Starr Long Discusses Chaotic Aspects of SOTA Combat

My feeling is there should be a stance switching mechanism which looks something between a gw2 weapon swap and the different stances many WoW classes have. The most obvious swaps might be for range or AoE. In time you could imagine stealth or transformation stances (like WoW), one for mounts if there's actual mounted combat, etc. Switching a stance would swap weapons and default attacks, passives, decks, etc. I'd hope most of these are on the fly where possible, since that adds an interesting dimension to combat.

 

I read his post. It sounds pretty spot on. His description was:

That's not inside knowledge. That's what they've said repeatedly the combat will be like.

You get a set of favorites you put in a bag, it gets shuffled, and then doled out to you at random. You lose control of when you can use your abilities, and really only have control of what abilities will come up for you to use.

So, yeah. That is one of the main problems with the system... but there are others....

 

Let me try again.

1. I have said numerous times I don't know how it will work while saying that you don't either. No one does. What I have asked for is for people to at least let the ALPHA come out before calling foul. So when you say "there is no reason to believe that the proposed system will actually work as you suggest" you are correct, but it is ALSO true for all the people throwing out these worst case scenarios of losing control completely, getting owned by a newly created character with a practice bow, etc. I wish you direct some of this sage advice to those individuals as well. All I am doing is presenting the other side of the argument, that maybe it won't be as bad as people are thinking. Maybe it will even be a really great system that the vast majority enjoy. Over and over again I said "wait and see," which is pretty much what we all have to do if we want an accurate picture.

2. I have never said that people's reluctance is unwarranted. Ever. In fact, some people here have changed my mind as evidenced in my longer post above. What is unwarranted is baseless assumptions of what it is going to be like when we don't know how exactly it will work, then using those assumptions to say the idea is garbage. Now on this point we may disagree, which is fine, no harm no foul. You can say whatever you want to say within the community rules as much as you want to say it, as can I.

I can tell you are a very literal person. I was being more generic with "negatively" when I said "you view the system negatively." At the very least, you have SERIOUS doubts about it. I know you specifically said that you could like it or hate it, depending on its implementation. My general point was that someone with a serious doubts (even if they don't completely hate it yet) may tend to color in unknowns with negative aspects. I will be more careful next time in being general and try to be more specific.

I read your entire post, and my comment still stands. My major point was that you said it would work for this but not for this, and I don't think you have enough information to really know if that is true. I think it can work for all kinds of builds, tanks included, if they implement it well. Just because you don't agree with what I said doesn't mean I didn't read your post, understand it, and respond accordingly.

Have a nice day.

 

I too am pesamistic of the idea. I will try it, but I worry they are putting a lot of effort into something that only makes it about how much time you spend at hte computer rappidly pressing random buttons. Which kills my time in this game cause I work full time. I cant compete with a 12 y/o who is home all day during the summer.

Like I said... I'll try it... but I hope they are not too attached to it.

 

Sir_Tim - I think the idea isn't that you'll be pushing random buttons, but that you'll be forced to actually think about what you're doing instead of just memorizing certain sequences of spells that you always use. I see no more reason for acting randomly in this paradigm than in the paradigm where you have full access to all combat skills all the time - in either case, it's a really poor tactic to use.

I don't think this affects how much time you'll have to spend on the game to be competitive, except that it means playing intelligently will likely be rewarded more than just rote memorizing what works.

 

Compete??! I didn't hear anything about that we have to compete against everybody else in order to play this game. This is a game that we play according to one's desire and capacity, not by any other standard. Don't worry about how and to what extent others play.

 

How random combat will be depends on how small of a deck size they allow (I don't know what their term is for it). In most games I've played you generally use 5 skills in combat. if you only have 5 different skills in your deck with varying numbers of each, between 3 and 5, avg of 4.. you could have about 20 skills in your deck, but really they are only 5 skills coming up, and if it draws them at a rate of one every 2 seconds it's really nothing more than a slightly random cooldown timer between 2-10 seconds between skills. It's not really an issue. And if you only have 1 of a type of skill in your deck then it does make it into up to an 40-80 second cooldown on that.. So it is a little less planned, but not bad. However, this system does allow for you to not be so specialized, it allows you to do just 20 different skills in there and you never know what can happen then. So it lets you be as measured and controlled as you feel comfortable with. I think it's brilliant.

