Constructive Criticism of 6 month demo Combat Card System

While I completely agree with what you say, I think it's important that we keep in mind, the UI for real life, and the engine that processes the results of real life actions, and the "multi-player" component, are currently utterly beyond our ability to fully COMPREHEND, let alone replicate. You have more control and more options just walking down the block to buy milk than the most advanced and button/macro happy UI I've ever heard of. So while I respect the comparison to real life combat, the video game WILL HAVE TO BE less complex, folding multiple concepts into super-simplified lesser versions, just so that our machines and our programs can handle them. I GET that Portalarium wants the random card system to represent all manner of things that change without warning, LIKE a gun jamming or a grenade, or stumbling on uneven turf, or getting the sun in your eye...I just think that right now the existing nature of the system itself seems to be having more of a negative impact than the randomness OF that system. If I had been dealt a "jump away from grenade" card, and a grenade landed, I am uncertain of my ability to find and use that card while there was still time to do so.

I get that you THINK you've given good reasons, but I'm pretty sure you are in the minority there. It is NOT inherantly fun to not know what you will do, or what will happen, next. We don't generally like games where the RNG on a basic attack could deal anywhere between one and two-hundred-billion damage, at a range of between zero and twenty-million metres. We don't like it when our personal relationships could result in marriage, sex, divorce, or murder in equal probability each time we get home from work. There is such a thing as too much randomness. Too great a range in the RNG. Uncertainty is one thing, incomprehension is another. The size and composition of our decks is another big unknown, last I checked, so I am not reassured by one forum member or another suggesting a version that is nice. The actual offering could have absolutely nothing in common with any of the theoretical offerings from the forum.

Where I am currently coming from, is what I've SEEN. And what I've seen is a system that would be harder to control than any other aspect of gameplay, and which would block any attempt at complex, high speed group play, either PvE or PvP, thus making OPO and FPO kinda pointless.

 

That is why you wouldn't to just put every ability in your deck and think it will turn out okay. You run into that issue of too random. You want to control it a bit.

So.. If instead of this system they described it as a system where you have set skills and they are on cooldowns that are slightly random, from 1-30 seconds and the more points you put into it the more it decreases the cool down, but only 1 ability can come off cool down each second. When you enter combat mode is when the cooldown starts. Would you feel better, worse, or the same? Because.. it is the same net effect in combat.

 

Nor should you be. This is a discussion, and keeps falling into people and idea bashing. (You've been quite constructive Malak, so not dissing you) - the fact that nearly all of us are having problems coming up with

a) ways to improve their system
b) a better alternative to accomplish RG's goal of needing to stay attentive in combat

shows how difficult this venture is to wrap one's head around. What I'd like to see is us fostering an atmosphere where throwing out random ideas is welcomed and not bemoaned or trolled on. Repeatedly posting that you want full choice or UO combat is not helpful. Seriously, is this forum full of engineers? (take that, high paying career!)

Creative sessions should be open, inviting & non-judgemental. I feel this topic is being stifled and smothered by vehemence. Sorry for being so "meta", I'll try and come up with brilliant suggestions myself.

 

I prefer a game instead of a combat simulator. When the card system offers a game within a game, I am all for it. However, I would like to have skill and/or strategy to come into play, making my actions meaningful and combat meaningful. An element of randomness is ok, but not if it nullifies any meaning to strategic planning of the choices I make during combat. Skill should remain more important than luck. Skill might mean the ability to handle the element of randomness giving skillful play the upper hand.

On the the other hand, random choices of spells to choose from will draw my attention to the part of the UI that shows the spells. I might not afford to look at anything but that section of the screen to survive the battle while choosing the correct spells/abiltities. Depending on the pace of the combat, which thusfar seems to be quite slow, that will or will not be the case. Too slow combat will require a diffent take on how the card system needs to be implemented to keep combat fun and challenging though.

I simply do not have enough information yet to decide whether I will or will not like the combat. However, I know that without meaningful combat I will not engage in PvP.

 

John Cleese on Creativity

 

The most fun games require both skill and luck.

