Necessity of tab targeting

I would say it goes a lot deeper than that. I would say of how wide of an audience do they want.......the current route is very much down the small audience lane. If that is the ultimate route I do fear for the game beyond Episode 1.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

 

There's a difference between pvp and pve combat. PVE combat is not very sophisticated because the AI is not very sophisticated. As far as audience goes, we just need to simplify the current system so it's more intuitive for joe average pve player and everyone will be happy.

It's pvp where we have a major problem. If we fix pvp combat, the simple version of that can be exported to PVE and everyone will be happy. AI monsters are slow dumb and repetitive in any MMO. So if we have a balanced pvp system of combat, we'll have a very solid pve system of combat. Again the only thing we need to worry about at that point is polishing it for joe average drive by player so they don't get too frustrated as the kill monsters without thinking.

 

Balance is separate from mechanics......make the mechanics too complicated and slow then players outside the current 'community' will show little interest.

 

I don't think that's true at all. If we're trying to woo FPS players, then sure. But I don't think that's an audience of people we naturally attract anyway.

This is a roleplaying game. Slow and complicated is kind of what we're all about.

 

I am sorry that you feel it necessary to call players (many of whom are passionate, active players) who enjoy a different kind of combat than you do "joe average drive by players".

 

All I would say is that a hell of a lot of the UO PvP community won't touch SotA with a bargepole..........that can't possibly be a good place to be in terms of PvP.

 

I didn't call any individual player "average", I called pve "average". The reason WOW had 12 million players at one time is not because that playing style is complicated and hard, it's because the game catered to the lowest common denominator. It's also the reason I never played it.

 

I agree with you that many self proclaimed old school UO PVP types can't stand the combat system in SOTA. That doesn't mean we should make a combat system that they like. There have been plenty of games that they didn't like that have been extremely successful. My guess would be that if we made combat like UO, many modern gamers would be like "what is this crap?" and be turned off. To each their own.

I would say that "good" combat is "good" combat, and we should just focus on making that.

 

When you have the 'old school' UO PvPers with heads in their hands thinking how the hell can this be a spiritual successor on a PvP level........and at the same time you have other gamers not liking it either I would say changes need to be thought through very carefully to bring people back in and not push them away further.

There are many reasons why the 'modern' crowd are not attracted to UO. A game heading towards 20 years old........poor graphics......bad lag........dead shards.......to be fair to the game; the principles behind PvP are sound.



Edit: I missed out £10 subscription each month

 

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

You didn't like UO's combat system?

 

I didn't like UO. What I remember playing (and it wasn't much) and have heard about the combat system, seems like it has a lot of room for improvement.

 

UO was auto-attack.

 

I don't have the time to invest in testing another game, but if Tera offers alternatives to tab targeting that don't require a frenzy of mouse clicks, I'm all for it. Sometimes when one is presented with two alternatives (in this case either tab targeting or clicking on a target with the mouse) it is easy to overlook the fact that other, even better, alternatives may exist.

 

Thank you.

That is exactly what i think is the case in this thread. Overlooking that there is already an alternative better then the 2 options you are discussing in this threat.

And actually i think one that will also cover : Dodge , Terrain and so on.

And i did notice something very important.

I think if i would be Richard Garriott and see that Tera did get a award for most innovative mmo combat in 2012 and then if i look at Tabula Rasa Combat with the Target Aim above the head just as Tera.

I would think...hmmm.. our combat system back then maybe was going the right new direction.

Look at Tera above the Head:



compare with Tabula Rasa above the head of the Avatar:





So it would make sense that Richard might like the idea of going Tera direction, then in fact it is not Tera, it is Tabula Rasa.

 

Personally i'm not a fan of combat in Terra.......Also from a PvP perspective, I personally find games with a fixed reticle in the middle of the screen just plain nasty.

 

I am not a Fan of highlighted shining Red and light blue around my targets, also from a PvP perspective - it is just plain nasty.

 

Sorry, just to clarify..... I'm talking about the mechanics of having the reticle in terms of movement and targeting.

In terms seeing a reticle or seeing targets glow........ I don't really care providing I know who my target is.

 

The current state of specifically PvP combat necessitates targeting. Any argument to the contrary is simply invalid and/or unqualified.

PvE conversely can be made workable without targeting...but is wholly less tangled, chaotic, vastly more manageable, controlled, and yet is equalled in importance by PvP.

...we are at an impasse...

...fixing PvE to spite PvP (whether you personally choose to engage PvP at all) would truly be a potentially catastrophic oversight, I'm afraid...

Short of reinventing SotA combat altogether...from scratch...its will remain a requirement. I tend to agree that I'm even less enthused by a retical than I am the highlighting. If I had my way...I'd simply and unashamedly rip off From Software's Demon/Dark Souls combat model.

 

PvP is so unbalanced right now. There is no reason for a (melee, no magic) duel on drag on ten minutes or more with no clear winner. That's just lame.