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

Most of us who have posted in the thread about the card deck problems understand and agree on the basic flaws in the system. It is in-elegant to the point that it interferes with the basic immersion that a roleplaying game should have. Instead of helping us interact with our avatar, it gets in the way in an overwhelming way; and it does this by design, because, it is a "card game" tacked onto the active combat system.

Because the flaws are within the concept, and not how the concept is presented, it will be difficult, if not impossible to rectify. Dividing the system into locked and unlocked versions only creates huge headaches with balancing, and does not actually solve anything.

Perhaps it is time to organize, and present a united front, with a very clear list of the problem, and perhaps answers, to the devs and RG?

Many backers tend to simply be polite, and say nothing. This, in my opinion, tends to only hurt the final product. We owe it to the fantastic past games RG has produced to be honest, to stand up, and make ourselves heard. If we organize a bit and ask others to contribute signatures, etc....it might help draw attention to what may prove to be the fatal flaw in what otherwise is a beautiful looking game.

What do you all think about that? I have some...ideas...about how we might proceed.

 

With the example I quoted, it is really easy to change the spell you want to cast, but you got to think of the spell and press the button combo really quick. Or in the case of melee just assign a strike to each button.

This would also act like the deck system by only the skills that pop into your head (your real brain) will be usable at the right time.

Then people use the skill they need at the appropriate time, but it causes one to think not wait for a card to show up.

 

It is just a control mechanism. The keyboard is always available for typing a message. I'm willing to bet they could make it so that everything you interact with can be managed by a controller in combat and out of combat.

Also nobody has to use a controller because all the functions of the controller are still available to mouse and keyboard.

So I am not concerned about the controller being an issue at all. My focus was an alternative to the current combat system. The same combinations of buttons used for calling up a spell with a controller, could be done with the keyboard.... etc.

 

Twin stick controllers have more control in their secondary axis due to having an analog stick instead of keys that only register discrete up/down presses, but less control in their primary axis because a mouse is simply more accurate. They have an advantage over a mouse in games where the ability to continuously turn without having to ever pick up your mouse and move it back to the center of the table is important, since that's something a mouse can only do with an on screen pseudo controller like you see in games like War Thunder. Controllers are better for games that require combinations of button presses to be executed, since they simply have a better shape to be able to reach button combinations easily. This advantage used to be even bigger in the past when keyboards suffered significant issues with ghosting, where pressing multiple keys close to each other would cause the keyboard to register keystrokes that you didn't make or simply stop registering them all together if too many contacts were active. Controllers always had every button individually wired, making them immune to such problems. Newer keyboards don't really suffer from this anymore.

So, between controllers and mouse and keyboard there are pretty significant differences and no one is clearly better than the other. The amount of skill any individual player has developed at one or the other is likely always going to be the biggest factor in which they prefer.

 

I wanna' say things of this nature have been attempted, from "Let's get a list!" to "Here's a fleshed out alternative to card combat" which either replaces it or works within the confines that card combat stays. There have been several of those threads in the last year, and I know I've contributed to some of them or started them myself (and I'm a late-comer to this issue). So while I say, go for it, I don't know how much they're listening to the alternative at this point.

 

I would propose a light hearted company of like minded backers who all agree on what is wrong with the system, with a colorful moniker to get the attention of the devs and RG. Under a bright banner, this group of enterprising crusaders or knights can spread the word a lot more efficiently than just a bunch of complaining people. It's important to create a very simple document that clearly and concisely spells the critical problem with the deck system, and then offer simple ideas that are easily understood about how they might be addressed.

I throw out the title "EQUIVOQUERS of the AVATAR" as the name of our little consortium of crusading Knights. (You can look up the word and get an idea of the nature of the organization.) This might stand for Elegant Quality User Interface Vanquishes Opaque,Queasily Un-immersive, Exceedingly Random System. EOTA for short!

The point would be to address just how jarring and immersive wrecking playing a card game amidst your avatar battling evil monsters actually is. I personally don't care so much whether the behind the scenes system, that you "set up" before combat involved cards, crossword puzzles, tinkertoys or haiku....but once I have my character fighting something, I want to be involved in whatever it is he or she is fighting.

I personally am a very creative, push the envelope kind of person. However, if we are going to roleplay, then the systems need to support roleplaying, and not work against it.

The deck system, in action, directly works against playing the role of your avatar.