On one end of the skill spectrum, you have Tic-Tac-Toe. Only requires skill, but the options are limited and once you're six and you've figured it out, the result is always a win or a tie.
On the other end of the skill spectrum is Chess. Easy to learn how each piece moves, but it could take you years to master. It involves thinking ahead over the different options. Throw two masters up against each other, and you're likely to see plenty of draws.

Then you have games based on randomness. A coin flip is a simple win/lose game with zero skill. The other side is more complex games like candyland and chutes and ladders. They may have more parts, but in the end the results are based on a die roll or a deck shuffle.

The best games are the ones that are somewhere in the middle of both axis. Table top strategy games are skill based via strategic placement of troops, how many to attack with, etc, and a second component of randomness based on die rolls to determine combat results. Poker deals out random hands, and then the skill comes from how a player rides the percentages to determine when and how much to bet, hold, call, bluff, etc. I've heard someone who enjoys playing often refer to it as not something you judge yourself based on a single hand or night, but how you play over long periods of time, like months or years or, oh, maybe over your entire life.

I understand where Richard is coming from when he says he wants to add randomness to the combat. I don't believe that the dealing of the cards is the way to do it. In the poker example, you can't win every hand. You can't even win 90% of them. Probably not even 50%. You do your best to minimize your chip loss so that you are still around when you do get a good hand. In a video game, I don't want to die half of every combat I enter against NPCs. I want to win 99.9% of the time or I'm probably going to get frustrated and quit. For combat against other players, I understand I can't win 99% of the time, but when I die, I want to be sure that I did everything I could to survive. I don't mind some randomness, like some number based on a min/max damage of my weapon. I know what I'm going in with, and I know what my chances are. But when the randomness determines which weapon I can use, I will definitely mind it.

 

People pay attention to combat when it's slow, tense, and easy for one party to lose to the other. If combat is trivial and monsters are not obstacles - but things to be grinded - then people stop paying attention to combat. A card system itself is not going to encourage this.

Furthermore, combat is brutish, short and unfair. True combat is not fun. Any serious martial artist knows even the most bumbling opponent could kill them under the right circumstances. It's easy for luck and circumstance to take down even the most skilled of fighters. So, true to life combat does not make a fun game. True to life combat is frustrating and often so random... and often so short - that there's no give or take. Most fights are ended in the first blow. Most actions are decisive and dictate the course of the battle. It's rare for there to be a give and take. So... any game that isn't aiming to be a combat simulator... I don't think it's wise for them to try and emulate real life combat closely. Some elements, maybe, but you can't argue that 'real life combat does this, so our game must do this too.' It's not a sufficient argument.

 

Well Lonestranger, I don't think that what skills you get (unless you build a terrible list of skills/spells) will determine if you win or lose to such an extent. You aren't looking to draw better skills/spells than your opponent, you are looking for a better synergy and higher skills and more tactics in choosing when and how to use those that you have available.

Rild is right, this thread should be about ideas for combat, however, I also believe that until we play test it during alpha we wont be able to really offer advice. I can tell you 90% of people look at something they haven't seen before and say, well that doesn't look like fun. Then you get them to try it and they get hooked... so... I'm glad the dev's are sticking to their guns and we will get to play test it.

People in here claim to have played other games like it, but I haven't played any PC game that utilizes a combat system like they demo'd. If anyone has a PC game with similar/same combat mechanics I would like to try it.

 

I gather Richard's intent is to remove the level of predictability in combat that leads to its near automization and thereby, boredom for some.

It is a fair point that each battle has meaning here - it's not like we're playing hands in a larger game. Well written post, LS.

What ability do players have to ensure they survive while waiting for the right 'opportunity' in combat? Passive defensive skills?

 

This is where we just plain don't know enough about the mechanics behind combat and skill use. I would ASSUME that proper deck construction based on the opponent (oh look, I see undead ahead, let me "equip" my Paladin deck....); but I really don't know yet

 

Yep, we can easily stretch out combat and therefore reducing the number of things you have to kill in order to reach a goal, double average combat time and you halve the requirements on what you need to kill. If the issue is longer combat gets too boring, well then this system certainly counters that right?

survival depends on the goal of your build, some people will build pure offense in hopes of overcoming you before you can kill them, others will blend some healing, some defense and some offense in an attempt to outlast you, others might be all defensive with some skills/spell combos that they wait for to finish you off with 3 combos in a row. Some might try to just slow you while they run around you. All sorts of different strategies can be deployed with the classless limited skill availablity style of system.

