Combat Redux

There's a difference between jumping in every thread and at least coming out and saying something definitive once in awhile to ease tension. CIG does this with Star Citizen, and in case you don't back it, they're up to $82.3m. They average in a month more than SotA makes in a year, and it's a "niche game" too. Going that extra mile pays off, especially on a matter that has been a focal point in the community consistently since 2013.

I'll have to find a transcript of the post-mortem as I can't watch it at work.

 

From a raw money standpoint I can say they are definitely losing money from me if they don't fix the combat to be enjoyable. I'd gladly buy a set of unbreakable tools if they reissue them in the future, or a house or something like that if I felt like I was going to play the game for some time. Right now I just can't get over how little I enjoy the combat though. Also there is the factor that I'm currently not recommending the game to any of my friends. When they ask about it I have to truthfully tell them that the combat system isn't enjoyable for MMO veterans.

 

I'm hopeful and dreading which group I'm in.

 

A shame they didn't address Wanderlust's question, but Richard's response on a more immersive UI (no health bar, visual feedback from combat like limping and bleeding, etc.) as well as admitting the skills themselves were redundant and boring is a great start. Plus they know mobs need better AI is refreshing; I think as that all comes together (dynamic mobs, tactical and circumstancial skills, design with less focus on UI), the deck system will really be put to the test. Right now it doesn't have any real hoops of fire to jump through (static mobs, repetitive skills that don't really change the flow of combat, extremely forgiving combat due to imbalanced armor/damage tables), and yet it's still struggling to make the grade.

 

Please change the current combat system. Tab-targeting button mashing is no fun. I think Mortal Online stole you're original skill based system, and has the combat we want. This is a WoW clone, didn't want this :/

 

I would like to reiterate what I took from the postmortem. Basically this game is just now at the pivoting point. The combat currently truly is a very basic placeholder to allow the rest of the game mechanics to be installed. It seems their first focus was player housing, followed by switching game engines. Then came getting some version of every system in so that they could interact with eachother. Before the postmortem I saw combat as being at least somewhat of a clue of what it would be in the future. In the end, it is still a housing/crafting/economy game first (keep that in mind), but after watching the postmortem, I see that combat has not been touched at all and will be very different than it is now. I think it is a testament to what is really going on here, in that the game is rather playable today, and it makes it easy to mentally interpret it as a near-finished product. Their attitude is quite different! In the end, to appease the masses, more time could have been spent on combat sooner, but it would have been less efficent use of time, as it would need to be revisited anyway. I get the impression they are playing a little jazz in terms of combat. They have a very clear vision for the rest of the game as those elements are more the focus; but many gamers are the reverse. In the long run, so long as it doesn't alienate too many, approaching it this way could ultimately result in a more tailored product.

 

I'm traveling out of state at the moment and missed the postmortem (but I did send a question in). Does anyone have a link to it that I could watch on my iPad?

 

It looked like they didnt get to your question, but did basically address it.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=50566#more-50566

 

Thanks for the link, I'm back in town now and watched the video. I would say that they did address the issue of how "un-fun" the combat system is, but every answer they gave seemed committed to the card combat concept so it doesn't really address the question I asked, which was about their statement that they would "probably" try other options if it turned out not to be fun. I can certainly understand their motivation to preserve what they have before throwing it out, so I'm not surprised that they're going to give it more love and then see how it goes. If they remain open minded and willing to change if, after all their enhancements, it remains not fun, then I'm ok waiting for them while they delay release even longer to get something in that is fun.

But how many of you honestly believe that's a possibility? I don't, and I expect that what is going to happen is they are going to put even more development resources into the card combat system and dig the hole even deeper, making it far less likely that they will ever consider a real alternative. I could be wrong and overly cynical here, but I believe we are seeing the beginning of the justification for keeping the system that will make its way into release. I'd really be interested in knowing how many people actually believe otherwise?

Card combat looks like it's here to stay so I guess we get used to it or move on. I'll check back from time to time to see how much it improves, but meanwhile I'll keep scoping out other new sandbox titles in the works. It's hard for me to imagine ever wanting to play a game where combat is card based, but I'll keep an open mind and try it out.