I'm just guessing at the numbers given, we don't know the time delay, minimum/maximum deck size and how many of each skill you can possibly put in. But I think these numbers work well.. they could make no minimum deck size so if you just want 3 skills to come up all the time just put those 3 skills in it. In a pvp situation I'm sure you'll find people with a more well rounded deck will win though, something that can handle and deal out multiple types of damage/healing.

that will be half the fun of this sytem. Oh how many fire spells did you put in? Oh you should take one out and add another healing spell, yeah... coool... I'm such a nerd. I'm sure people will be posting their best and favorite "decks" and analyzing the strategies behind them.

And if you don't like that aspect you can just copy someone elses, or Chris mentioned they'd likely have some premade ones... so you'd use a suggested version.


on the subject of minimum size, i would imagine it would have to start at 1.. because early on you would only have 1 skill/spell? hmm maybe we'll get a bunch of points to start off with to spend on skills/spells.

 

In my experience since 2004, persistent multiplayer online game battles for solo players take between 10 and 20 seconds for a target of equal difficulty to the player, in PvE. Typically 12-15 seconds for me, personally. That generally involves between 4 and 8 keypresses.

Any system that takes longer than that, or requires more keypresses, will both be seen as negatives. Why? If it takes longer, combat will be seen as slower. If it requires more keypresses, it will be seen as random wack-a-mole button mashing, because other games require less. Burning through skills that don't do what you need will just artificially (and with great frustration) extend combat to no purpose.

As has been pointed out better by others, the "stacking the deck" mechanic is a band-aid on an arterial laceration. In other words, 40 to 80 seconds between desired skills? Not going to cut it. You might not even see that skill at all for 4-6 fights, solo, if the pace of combat is going to be the same as other games. If it's going to be slower, get ready for a shark-nado of negative feedback.

The ideas presented by the community to stack the deck of combos or chains ONLY, and have those randomized, while using static base abilities is a great compromise.

 

Agree, Agree, Agree! Let's Hope They Stop That Sharknado Before It Ever Gets Started.

 

40-80 seconds is an extreme example of something you likely wont see, 1 skill out of 20. Intentionally built that way so you would mainly use it/see it during a boss fight. basically it would have to be a powerful ability that you only can have one of, if they cap the skills in that regard. generally in a 12-15 second fight you'll have 6-7 key presses in my example, you stack your deck using 5 different skills, they come up fireball, heal, fireball, lightning, lightning, water, heal.. battle is over..(and i never got my earth shield spell or my summon fire elemental which I only have 1 of but I'll probably draw it during the lich fight at the end of this dungeon because it's a 1.5 minute fight) that is a 14 second fight with 7 button presses. how is that so unexecuseable? That is how i envision this system mostly working and where we swap out our decks for different things... oh we are going to go fight fire elementals, they are weak to my water skills i'll load it up with that. there is some randomness, some thought put into it, but it should feel fun.

and also, 40-80 second cool down, not to draw it, it would draw within 40 seconds of a fight. and anywhere from 42-80 seconds the 2nd time.

Honestly though, I expect we'll have fewer button presses in this combat system, not more.

This is the way card systems work, you stack the deck with what you want, and put in a couple of somethings that are situational, so if you end up unexpectedly facing something you'll have a counter available.

I think people react so negatively to it because it's such a foreign concept to them, it can actually be a lot of fun, where from a #s perspective it does boil down to the same thing, but the fun factor of not knowing is there too. where are my 5 fireballs at? ahhh all at the end... finally can finish this fight, that was an odd/rare occurence. I'm sure there will be some.. GRRR moments combine with AHHAAA! momemnts. that's what a chaotic system creates.

 

I think you're overly optimistic if you think you're going to get those card draws from a purely random system.