@Seir, I agree, I think most people will run with general purpose decks and then switch out if they know they are going to encounter certain enemies. That doesn't mean they can't kill with a more general one, but it will be faster/easier with a specific target in mind. I'm sure PVP will have it's own strategy and useful skills/spells as well.

 

You are correct. You would be trying to look for better 'synergy' and higher skills. But you're looking from a supply randomly doled out by the system. It will matter what you put in your deck, but it is still random what skills/spells you would have availabe. Kinda like poker. And as in poker, the randomness appears wider than just a min/max of damage a skill/spell/weapon can do. You also mention tactics. I'm not sure I've seen much of that in this system yet. Tactics would imply a strategy longer than one 'round.' I guess combos would fall under that. But if the combo sequence is built upon random cards, long combos are going to be rare.

 

I'm sorry, I like John Cleese but I don't have 30min to waste watching a video of him. Whats your point?

I have posted this video a couple of times on this subject, inovation is great IF ITS TO SOLVE A PROBLEM

This combat system is more like the devs of mirror's edge complaining that because its new it should be lauded. No it should be FUN first and formost, if making it fun makes it new then great, if making it fun means you use the same mechanics as have been used in the past then great too. They were probably made because they work

For those who keep bringing up turn based games and claiming that they are fun so that should be introduced here there is a fundermental difference. ONE IS TURN BASED, THE OTHER REAL TIME. Turn based mechanics have NEVER worked in a real time game, not unless you can pause the game to use them which would be fine if you wanted to abolish PvP and make this PvE only

 

All I seem to hear from the 'pro-card' gang is that it removes the predictability in combat, I expect the majority of the gang are RPers and PvMers (although I will never be able to prove it)

Do you know what is really predictable? ....NPC/Monster AI.

Do you know what isn't predictable? ....People

By it's very nature PvP is random because people are individuals and have lots of choices. I'm for PvP and not the coin toss.

 

I would love to see you automate PvP. as for PvM make your NPC/monster AI random instead.

 

You already have randomness with the chance to hit and damage amounts.

You have randomness with your own flaws as a human.

You don't need to build more on top of that, and if you're going to it should add something to the game that wasn't already there.

This doesn't add anything different. It just takes away.

 

I would say, having not played the system yet, that assigning mythical powers to it is premature. It does NOT solve the problem of video game boredom. I can totally see myself getting not only bored, but utterly fed up with this system, we just need a little while for the novelty to wear off.

I would say that you've described the general purpose deck right there: having played games that "fish" for procs on their attacks, thus giving me a bunch of minor abilities that DON'T win the fight, but which can randomly give me the proc that DOES win, that what many players will find effective here is to just attack, fast and hard, and hope that they get enough damaging spells and moves off to win before their target accomplishes the same goal. Those who are hoping that a heal, or a stun, or a shield, will come up will die more often than not when faced with this onslaught, all powers being equal, because there is a time and a place for defenses and recoveries, but DPS ALWAYS works. Maybe it's the right moment to do a wrist lock, or to do a trip, or dodge back, maybe it's not; but, as Richard tells us, it's ALWAYS the right time to shoot someone in the face until it stops being funny.

 

le sigh. one point John makes in the video is that there is a difference between the creative mind and the analytical mind, and that separation of these activities is needed to make effective use of both. i posted the vid bc i find the lecture interesting and stimulating. you are free to ignore the additional information. i did watch your video last time it was posted, and i do understand your point. please stop yelling.

Haha! Indeed, sir.

Ewhart, your predictable responses have disproven your statement.

I have very little interest in exchanging barbs with you folks, so I am going to refrain from posting here until I have something else constructive to say. Please help us to promote creative dialogue by not jumping all over every post. I'm not here to blast your opinions, but I am interested in exchanging ideas with people in this forum, and all this rage is choking my brain. (What's that you say, liver? More beer? Well, ok maybe just one..)

 

Well, they haven't solved chess, but that doesn't mean they can't create a computer to do a damn good job playing it.

 

I've seen it before. It's a very good video. Everyone should watch it.