 

Keep an ear to the ground Wanderlust, I'm not quite as written off as I was before the hangout. I do, however, have two suggestions for them if they want to keep card combat without ruining the game:

1) Build a functional locked deck system first, then add another layer of interest by making a card system balanced to it, or better surpassing it. Card combat is an unknown, an experiment, like they said. But unlike the days when they had Origin and/or EA money, there is a limit to how much they can afford to experiment before they have to cut their losses.

What I saw in Dev+ for the things they're talking about has some potential for the people who don't like the deck. Will they take it far enough? I don't know. I'm working on an enhanced suggestion based on what they put forward in there that I'll post when I can wrap it up.

2) For their scrum team, they need someone who hates and refuses to play the current combat. The people who've played a lot of it are equally as numb to some of the issues as the devs are (not as many, but more than you'd think). When I get ready to release a new product I find the people who are most likely to break it, and least likely to want it, and make them sit down to give it a shot. I learn WAY more from them than from people who spend a lot of time iterating the process. I don't think they need more than 1 person like that, but someone who's against it to really pull it towards center as much as possible.

I know some of you are thinking "He means himself". No. I don't. I'd be a lousy person for that position. I'm a developer and I'd get why they do things such and such a way. You need someone who really is the outsider. I don't think they put one of them in there.

 

I try to be a realist when it comes to things. I think they realized what we've been saying for the last few months. I know they've been concerns for years, but the last few months especially really cornered the rebuttals. I'm sure that the lack of significant funding is also dawning on them, how the money simply isn't trickling it like it was initially. Negative reviews are likely hurting, too, especially in this department. We also see champions for an alternative who, a year ago, were damning critics and waving the banner of innovation in support of the card system. A lot of doubt is coming up, and from a purely objective state of mind the combat is simply bad.

In that regard, it was uplifting to hear the designers and guys behind all of this come out and say, "This is bad." It gives me some hope that they realize their current course of action will sink this ship if the current leak isn't stopped. They said three things that keep me hopeful:

1. They openly said it was bad. They didn't defend it, the only excuse being "we're still at a point where we're trying to get mobs not to stack and still face the player." That's a little unnerving, admittedly, but they did say that combat as a whole is bad. They even apologize for it. That means they've had some kind of a wake-up call (or a series of them) that will likely focus their attention and give them some perspective going forward. This is in particular towards NPCs, which means an effort to make mobs more unique and engaging - and that means having a system that allows players to pay attention to what monsters are doing, not babysitting their hotbar.

2. RG was asked about his original comments years ago about a UI-less UI, like no health bars, hotbars and so on. Truly immersive, which is why many of us backed, for the immersion. In short, you cannot have card combat and a minimalistic UI, it's impossible. The various suggestions of making card combat more efficient over the years by people here have proven that simply balancing card combat is a herculean task, to say nothing of minimalizing it for the sake of immersion.

3. Skills suck. They know they're duplicative and redundant, and lack individualism and uniqueness. They do nothing for keeping combat interesting, not to mention making it so that all these skills and classless, templateless system is meaningless. This means making skills more interactive and special, and that means tactical - again, something card combat simply doesn't support.

Could we still see card combat? Sure, but I doubt it will be in the same vein we have it now. It simply isn't as popular as proponents make it out to be, and devs are starting to agree. I imagine they're seeing some feedback outside of these forums and looking at internal data that supports combat being the weakest feature of the game, despite it being prevalent in just about every facet of the game. I'll remain hopeful but critical going forward, much like I had been before, just with a bit more hope.

 

Hi there. I understand that this is your point of view, but really you are just speculating and so to anyone who reads this, it is not necesarily the truth. We don't the 'know' the details of what is going on with the Dev team and finances and how they feel or don't feel. Hopefully they have a thicker skin than that regarding negative reviews. They have a vision of the end product way beyond what any of us can see. So negative reviews and all that are not going to kill this game, since 'it is not a game' and being judged on that which is silly but the way the gossipy people do, not saying I never do either but imho it's too early. I'm sorry but I read this and saw 'speculation' and not in a necessarily helpful way. So I truly admire you for standing so strongly for combat and please continue to do so and it is imho or in your opinion only. The rest of your comments were really great feedback. Keep up the good work.