Also, from what has been described so far, skills only recycle every 3 seconds. So presuming you had what you wanted, and it wasn't on some kind of internal cooldown, combat is going to take considerably longer.
Put simply, if the exact skill you wanted appeared every 3 seconds, you're still waiting 3 seconds until you can use the next one, which would mean a minimum of 21 seconds to use seven skills.
It's like... the temporal randomizer is a horrifically long global cooldown. And yes, even two seconds would still be the longest GCD to date.

 

they can change how fast/slow they draw if they need to. Also, I don't think we'll be as dependent on our skills in this game as we are in others, we will continue our basic attacks w/o skills/spells.

This isn't a purely random system, you build the deck so it isn't random, if it was purely random it would be 1 of every skill i know... no deck building involved. You also wouldn't use a skill right after you get it if it has potential to combo, you'll save it, so you could go 6-15 seconds waiting for another ability... (likely if the next one you got wasn't the needed combo you'd choose to either use that one or use the older one)

If they dont put skills back in smart players will know whats left in their deck and make decisions based on that... and I'd lean towards skills dont get put back in till you run out. less random that way.

This system allows predictivity... not randomness.

as far as the GCD, if only skills/spells are in the bag/deck then we have consumeables, potions, wands, staves that we can use outside of that. Plus saving skills/spells to use later... it's only the longest gcd if you mean MMORPGs. I've played many single player RPGs with much longer GCDs and I liked it so moving away from mmorpg style might be a great thing.

 

It was my understanding that the idea behind this was to make so that you had a chance against the skilled 12yo kids which would instead crush you in any other game out there.

Think about it: if they went for the standard WoW-clone, i.e. "memorize combo, press keys in the right sequence over and over until you win", you would have absolutely zero chances against the WoW kids.
Those little imps can memorize a sequence of 200 keystrokes and repeat it 1000 times without a single mistake. Plus they would min-max everything, and get the best gear in a few days, so you'd be dead after two spells anyway.

The idea behind this system, if I didn't misunderstand Richard and Starr, is that the weaker opponent still has a chance if he's lucky and can take advantage of an unexpected opportunity.
Also, you would plan your strategy in advance, by stacking skills and spells to have more chances to use the ones you think will be more useful at the right time.
There would be no cookie-cutter build and no standard combo to memorize, which is good.

Still, I hope the system won't be totally random, also because I'm notoriously unlucky

 

Good point Fox_Cunning.

 

Here's the thing though: Wouldn't you still have to memorize x number of decks which have y number of actions stacked within them so you can pull them out for an opponent you may or may not have a chance of winning against because you don't really know what stats and modifiers the opponent has? Maybe those decks can be labeled but still if you're trying to chase down or evade an opponent and having to hunt for the right deck for the particular type of opponent, it's not going to only require the reflexes of a 12 year old to do well; it will require a personal assistant to manage your UI dragging and your combat decks as well.

 

I don't believe you'd have too many... and who is afraid to die learning? you die, now you know what you need next time you see them so you'll go there with the right deck/bag or whatever it's being called. I'm sure we'd be able to label them. I don't think this will be a rapid switching between decks/bags for exactly what you need. You'll likely be switching depending on the role you are in. A solo one, a group combat one, one for healing one for damage, one for tanking one for pvp. you might have a couple of different solo combat decks or specialized ones for certain areas (depending on what you are fighting you might stack it heavy with fire or water based spells because they are weak to it)

 

I hope that is the case. But how you play used to(in UO) relate to your skill combination which, with so many combinations, meant you couldnt just run a standard combo. You would have to figure out how they were atackign and defending and adjust.

That is fine to say if you dont plan on playing the open pvp mode. I plan on playing such a mode.

One hopes the intent will match the outcome.

 

I appreciate your well written and well thought out post. I appreciate your points. However...

That'll be a cold day in hell.

If you don't want to listen to people talking, complaining, doubting, and yes, even crying foul, then don't read the thread. I have grave doubts about the idea, and while I am far from refusing to play because of it, and will enthusiastically try it out when the Alpha is released, I reserve the right to express my feelings in a public forum of which I am a member and in a thread that was intended to discuss this very issue. That includes saying what I don't want to see, and how I feel about it.

