SOTA's Target Audience is too broad.

Right, but now you would be (if you wanted to attack).

It would also prevent the running through people and attacking them. If gives players the ability to run away. It makes melee more of a cat and mouse game. I think it solves a lot of problems.

 

Players won't be able to control control points like that though. Too easy to circumvent it. If say.. the controlling group is in one instance and that instance becomes 'full'.. all new players passing through won't even see them there. There's also friends only and single player modes.

That's not to say there might be other potential scenarios. I just don't think control points are it. Random quest style scenarios maybe? Player hires on to guard a caravan.. other players come along to try to rob it.. though most would probably attack first but.. you never know..

 

On a short side note, I understand the desire to curtail the mad running around of the current combat model, but something about forcing or pressuring via buffs (because who wants to be left out on an advantage) players to remain still just doesn't feel right to me. Combat is ALL ABOUT position in relation to an opponent. Having the high ground, racing to cover when under fire, controlling your opponent's and your angle of attack, trying to gain the strike angle that will allow you to exploit a hole in your opponent's armor or defenses... these are all about, and all involve, movement. Being forced to stand still to execute a maneuver or attack simply doesn't make sense for the majority of melee options...

Just my thoughts on that particular issue.

 

I was with you up until "melee options" If it's one thing that seems particularly fake to me is running back and forth with a sword like some kind of yo-yo. I don't mean just jumping in and out of striking distance.. but rather all over the area.

Of course, just standing still and whacking each other isn't very realistic either but combat systems in games have yet to do a good job simulating actual combat. Still, seeing a little "move first, block second" would be nice.. just not to the extremes we currently have.

 

Lag doesn't really allow players to do that. At best, even when it's working "great" it's not real. It's an illusion that you are hitting the guy at the right angle. But if you make people slow down and stop to attack, now you're getting much closer to what is real.

 

Well, considering those words are pretty much the end of my post, then I will count it as a point well taken *grins* But the reason I say "the majority of melee options" is two fold: one, just as there are attacks that would require movement to make the most of the situation, there are a few that require quite the reverse. Second, I specifically call out melee, because spell casting should be (but isn't) powerful enough to play to the careful planner (which, lets face it, all mages should be), and thus require that character to be rooted to the spot to properly execute his casting. Likewise, ranged combat whether it be via thrown items or a device to launch a projectile benefits greatly in terms of accuracy if the actor is stable and focused.

The only place I have seem this done well to any extent, AND it was directionally sensitive (to a degree) was the game Savage: The Battle for Newerth, where up to 64 players (maximum, reliably 32 players with pings less than about 100ms to the server) fought in melee and ranged combat in a destroy the base kind of scenario.

 

I played that game. My computer and connection were not great. I don't remember it being better or worse than other games though.

I think a lot of the results depend on where you're located and what kind of technical tools you have. Even then, the point I'm trying to make is that the client tells you what you "see" and the network does something else. Sometimes that something else is dead on and accurate, and other times it's not. I don't like the random experience. I can lose in pvp just fine without the help from the internet.

 

http://www.expressobeans.com/public/detail.php/14778

 

I realize it's probably beyond the game's budget but if combat would be properly synchronized I'm sure it would solve a lot of issues. I suppose it would have to be artificially slowed down in order to do that though. Ideally you could hide the slow down within the synchronization which would possibly only need to be done when characters are within melee range? hmmm

 

I played it shortly after it came out until long after it had been pretty much abandoned by S3 and was being developed by the community. The lag compensation at that point made it nearly unplayable for me, even on US servers. Before then, it was a hell of an example of some of what you have been talking about: Blocking, with an opportunity for a counter for the humans, and the ability to leap past a blocking human and smack him in the back with a nasty hit for the beast side. No counter that was truly built in to the game though, as the human side counter ability came from the delay caused by the attacker receiving a block.

Won a match one time for my team with a sneak catapult... just think about that one for a moment. Sneak... Catapult...

 

I was just playing Shadowrun: Dragonfall , I kind of enjoyed how the combat added to the role-playing even without conversational elements.

This is because you might have several objectives in a combat session, such as sending some of your team to hack into a computer when the others fended off physical attacks ; because there were things you could do to modify the battlefield, and non-combat skills that allowed you to increase your tactical advantage ; because it mattered which enemies you killed first ; because your team members could only be healed in limited amounts and limited ways, and could be lost permanently if they died ; because every form of attack wasn't equal ... in the end, a combat session might feel like a story that was playing out.

So I hope to see some of that in SotA. Of course, its easier in Shadowrun, because combat is turn-based.

 

Much easier to do in a single player or co-op environment. PvP on the other hand.... not so much.

 

You and I have had disagreements in these forums and I completely disagree with you as does many a RP consumer. I will not disagree that there is merit to having PvP in RP but lest we forget that RP mimics real life and most of us in this forum have not engaged in real life PvP beyond the school playground when we were kids though some of us have engaged in mortal combat (no pun intended). Point being, PvP has relevance in RP but there is plenty that can be RPed with absolutely no PvP and you can have entire RP systems with no PvP.

What is the most well known RP medium and just released its fifth edition? Dungeons & Dragons. Guess what... no PvP. I understand that you may not find RP without PvP entertaining or enjoyable but plenty of RPers do.

 

Where does it say in and 5e that there's no PvP?

 

D&D isn't an online multiplayer game. It's co-op.. so of course there's no PvP.. or is there? Would that not be up to the DM and players involved. In either case, please don't take my comments out of context.. We aren't talking about pen and paper here and since when has fantasy/medieval RP ever mimiced real life? You want to compare with D&D? How often have you gone adventuring and run into something undead? A mage that consults demons? How many adventure groups sit around the tavern and never go adventuring?

Let's face it.. people don't RP to mimic real life. Now we're talking online gaming here.. is it possible to RP without PvP? Sure. I'm not saying you absolutely HAVE to.. I'm saying you can't remove it as an option. Not because it's my personal preference.. but because I recognize its value. What would RP be like if no one ever came into conflict? If all you could ever do when you did come into conflict is trash talk.. ooooh yeah I'm going to kill you some day..you'll see! No.. players need the option to hack each other to bits. Conflict drives story/RP. Especially in a game like SotA where there is no DM that can do it for you. Should ALL RPers hold hands all day in some RP paradise? No one is allowed to play an evil character?

 

You don't need PvP if you're just playing the game and the story written for you by the gamemaster, or in this case, the devs. That's what generally happens during a pen-and-paper session.

Its helpful addition, though, if you want to play out your own stories, the possibility of which is what makes MMOs interesting.

 

I've never played d&d and not been killed by another player.

 

Why do other players hate you so much?

 

Because I actually role play.

Interesting note, I've never attacked another player.

 

Hey! I already used that video in this thread!