 

The Devs just said they haven't worked on combat in 3-6 months, and they're aiming for a 2015 release, last I heard (although I think most of us aren't expecting a launch until 2016 at the earliest). The crowdfunding cup isn't exactly overflowething. The devs themselves said it was bad. Starr apologized. RG criticized the skill trees, mob AI and UI. Those are facts.

If you were a pessimist you'd see this ship on fire and sinking into a black hole with missiles homing in on it. Even the optimists have to look at some facts and wonder where this game will be, development-wise, in 6 months based on that commentary. Yet I'm here thinking this is good news.

Speculation is good when there is a monetary investment involved, and it means more than really anything else. If you can't figure out if a game is going to work, you don't put money down. In my opinon, and in the opinion of many other people speaking out openly right now on these forums (those who haven't given up on this game completely), that hang-out gave us some hope for good things to come to a combat system that's absolutely abysmal. They excused themselves by claiming they're at a stage where they're just trying to get NPCs to face the player, but that's a mixed bag for the growing number of us. Combat hasn't been worked on meaningfully in nearly a half year, skills are incomplete, card system is controversial and we're supposed to release in less than 365 days?

And who said this isn't a game? This isn't some kind of simulator, that's for sure. I've yet to really feel like I can interact with the environment in any greater depth than other MMOs out there, so I hope they've got more up their sleeves in that department. If you're saying this isn't a game because it's in alpha, fine, but it is alpha; the core systems are in. Even with a fair hand people can make an accurate assessment of the main game mechanics and be disappointed in them if they want, ie. combat. After all, the devs themselves are. They wouldn't necessarily be apologetic if the public was of the attitude, "Hey, we need to work on combat sometime" instead of "This is bad and you should feel bad. I hate this system. You suck."

Also, it's "too early"? We're in alpha. We're almost a year behind schedule, and I don't think anyone would bet money we'll see a 2015 release. When can I start criticizing if not now? Speculation or not, I'm just glad the devs came out and admitted their combat was terrible. So much for some of the fanatics labeling us as the "minority opinion".

 

@Dederononmy Well I do like that you battle for combat and the game, sorry but the discussion on finances hit me wrong. I want to hear what you say about it and the ideas you and everyone else has. My opinion was that we talk about that. Sorry I'm outta here.

 

I don't really post on forums much. I'm actually surprised in myself that I haven't voiced my concern sooner since I'm an "Ancestor;" quite a bit of cash to me. I can say that every single time I log-in to play the game the combat just simply is completely lacking. I was really excited for the "card" system as it was discussed in the "early days" of the kickstarter, etc. The reality is, the current implementation is not FUN at all. I have managed to get four of my IRL friends to back the game at the forty-five dollar level. They are extremely worried about combat.

I guess I'm quite confused. I love that they want "physics-based" combat but I don't see that working with a card-battle minigame. I have played all of RG's games in the past and I really hope we actually get something similar to Tabula Rasa with some new tricks. I'd be happy with that. Unlike many of you folks, I'm not as analytic as some of you and honestly have a hard time conveying how I feel about combat in the current state other than it doesn't feel right. Hell, I would take something akin to Asheron's Call at this point; a great physics example of dodging projectiles, AoE, etc. However, the important thing here is that Shroud of the Avatar be itself. But, as "itself" it needs to be fun and engaging on the activity that we will likely spend over 90% of the game performing and that is COMBAT.

In conclusion of this brief message and my concern, I rarely log-on anymore. I simply look at the skill-tree, love the concept, draw my sword, attack something, die, and log-out. It's incredibly just not engaging and I feel like I'm playing a minigame activity of pokemon while trying to pay attention to combat with clunky movement. I don't apologize for being critical. I'm trying to be honest with what I paid and backed with; my wallet.

Cheers folks,
-Padre

 

I examined my post about how I feel about combat and instead of being critical and posting how I feel "emotionally." I thought it would be far more constructive to remove "emotion" from the equation and point out what I like, dislike, and what I think could be done to improve combat as it stands.

Dislike
We are supposed to avoid AoE attacks and such but it's very clunky to do so. I feel detached from the game trying to even run. Cards are moving up and down on my screen, weapons are making noises and of course my attacker is striking me while I am supposed to stack cards, dodge spells, and focus on my health at the same time.

The skills in the trees are a not very imaginative. This can be overlooked if we can get the effects of those skills expanded on. It is barebones at the moment.