 

What I have a hard time understanding is this:

1) The system as developing is turning out to be very complicated and restricting, yet somehow more interesting to people who don't pvp who think it will balance the field. And as much as I find my self surprised to agree with Isaiah, he is right, most of the strategies so far are designed to make the skills you want show up when you want them. As someone else said in the other thread, if you have to design so many ways to get the system to work in your favor, it probably isn't a good system.

2) What is the whole purpose of this system? Supposedly from what has been posted, it is to make combat such a 'chaotic' 'randomized' encounter as to give everyone that one last hope that the battle will turn in their favor at the darkest hour, and to level the pvp playing field to protect us from the 12 yr old super geniuses. (really?) Why is everyone willing to spend all this time 'learning' to stack decks etc etc, but not willing to spend time learing 'player skill' based pvp? I have a hard time understanding how people think they can 'learn' to stack decks better, but somehow they never seem to figure out those ever elusive macros that = 'I WIN' Those 12 yr old super geniuses must also be really good at keeping secrets.

Here's just a few points I want to express:

1) This system is not going to change your long term experience of pvp. The people who are good a pvp are good at it because they like it, practice it, spend more time doing it than anything else in the game, and just by the sheer laws of physics and nature will always be more skilled at combat pvp than people who don't spend that time doing it, no matter what system is in place. Professional baseball pitchers who grew up from age 5 playing baseball will always pitch better than amatuers no matter what the rules of the game are.

2) This system will not offer the type of pvp content and control that the hardcore pvp crowd expects and desires, and could possibly result in SoTA not drawing a large percentage of that cash paying crowd for any real length of time strictly because of the fact that they are not allowed to use their skill in combat. Skill in 'stacking decks' or skill in being 'smart' enough to button mash the right keys when the right icon appears on the screen is laughable to people who are used to traditional UO based combat where player skill at real time decision making and reflex control were the largest determinants in the outcome of a 1 on 1 pvp encounter, and even a 3 on one encounter. That's what makes pvp be 'player vs player'. It's my experience and skill IN REAL TIME BATTLE against the person's on the other end, not my 'skill' in stacking a deck before hand or my skill in 'swapping decks' from my pve to pvp deck, and certainly not my 'skill' in having the right skill in whatever weighted randomness appear and being 'smart' enough to click it. It's just not that way for people who truly enjoy pvp. That's why they don't like the other games out there with 'cooldown timers' and 'decks'. Most of them want to play this game because they liked the player skill based system that was in UO and it is certainly not unreasonable for them to expect a similar player skill based system in this game, being it's from the creator of the former. Now if you want to have a discussion on whether you want those customers in the game or not, that's a different discussion.

3) There is a VERY VERY large misconception among most of the people on these boards about what experienced pvp skill as we define it is. I assure you, there are no magic macros that you just push over and over again until you win. If two of these 'macroers' are fighting each other, who wins? For every 'combo macro' someone tries that is somewhat effective, talented people develop a counter move for, which explains why the 'magic build' always changes. Hrrmmm, what is that called . . . creativity and ingenuity? Player skill based pvp like in UO just does not work the way that has been described. People who consider themselves experienced pvp'ers don't even like to use macros, because you lose control of timing and the ability to make split decisions based upon the actions or reactions of your opponent. That timing and control and being better at it is what makes them good. The 'press macros over and over until you win' is just a myth. This system will do nothing to keep '12 yr olds' from playing this game and being '12 yr olds'. What is really truly satisfying is when you use your own experience and skill to spank those 12 yr olds in combat like the kids they are. I don't see how I as a person who considers myself an experience pvp'er can find much satisfaction in combat in the system as described.

