Starr Long Discusses Chaotic Aspects of SOTA Combat

Thanks Trapper for expressing what I have been thinking.

The trend on the Internet has been one of rant rage and troll to get ones point across for a long time, it's nice to see forums like this one and Star Citizen cracking down and making posters a bit more responsible for their actions.

 

Just focusing on the UI aspect for a moment, Sir Frank, how would you envision the "pull it back to slot 1" and "you start shuffling that one too" to work, during combat, with respect to mouse actions, clicks, or keystrokes?

 

I would imagine drag and drop, but then I don't design UI. I'm not sure what other methods could be available.

 

Now that everyone has expressed their opinions on expressing opinions, lets get back on topic shall we.

 

Yeah, the issue I can imagine with that would be what happens when you need to move, attack, defend, dodge, target either an ally or an enemy, and shuffle (wherever the hotbar is), all in the same 1 second you have to do it before death takes you.

It adds another click and drag to a moving part of the UI, which, with potentialy ~100-200ms of client-server latency in play, might mean doing it "late" would mean it didn't actually happen, or you drag when the movement/timeout/re-shuffle animation is starting or finishing, and miss it entirely.
A click and drag during combat, from potentially any hotkey slot to potentially any other hotkey slot (like say, 0 to 1, or 9 to 2) adds quite a bit of delay. The closest thing I can think of would be texting while driving. It leads to distraction, rather than focus, on what is important in front of you.

I've seen frustration on the part of players with locked hotkey bars, and having to click, or players leaving them unlocked so they can adjust them in fight, and having the UI miss a click, or they drop the ability off the bar, and it vanishes. I get that part of this is "dexterity" in the sense of you should be able to use your mouse to play a game that requires a mouse, I'm just stating what I've observed in the past with similar UI interaction.

 

Hello fellow travellers and well met!
I didn't read the whole post, so apologies if I reparrot someone.
The problem is quite simple really. From my understanding the main points against this fighting system come from the Pvp players. They want no randomization only pure skill just as a game of chess. The outcome will be 100% determined by your skill. This is understandable and justifiable. What else should be the determining factor but skill? It is the most fair form of fighting, no doubt about it.
There are some setbacks to this. Pure skill fighting is not close to realistic. Any real world sport always involves randomization, soccer, football, rugby, baseball... There is always, unlike in chess, a chance that the weaker team wins. If you want to have more realistic fighting it has to involve randomization.
Which form of combat is more exciting is hard to tell, surely the emotions in the audience swing higher in a soccer match compared to a game of chess, but from the players point of view, I would like to think, the excitement you get out of a game of chess is higher.
Also, and this is the main point, randomized combat is easier accessible. Purely skill based games have a very steep learning curve which is very frustrating for beginners. I got into Pvp in UO and I lost miserably all the time. After a few dozens times being killed (and insulted) I just gave up.
What you will get by randomization is a broader audience of Pvp players, but at the same time Pvp will be more shallow from the skill point of view.
If you go for pure skill based combat there will be only the elite few who play, but their "kick" out of pvping will be incomprehensible for people who never tried to master something similar. (I got this experience from playing Go, which has a fantastic system of matching opponents of the same strength.) This is also something that a lot of beat em ups have been struggling with. There are the pro players and there is nearly no way for newcomers to get into it.
It needs very fine balancing so that randomization is reduced to a point to where Pvpers still can get enough excitement out of combat and the playing field is levelled enough so that beginners can get some excitement out of combat as well. This does not even have to mean they need to win, but at least have some nice comebacks in a fight (and a good adrenaline rush).
Now I believe every Pvper would love to have more players involved in Pvp. More foes, more fame!
So my call goes out to everyone: Making this kind of system work is incredibly hard. Go into the Alpha unbiased and if you are into Pvp give it your all to improve this system!
You will be rewarded with a much higher number of Pvpers.

As I can see from the discussion at the end of the threat, discussion already goes into the direction of how to balance randomization. I love this community!

 

So the Focus and Aggression are charges built up; maybe two different sets? It sounds interesting; similar to The Secret World, where both of the player's weapons has a meter and different skills put points toward each one or both. Some weapons build charges, some have a mana bar that's consumed. You might even have both at one time.

This would add more UI, but not be too bad. I like the +/- Honor variable. Kind of like Dark/Light side fighting in Star Wars.

 

Actually none of that bothers me at all. The problem is that in PvP:
1) You need a lot more situational awareness. Opportunities and threats appear all the time that you need to respond to. So you need to "see the forest" and not have your head stuck in the keyboard / UI.
2) You don't just use damage skills or otherwise follow predictable rotations. The fight shifts to be mostly defense, cc, and counters rather than damage.
3) You're trying to time big cooldown skills while bluffing your opponent into using his at the wrong time.
4) Matches are much more equally balanced and the threat of death is real. You don't expect to die 50% or the time fighting one mob but this does happen in PvP.