The locked action bar is not a band-aid and equally not fun. As stated before, combat just feels clunky to me.

Like
I think the world design and graphics beckon me and my friends to explore. I know the world still needs to be fleshed out, but I'm actually excited to get out there in the wild or in some random dungeon and find things.

The community is fantastic. 'Nuff said.

Suggestions
I think a minimalistic UI approach combined with a revamped "deck" system and visual notifiers would be a better way forward for the style they are going for. For example, utilizing the corners of the screen similar to what Guild Wars 2 did with health and certain effects; even Rift use the screen as an interesting notification element. If we can somehow find a way to rely on that visual approach to combat it would be a huge step forward.

I like the idea of combos. However, in their current form, I find it incredibly counter-productive. The combo system in Age of Conan is kind-of what I would have imagined; enter a sequence of key-presses to initiate a combo starter and finally a finisher. I think that this can be expanded upon.

Overall, the game seems confused with what it wants to be. Are we physics and twitch? Are we a turn-based card game with merely flashy graphics? Are we going to be a cross between the two; something needs to be sacrificed.

 

*sigh*
How many times does it needs to be said?
Fluff without substance. Stick to opinions that can't be fact checked, it works so much better for your posting style.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...s/the-combat-system.23172/page-18#post-353646
SotA so far is a financial success beyond what was hoped for and the derivative trend stable and positive.

Smack's stats:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iYGZbZu3hj8bqk4u4m4AjUfyhcBux4w0R5Lt2Rl0H2k/edit#gid=1107218319

Kickstarter ended with $1.9M.
Year one after kickstarter they had made +2M ($3.9M)
The last twelwe months they made more than +2.3M (19th may 2015 $6.4M - 19th may 2014 $4.1M).
That is excluding STEAM money since they are not allowed to disclose that, so add some more on top of those figures.
So the money is still "trickling in" and at a faster rate than during the first year. There is no dip, no plateu, nothing like that.

The big trending increase was when they announced the New Pledge Rewards & Tiers, for a couple of months after that they got a lot of pledge increases and the derivate was at its highest trendwize.
The second big trending increase was during the blackfriday bonus.


*insert your choice of facepalm pic here*

 

In 4 months they made what Star Citizen made in a week. They have the same (if not more) celebrity status behind their game than SC. As far as niche games go, SC is more of a niche game than SotA is (sci-fi vs. fantasy, MMOFPS vs. MMORPG, flight sim vs. medieval role-playing, etc.). Casual players are the primary demographic in SotA while hardcore players are the demographic in SC. It's really, really adorable that throwing around a few million is impressing you for a game that's a year behind schedule, a game that was hyped as "The Ultimate RPG" and was launched with the headline, "All other developers are lazy".

So why is it, then, that SC is making more than ten times what SotA is in the same amount of time with a more niche game, less celebrity presence and a larger demographic to get involved? Because our NPCs don't "hand-hold" you and make you type out responses and/or click on them?

Citing the game made more money when it became increasingly playable is misdirection. Yeah, it made a ton of money as the game became more and more playable; those numbers aren't consistent, though. That's like pointing out SC made more money in one month back in '14 than SotA has displayed on their home page right now. Why? A surge of funds from Arena Commander and ship releases, but we won't see those numbers again until Star Marine and the social module release (bet your ass SC will hit +$25m from those two launches Day 1, though). For SotA, we were at $6m a few months ago, and only at $6.4 now.

February '15 - $234,924
March '15 - $195,970
April '15 - $176,333
May '15 - $119,262

May isn't over yet, of course, but only a week or so to go. It isn't looking like it's gonna' go over April's earnings. The trend is less money every month, coinciding with an extreme increase in vocal disapproval of certain systems, both on these forums and on reviews. That is the definition of trickling, Spoon. The money boomed in months where major releases and game content was released. Is that your opinion of a financially successful game, Spoon, one that is going to be more than 2 years behind schedule with funds slowly trickling in less and less every month? I'm not saying money is stopping, but there's nothing that's getting people to throw down more, neither from stretch goals nor from game content, whether it's in currently or promised. Also keep in mind that more than half of the money has been funded by a third of the playerbase (per a chart that smack posted that I can't seem to find right now). Are you insinuating those people who dropped thousands of dollars are going to drop thousands again for Episodes 2 and 3, which they already paid for? I know several of these backers and they have publically said they wouldn't back anymore, that they've already paid enough, and now it's time to get their due.

