinking.

Couldn't they just design a balanced skill tree where many options in the tree are viable? This could be accomplished with careful systemic thinking. A simple, comprehensive definition.

Instead we have one system based on levels where time spent performing an action STILL rules.

For example, PRD level affects gathering. Why in the world is this true? I was given skill points and I'm witnessing that my chance to succeed (why is there a chance to succeed in the first place?) is based only on how often I've crafted / gathered.

Just a thought: Why do I have to grind in specific areas to raise my PRD based on your created percentage / Zone based gathering system? Are you just trying to bore me to death? If you want people to be able to gather better ingredients, do it based on skill choice, pick a minigame like LiF's idea. Don't implement a feature where I'm required to go back zones, grind zones, etc. If I wanted to grind I'd play an asian game.

Just a thought: By the way what happened to the guy who only wants to gather and avoid combat? Where did this character template go? We were able to achieve this in UO. Why are we following the World of Warcraft / Zone based gathering method? This method obviously detracts from being in a seamless game world. We have zones just like every other game... Awesome ...

For combat ... We have the ability to splice together a whole bunch of different trees and being a jack of all trades with our skill points is required. While being a master in a tree isn't required, necessary or necessarily rewarded. In fact I can just look at the skills, read their tool tips and pick out the most broken attributes for PVP. Especially by witnessing some combat mechanics.

Just a thought: Does it surprise anyone that ranged is powerful?

Which leads me to the next quote:

I'll start by saying, the fact that you cite a magical ranged attack speaks volumes. Because magic is one of those unmitigated mechanics (unless you took the passives).

I see the opposite of "the best build" coming to an end.

Example:
Leather armor with proper skills has nearly the same defensive values as full plate. This leads me to believe they haven't used enough quantification to allow proper balance in all areas. The only difference is in damage absorption. Which means nothing against magic...

Example:
Magic requires passives to mitigate. An obvious mechanic once realized. Once you realize this one, you realize all the rest. I don't know about anyone else, but I can pick out the best skills for combat by just understanding some game mechanics and reading tool tips. Most of them are passives. Movement speed, specific magic spells, understanding armor worn isn't tied to skill choices, etc, etc.

Example:
48 points in Earth, 32 in Fire. Character stats screen doesn't show an Earth damage. But I do have Fire Damage. Fire damage doesn't increase by the amount of skill points placed into the tree... Why not? Dropped 47 points to test ... But it was increased by the passive in the tree. So the only reason to increase a specific spell is to min/max the mini game? I mean combat system.

Balance in all areas would be best understood by examining the math (this isn't for us mere players, this sentence is for the developer). I'll use the following example. This example is found in character stats:

Attack Skill: Based on weapon skill (points placed into it must be very large compared to points required to get +15 damage resistance)
Damage Resistance: Based on armor and passives
Damage Avoidance: Based on armor and passives
Magic Resistance: Based on passives.
Where is magic avoidance?

Just a thought: The above makes me wonder how hit chance is calculated... A predetermined stat vs a random roll? More luck ... Less skill.

I don't mind a bit of luck in the games I play. A power game will always find ways to minimize his "luck" by choosing appropriate skills, weapons, etc.

In this context it is by maximizing my draw speed while furiously micro managing my hot bar (by discarding what I don't want). Using speed passives, damage and magic resistance, avoidance and stat passives while minimizing my chances to draw abilities. This isn't putting thought in my character... This is working around a silly, silly, mini game. I mean the combat system.

Because I didn't realize I bought into a mini game when I backed this game. I just want to enjoy combat. Combat should be about understanding my characters limitations (immersion). I should be greatly rewarded for the things I've chosen well and I should be properly punished for the things I've chosen incorrectly. As it stands, I do not need to think about my character. I have enough skill points to plan accordingly.

 

I'm sorry, has their been a game where people are not putting thought into their character designs, or at least less than this? Where they just click 'next' and it levels up? I'm pretty sure I haven't seen anything like that since Baldur's Gate era, and even then there was a little choice to be made.

Again, that has nothing to do with decks. Want to do something interesting like that? Take a peek at Deus Ex... the first one. Picking one skill eliminates the other as an opportunity. Every fire spell you learn, lessens your affinity for ice magic... for example. Training in melee creates a lack of faith in magic, and thus magic spells are less powerful. You can still balance it all out of course, but then you have two sets of skills weakening each other, so you end up mediocre but diversified.

There. Done. And no decks needed.

Want to push your luck, there's other ways to do that too. We've all pushed our luck in an RPG, again, without decks. It helps to make things feel more a part of the game world, and less just a game tacked on to my game world. Something that pulls me out of it, and makes me just not care about the rest of it.

 

I voted in favor of the combat system, but it a mixed bag right now.

PRO:

1) It adds a lot more tactical choices inside of combat compared to the standard model of having a "rotation"
2) It adds a lot of depth to building your "class" / balance of skills. You're able to reduce the RNG factor by loading up on skills, or you can diversify yourself to handle multiple situations but at the expense of being subject to the RNG. This is much better to me than the standard model of picking a class and having the game choose your abilities for you.
3) I've done a bit of mob grinding, and I'm finding that I'm more engaged in combat than I have been with the usual system. I can't watch TV while hitting 1-1-1-2-3 1-1-1-2-3.

CON:

1) I do find that I'm watching the hotbar a lot more compared to the standard model. That means that I cannot watch TV while grinding out experience. Haha.

NEITHER:

1) While not really the card system, I do find that there isn't much diversity between skills right now. I don't have reasons to dodge/dash/roll out of attacks, I don't have reasons to really consider my damage type, I don't have reasons to focus in a single school (why should I NOT take self-heals?). I think as the combat itself gets more depth, and there is a reason to interrupt or roll away from an attack because it's a one-shot kill, and as damage types matter the overall experience will improve.