That, in itself, is more than reason enough to change it- by any reasonable measure. It's very, very simple.

So, One for all, and all for the Avatar. Roleplayers unite!

*waves a EOTA pennant and jumps on a horse*

 

I applaud the enthusiasm, but if the polls and division in the community alongside dropping sales/pledges isn't a big enough banner to rally behind, I can't imagine what would get their attention and wake them up to the perils they face.

 

Well, frankly I understand Dewderonomy's point here, there is a whole LOT of ignoring-the-obvious-in-favor-of-believing-what-we-want going. Still, I'm all for every possible option. Sign me up, I'll wave that banner. It's a lot more important, IMHO, than proclaiming what guild I am trying to found, or what website database I built.

 

There is only one way, full immersion combat system. I you are using Locked Deck , which I think is the way to go, you will find total boredom because you are doomed to use the same 10 maximum spells available.Dual combat system is the evidence Deck system is the wrong way.

 

My issues with the combat system are less to do with it being more "RP" or whatever and more down to it being UI focused as opposed to opponent focused. This is also probably due to my personal preference when it comes to the games I play though. I find in SotA I am paying attention to the UI, my cards, etc, rather than focusing on what the opponent (mob) in front me is doing and reacting to that - with the UI elements being intuitive and unobtrusive. I could go into more detail but I doubt anyone cares at this point.

However that is MOST MMO combat in my experience. Attritional combat where I just need to make sure the enemy health bar is falling faster than mine.

 

Another question about the card system...

How are we going to interface the additional skills necessary to make this a sandbox? If/when we can spec into blacksmithing, stealth, animal taming, alchemy, music, fishing, ect. (I hope I'm not wrong, but I would expect full skill trees from each), the active skills like peacemaking, tame animal, hide, whatever... Some will have to be used in combat. Are they going into the deck?

 

And there is a perfect example of where RG and Co should have tried innovation. It's still just HP attrition, like it's always been. THAT is the boring part. Imagine if combat was a push to get in a vital hit, and once that stab, or smash, or zotch had occurred, the winner could step back and breathe, and the loser would fall down and start dieing. Imagine if instead of losing HP as we fought every single thing, indicating that ever single monster was hitting us, gouging us, poisoning us, that combat was about whether or not they hit in the FIRST place, with a single hit being a threat?

 

So cool dude. Love that idea

 

So, it's easy to see that it is illogical, burdensome and frustrating to try and "lock" the deck for those looking for a more RP meaningful experience in Shroud. All that does is make for duller play and bring huge issues with game balance into the picture. Perhaps there is a better way to "eliminate" the immersion breaking deck for those who aren't magic the gathering wannabbees.

Instead of creating two different systems by locking the deck, how about removing the graphics in the toolbar and bring the deck invisibly to the screen itself?

The mechanics of the deck are really just popping alternate spells/skills into the hotbar number slots. You see the skill you want appear, and you press the correct number on the keypad.

Is the card itself needed? Nope, it's strictly an added bit of sugar. This icing gets in the way of immersion by drawing your eyes off the action on the screen.

Instead of cards popping up below the action- why not have the hotbar number appear on the screen, on your sword arm for fighting skills, on your shield arm for defense and buffs, on your body for dodgey skills, on monsters for ranged and magical attacks? It could come and go pretty quickly, almost ghostlike in appearance and transparent.



<a href="http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/dukstuf/media/-NgiEThPD03c_878x0_Z-Z96KYq.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w487/dukstuf/-NgiEThPD03c_878x0_Z-Z96KYq.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo -NgiEThPD03c_878x0_Z-Z96KYq.jpg"/></a>



Color code said numbers to tell you what magic school it is.

You already use memorization to set up the skills to begin with. The one good thing about the system is the fact you can set it up how you like, which, makes it easier to remember than some other games.

When a skill becomes available, the number fades briefly into view ON THE WORLD SCREEN. You have to be quick and time things to use it, just as you normally do. TWO numbers means a combo is available.

Isn't this a much more immersive and elegant way to handle things for those interested in roleplaying?

Does it not solve the issues with locked bars and unlocked bars without actually changing anything except for the game immersion breaking need to look away from what is happening on screen?

No need to re-create the wheel. It's very simple visual changes that can be optional.

There are some specific issues that would need to be addressed, but, the basic idea seems sound to me.