4) What I fear is this: This system is being designed for the purpose of enticing the pve crowd into pvp, as well as for the sake of trying to be innovative in the combat area of this game. Most all of the people who have voiced the strongest concerns about this are the pvp crowd, ( some others yes, but the 'strongest' perscentage wise). This system does not offer on its surface or even going deeper, anything close to what that customer base expected or wants. That could tarnish this game's pvp image from the very get go. The pve crowd who gives pvp a try now because they think all those 12 yrs olds and mean evil pk'ers will suddenly be on even footing with them, and when they realize the truth, will be discouraged by pvp and go back to the other 90% of the game they have already, and leave pvp in this game nothing but a tarnished mess that doesn't draw the pvp fans to this game. (which I know is perfectly fine with most of you, but we have every equal right to want to play this game and enjoy what we enjoy, as you do. That's the supposed 'new thing' about this game right? . . . selective multiplayer . . . .no one forces you to pvp, why can't we offer marketability to that customer base also by giving them what they want in a player skill based system?)

5) I find a lot of contradiction in the expressed opinions where no one wants 'macro based skill combat' but it is perfectly ok to use macros for 'wands' and 'stuff in your pack'? Shouldn't there also be a slot for those items that work in the same system. It makes perfect sense to also need to stack a deck for your items as well.

Many games have grappled with this issue and most all of them have done it poorly because they all keep trying different 'systems' to 'balance pvp'. There is not and never will be balance. Its just impossible to do it in any way that is interesting or fun. The experience of the end user will always be a factor no matter the system, which means exactly what I said above, all of the things you dislike about your experiences with pvp are not going away unless there simply is no pvp in this game. There is no magic fix for experience, determination, and human nature. You can destroy the quality of pvp for experienced pvp'ers in the process of trying to find it if you want to, but the only 'balance' is found in hard work. Life's truths don't change just because try a new way of looking at them.

 

I'd also like to point out something vital to understand about macros. I'll use three examples to try to illustrate my point.

The first is a warrior in old school WoW, frequently called Vanilla. Said warrior had many abilites which were very powerful, but could only be used after certain conditions were met (for instance, after an attack was parried). The macro use at the time allowed stacking commands, and thus macros were written that attempted to use every single conditional attack, in order from most to least damaging, all on one button. Mashing this button over and over will proc every possibile attack as soon as it becomes available, with perfect efficiency. All the player has to do is get to melee range, spam this button, and wait for his conditions to proc. It's broken, it's lame, it made people mad.

The second is Rift. There was no limit to how many abilities you could put into a macro, the system would just cast whatever was first able to work, and start over on the next button push. Again, mashing this button would cast each ability as it was possible to use it, working from your most basic melee attack down to your longest range spell, giving you a one button win. Again, it's lame, it makes people mad.

The third is back into WoW, around the Lich King expansion. Macro RULES have been written in, stating that any macro that attempts to use an ability that *would* trigger global cooldown DOES. This prevents most macros from using more than one ability. You cannot que abilities. You cannot fish for procs by button mashing. The only power combinations possible anymore are by using long cooldown emergency powers (Like a 15% damage buff for the next 12 seconds, 5 minute cooldown) in combination with attacks, all on one button; or a target next enemy function attatched to a DoT.

The reason I am boring you with all of these examples, is to point out that while many players hear "macro" and respond thinking of the first or second example, the third example is actually more likely. Most games that even ALLOW macro writing now limit what they can do, secondary programs that bend or break these restrictions are called hacks. If a player is willing to use hacks, then first, he's going to do it even if we ask him not to, and two, the dev's are probably going to ban him as soon as he's caught.

I used macros extensively in my MMO experience (you never would have guessed, right?) and believe that the advantage they gave me was to allow me to precisely control what I was doing and what decisions I was making, NOT to have "I win" buttons. I never really had an "I win" button, but because I learned how to create and modify macros on the fly, I could rapidly create tricks like "target the offtank and cast that spell that boosts his damage output" as a way of helping him grab aggro on the fly, "target the main healer and cast a mana restoring power" to keep the main tank in heals, and "use this item with this power whenever both are available" so that I got a periodic boost to my output.

If a macro system is handled fairly, it doesn't overbalance the game. It's barely more POWERFUL than having no macros. It allows people to control their UI. It shaves off the need for rapid button pushing. It gives control.

In the case of this power randomizer deck UI proposal, IF they were allowed to, macros might grant a player a better ability to find the power he wanted when a "hand" was dealt, reducing the need to stop the action and stare at the UI instead of the game.