None of this is actually PvP specific. You could just make PvE more difficult. This is more or less what guildwars2 did. But people rebelled, saying it was too hard. They didn't think death should happen at level 5 or whatever.

I would much rather see PvE cranked up and struggle to fight mobs than struggle to fight the UI.

 

It wouldn't need to really add anymore UI. I would see it replacing the manabar for focus/agression points, and then skills available would undarken as they become useable in the UI. The same way a cool down works for most games now.

Which is what's nice about it. It is immediately recognizable to people comming in, while changing the way they play.

But yes, it could be two different pools of points, with a player picking a fighting style, yet most monsters using agression. (but not all...) I wouldn't see a player having both available to them at the same time. Either they're using their agression and rage to power their attacks, barbarian style, or a focused, disciplined warrior, more knights and soldier style.

Spells would also require so much focus or sheer energy to throw off, so they'd pull from the same pool (but still need reagents).

The light/dark side of it is something I like too. It makes the virtues feel more tactile and important in the small things a character would do. I could see most of the virtues making changes to your focus. Spiritualityis an easy one, in terms of recharge rate. But compassion could lower focus cost of healing, while despise might reduce the focus of harm spells.

There's a lot to play with there, and in ways that seem logical to the world, the character, and the story. Narrative remains in tact, player agency remains intact. It pulls from the familiar, but is new. This is what we're looking for. If not the system I laid out specifically, something like it.

 

I absolutely ~adore~ how certain members cry foul when they are moderated, claiming to be singled out because of their ideas, when it is actually the WAY that they state their ideas that is the problem. And sometimes, they KNOW they are acting inappropriately... like this:

Cussing is not allowed on these forums, and has therefore been removed from this thread on my latest sweep (including where it was quoted).

Keep it clean and civilized folks!

 

The number 1 way to get yourself in trouble is ad hominem attacks. This is pretty much true in any forum. Anyone who's studied logic / rhetoric can pick apart a weak arguement but here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

As you start throwing these out, you're really not using logic or making a constuctive arguement. Warning: if you study this too well, you'll never be able to read anything on the internet again.

 

I like the idea of adding some "chaos" to the combat mechanic - making it so the player has to think and react and not just run a macro.

I'm not a fan of making it random so that you might not get your heal spell at all when you want to heal, but at least make me work for it.

Perhaps more intense encounters can randomize more frequently, while "easy" encounters might not randomize at all.

You could do all sorts of crazy stuff:
- Fear or darkness could make it harder to see what's what in your "deck"
- Special attacks might do strange things to your deck (like rotate all labels 180 degrees)
- Skills that give you insights into the terrain or monster type you're attacking could 'stack the deck' to make more useful skills/spells available more easily

But in the end, yeah, I like the idea of trying to convey some of the chaos/fear of combat to the user while they're playing.

 

Making the effect of fear be a limit on available abilties is very interesting, though I'm sure some people are cringing at that thought.

 

Cringing, indeed.

 

If harsh ideas were enough to get banned, I'd have been gone a long time ago.

Keep up the good work FireLotus.

I love that idea. It would go really well with my focus point system. With fear being an immediate hit to focus, and a lingering reduction in gains or even loss over time.

Side thought, expanding on what causes agression to go up instead of focus. Multiple enemies targeting you, might slow your focus gain, but would hasten your agression gain.

 

Warning: This is long...

I am relatively new here but think this is the best place to put this post instead of starting a new thread on it. It is somewhat long, so fair warning. I think there have been a few major themes that opponents to the proposed system have mentioned over and over again:

1. Control of ones actions in a predictable, controllable manner.
2. Realism/believability of a combat scenario.

I think both of these can be mitigated with a hybrid approach to combat. Neither side would get exactly what they want, but that is the nature of compromise. I also think the hybrid approach will fix problems brought up by opponents of the proposed system, as well as incorporate the interesting features I think sound like a great approach to this type of game. Let me give you a scenario someone provided earlier as an example.

The Problem:

I am a mage, I have four main spells that I cast fairly regularly. One AoE fire spell, one AoE ice spell, one single target, high damage fire spell and one single target, low damage but high CC ice spell. Each of these spells is useful for me in certain situations, but rather useless if I can't control when and where I use them. In this case, random abilities would destroy me because if I don't use CC abilities at the right time, we all die.