If they were still rolling in the money and everything was fantastic, the last hangout wouldn't have had a different tone from the other hangouts. If you couldn't tell from their body language that there were some ripples in the water, I highly recommend you get out of your computer chair and make some friends in person. It was clear as day, and I'm actually happy for it. It suggests to me and several others that the whip's gettin' cracked behind the scenes, which has been long overdue.

I don't treat the devs like complete idiots, Spoon, especially when it comes to money. They know what's up. They're developing a 2014 game for 2016. They know what they're up against (at least I hope they do). It's real sweet and endearing about making a game that's special to you, but if it's not special for you and a hundred thousand other paying customers, then the servers come offline and your prized POT is a ghost town when you're playing SPOffline in 2017. Those are real issues that have to be considered, things like keeping the lights on and the servers running after the game is launched, and I'd like to think they're considering that need to get more people interested and excited for SotA by doing things like fixing combat. We all know that people who love the housing and emoting and table-dancing would probably be fine with a shoddy combat system, we've had plenty of people say it themselves in the multiple threads on combat over the years.

So why did they apologize for it being so bad? Because the majority of people don't find it fun, and their data is suggesting they fix it so they keep making more money. Y'know, like a business should.

 

And why are we having this discussion again........... It makes no difference but to stir up stuff and does not give feedback that helps. This is a game, and yes for many of us it is the most expensive game we have ever bought in our life and perhaps will ever buy. So what! When I spent the money for this game, it was my choice to do so. I do not 'expect' anything, it was my risk, my choice. So I then go forward and the game either succeeds or it does not, but not because I did not support it to the best of my means both financially and with verbal feedback and whatever else, but I was not adding a lot of junk to the table does not do anything to help. So I say give it a rest and get back to it. I understand worries about finances but that does not do anything but stir up trouble and it is not our job, not what we are here for by any means. RG wanted us here for other reasons to get the feedback as the actual players of games to have the inside scoop to make a better game. Did the team expect all this flack about every movement they make, I can bet they did not, or at least they could hope not. I agree don't we have better things to do. Come on back to combat. Lets get this combat system fleshed out.

 

We're the investors, Majoria. We pay their bills. This isn't a pre-order, it's a kickstarter; this could all come crumbling down and all we get out of it is some alpha gameplay. That's a very real possibility for any crowdsourced endeavor, and while I don't think it will happen with SotA, it can. When you lack investors, you gotta' ask why. This combat talk has brought up threads from this time last year and earlier, and it's interesting to see a lot of the people who said they don't like it haven't been on the forums for a long, long time. They would have a thousand posts 3 months after signing up, and over a year later they've posted ten times.

I'm seeing people post here in these threads with zero post counts, and think, "Newb?" No, joined 2013. Original kickstarters. These guys and gals are quietly watching and not playing, not backing any further, because there are major issues with combat or instances or whatever that makes them go from "I'm excited for this" to "Well, I can't get my money back, so I'll just loiter until release, see how it goes." We need to keep getting money into the game. The amount of money we've got is enough to get what we have a nice little shine - in about a year or more - and that's about it. No boats. No mounts. No deep sea diving. Have we heard anything about fishing lately?

C'mon. We're told we'll get those things eventually, but when? Episode 2? Episode 3? Four or five years from now? And that's if the fundraising goes well for those episodes? Lots of ifs out there for crowdfunding. Money matters - devs gotta' eat. Servers cost money. Support and customer service teams cost money. This isn't just about making the game, it's also about maintaining it. The longer it's in development, the further behind the curve it gets, the less competitive it is when it's released. That means less sales on release. Money stops trickling in when potential investors/backers start to wonder if the game will be successful or a flop, if it releases at all. That's how crowdfunded anything works. They've got a timetable, whether you think they do or not; otherwise they'll be in perpetual development.

So why does it get brought up? Money talks, and there's a lot of backers in this thread who have put out hundreds if not thousands of dollars each saying they'll walk if certain things aren't fixed. Judging by the hangout, I have a feeling the devs realized it's way more than they initially thought.