Has anyone else suggested this? It seems like a pretty obvious fix to address a terrible defect in the game.

<a href="http://s1078.photobucket.com/user/dukstuf/media/maxresdefault.jpg.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w487/dukstuf/maxresdefault.jpg" border="0" alt=" photo maxresdefault.jpg"/></a>

 

If we want to color code the magic school why not give us color codes that we can choose from. Rather than skills being dealt to us, why not try using colors/codes etc to chose our spell? Click a combination just like we are manually casting the spell ourselves?

As for combat we ought to just be able to choose what attack we want to use at that time. Chop, slash, stun etc. IN WHICH CASE I don't mind a cool down on some more powerful/tiring moves.

Realism is their goal. At this point realism isn't in the cards though.

So let's step back from the cards for a moment, and see if another approach creates the realism... that relies on the player to create the moves from their own memory (which could result in people forgetting moves at the right time which is the intent of the deck, because in real life we don't always think fast enough to execute the moves we know at the perfect time).

Using the right combination of colors/glyphs in the proper order to setup the desired move requires a player to think. If the combat doesn't go as planned the player would then have to think fast and set up the right counter moves ... this could lead a person to get flustered and set up the wrong moves and die... while a more collected player will remain clear minded and make the proper adjustments.

That would result in knowing who really is a better warrior or not. Not a random deck.

***********************************

I think by now we can rest assured that the deck system will not bring about the "realism" that was envisioned. However Richard's Vision is still good! Rather than having a deck create a frustrating situation, use a system that causes "the player" to be put in the situation where the they have the skill but might not think fast enough to use it when he/she needs it.

...I don't think selecting a combination of a color and a glyph, or two glyphs and a color, is fast twich. It could be something that is keyed in while finishing the last strike. But it requires participation. A person can only execute one skill, one combination of strikes, or one spell at a time.

 

Ultimately, the one single dreadful thing, to me, about the current combat system is the way the deck forced you out of immersion with your avatar. It is terrible for one very simple reason. Shroud of the Avatar is touted as a roleplaying game.
Playing the role of a character, in an old school, social, online fashion means that your UI should not come between you and your character.
I don't think anyone who actually has played any of RG's past games would argue against this stance.

Other issues- balance, broader spells, more interesting skills, more realism in being able to jump around and do stuff is easily fixed with simple work on the system- but the deck system itself is a much greater problem, because it is the basic foundation system around which combat happens.

Trying to lock the deck destroys much of the interest and whole "point" of the system, so that is a bad way to proceed. It also creates a whole, awful, balancing issue that practically is as much work as creating a new system.

If instead, you offer an abstraction of the deck- minimizing it into a visible, color, number system which flashes onto the game world screen- you keep the base design work, but you offer an alternative way to "present" it.

That is what my above idea involves- keeping the theoretical proceedings of the deck, but giving the option to the player to do away with dealing the visual monstrousity of the deck-beast being the physical enemy you are fighting.

In otherwords, streamline, simplify, improve, so that it becomes as invisible and in the "background" while combat happens- it would remain exactly the same when set up.

I know that when I play games like ArcheAge, I already have the spell sequences memorized by heart so that I can hurl off 3 and 4 spells or attacks, adjust to what the other guy is doing, jump to another 3 different response using only numbers, and never glancing down at my toolbar.

By having the available numbers appear as you engage in combat right on your character, you retain immersion, you react in real time while still seeing the monster you are fighting.

The burden that the RPG player will have over the card wielder is that it will require much more memorization of what spell or skill you set at which number.

But hell, that is a challenge well worth taking up to me, to keep myself immersed and playing my character.

Any questions?

 

And, absolutely Isaiah, it would be fantastic if each player could "choose" his colors, how large the numbers appeared were, how much transparency the numbers had, and so on, to make using them easier and unique to each player.

 

Yeah. It isn't that I am being a contrarian trying to oppose the deck system... actually the polls have been consistent even if people don't believe them. The polls are always about 60% thinking this is not a good idea. Remember 30% of the population of the US did not want Independence from England. So 60% is really high.

The deck really ought not be discussed any further at this point in development. I will not discuss the deck again, only alternatives that can achieve the original goal.

 

Start a new poll in July, after people have to start paying for alt accounts. It still will be skewed but not as much. Make the poll unbiased with unbiased questions.

 

I just want to note, I still haven't voted.