Also, the goal of this game is to improve roleplaying, so how can a mage forget Fireball? I mean, it is one of the basic spells a mage in almost all genres of games has. It hurts the realism to say "I can only cast fireball when it comes up in the deck." I am a MAGE, being unable to cast Fireball until some deck mechanic allows me to just doesn't make sense. Some things should be static.

(While I didn't agree with the guy's wording, I think all of this is a legitimate concern, by the way)

The Concept:

There are two types of abilities one can use in combat, one being set, predictable skills while the other is a deck mechanic of special skills. For the purposes of this illustration let's say skills like he is describing become set skills, things I need complete control over for various situations to survive, do damage, heal, or basically fulfill a necessary role. Meanwhile, we have a deck like mechanic containing the following skills:

1. Scorched - Direct fire spells continue to burn the target for damage every 3 seconds, totaling 12 seconds. (Up to 5 can stack)
2. Fire and Ice - Fire spells will slow targets for the next cast, and Ice spells will have damage equal to fire for the next cast.
3. Weak spot - Aiming for a hole in your opponents armor, you deal double damage for you next cast.

Now I just made these three up/stole them from other games, but let's say there are 50 to choose from and you can build a deck of 20. You still have the basic, necessary skills to do basic, necessary tasks like CC or do damage. But you can stack your cards to choose a type of mage you like to be. You can augment three play styles here, with a heavy Scorch deck for damage over time, or heavy Weak Spot for burst damage, or heavy Fire and Ice for a balance or to minimize cooldowns.

Now the way I see it, this not only solves the problems mentioned, it also gives the developers what they said they wanted when it comes to mobs that were green or lower. They only wanted this deck mechanic to be used in more difficult battles, not when farming or killing trash mobs. No deck mechanic there in this case, just a straight up Fireball fest to the face of a wolf.

So maybe I'm oversimplifying or forgetting something, so someone help me out. Thoughts?

 

First, Trapper, I'd just like to point out that unless you are drawing from inside info that the rest of us don't have, there is no reason to believe that the proposed system will actually work as you suggest. Given that, I don't think that the community's reluctance is at all unwarranted, or that your proposed solutions address the problem. Instead of spinning fantasies about how it MIGHT be built to work out, how about we get down and discuss the nitty gritty of what people don't want and do want and why.

I never said I view the system negatively, there is currently no system to view. I said that if I have to constantly juggle the UI to keep my key abilities on top, I'll consider that a fail. If the system is presented in my home by Playboy Centerfolds who brougt gold bars, 100$ bills, and snax with them, I will STILL consider it a fail even as I enjoy all the extras.

Now, I appreciate that you read some of my post, but just for consideration, I'd like to to finish reading it, and look at the build that I said would NOT work, instead of one of dozens that probably would. I don't think that a system that randomizes the important abilites can lead to good tanking. If this group combat system doesn't USE tanks, then that will be interesting to see, but since I really enjoy playing one, it may also result in an inescapable diminishment of my game experience.

[preemptive] NO LB did not expressly promise me that I'd be a raid tank in this game. NO, I never said that I thought he did. I said that WANT to be one, and will be dissapointed if I cannot.

 

Haha MalakBrightpalm, now you're just trolling poor Trapper! He was just putting forth a suggestion.
Actually, the whole discussion on the combat system from a PvE perspective is moot as long as it is the same for PvP.
If it is different than how combat will work in PvP, then by all means, carry on! But that would be ridiculous to have two separate combat systems.

 

I am more on the PVP side, and I just want to say that I could live with a system of calculated randomness. Pure random is just bad design.
If I am able to calculate my changes its fine for me, and I would still consider that skill based combat - just note that other than the twitchy type of skills are necessary here.

The ideas with static skills that I can always use, and variable decks that have a determined chance to pop in sounds very interesting to me.
I like the new approach to combat here, and the final measure will be the amount of fun it can create, when beating an opponent (PVE or PVP) or even when loosing,
but having the feeling it was a good fight.

 

Let me chime in and say I have really liked this idea since the first time it was talked about. I think it is likely going to require a lot of tweaking and balancing, but ultimately will make for a much more engaging combat system.

There are of course some things we'll want to be able to cast any time, or out of combat - healing our allies out of combat, numerous "utility" type spells. And I know Chris has said you'll be able to put certain skills at the top of your deck, so if you're a rogue, you'll be able to start combat with a backstab.

I don't recall the devs talking about how they'll handle "deck switching" - like, if you're ambushed in combat, and really have your wrong deck out (you have your PVE, not PVP deck out, or something), can you switch, at the cost of not being able to perform any skills from either deck for a few seconds?