The Combat System....

Played and loved Baten Kaitos but that was a JRPG and completely different from SotA. The R key definitely saves me time. I'm familiar with my keyboard enough that I can in fact hit 787 without looking at it, but then I've spent a lot of time around hotbars and I've just spent the last four or so months playing The Repopulation which in its current state is like playing twister on your keyboard with the amount of hotkey overload they have going on once you've leveled several skill lines.

 

It's great that you spoke up to give your thoughts and eyesight does not usually get better with age Good advice. I do think we will see many tweaks and updates to the combat as we go along and even though this subject get heated sometimes, I personally think we'll get it worked out. I'm interested to see what Chris will do and IMO it's the UI (user interface) that will improve, but I could be wrong

 

No one's gonna' hate on you for being "young". The problem is that this isn't a card game; it's an RPG. The card system detracts from the point of this game that sold a lot of us on throwing money at it. Many of us are followers of Richard Garriott. Many of us have played the original Ultimas and are long-time RPG fans. Therein lies the problem. If you know nothing of the guy, that's fine, this game is its own thing to you; for others, there's Ultima and Ultima Online, which RG himself used (successfully, I might add) to drum up nostalgia and support for Shroud.

That problem becomes exacerbated when the man is a keynote speaker at industry talks and conventions, and harps on things like "immersion" and talks about the future of gaming. It becomes a problem when he openly ridicules and insults other developers as being "lazy" and artistically and creatively bankrupt. It becomes a problem when he says things like he would prefer no UI whatsoever in order to facilitate a true immersive role-playing experience... and then we get a card game. We get a card game slapped on top of a circa-2000 "trade blows until one dies" combat system. The literal king himself says these things, gets our money, and then... this.

So we voice our opinions. Those opinions are countered with tangentially relevant retorts, things like you can combo with R. Yes, yes, you can. When I say "click" I mean it in a general sense, not that I'm clicking my mouse specifically; my bad for actually insinuating that, although I did write it that way a few times. Easier than spelling out all the keystrokes every time I'm trying to discuss the heart of the matter: it isn't immersive and it isn't intuitive. This is a common complaint. It'd be one thing if it was just the casuals who backed and stopped playing or are waiting for launch; this is an issue for die-hards who are active on the forums.

We all know how to use the card system; we've all played the card system, and especially in the beginning, many of us actually liked the card system. Then things started to dawn on us, we started to make realizations about things that rubbed us wrong. At first, we wrote it off as needing polish, or maybe my character's level is too low. Maybe it's lack of a fleshed out skill system. But then other pieces started to fall into place, like, "Well, my character's pretty high level, and I'm not struggling to kill things, but I'm not having fun. Why?" Questions beget answers: input is random, hotbar is immersion-breaking, skill availability is more akin to whack-a-mole than intimately knowing your character's cooldowns and player reaction, the combat is outdated on a fundamental level.

That opens some eyes. With those eyes open, some of us started looking around at what else was put into the game. Tree walls, level grinding on wolves and spiders, par (or sub par) for the course crafting system, exceptionally limited and roped off instances for minimal exploration, barebones sense of environment interaction. We don't play in a vacuum; we play other games, online, MMO, single player. We play RPGs, action RPGs, card games, trading games. We play different genres. And that's when a lightbulb turns on: this game does very little different than other games, and isn't heralding any new mechanics to introduce to the industry. Everything else this game is putting in front of us is, at its core, humdrum. Does that make it less fun? Not necessarily, and polish will help. We're still looking forward to the other RPG elements to be added.

But the one thing it does do differently is the combat system we dislike, detest, abhor, despise - the mileage varies, but many of us aren't impressed. We have a basic, arguably focal element of any game (Shroud not excluded) that functions so poorly that we cannot see past it. Why? Because it's going to be the one thing we're constantly doing in the game, from gathering hides off of the infinite packs of roaming wolves or fending off the spider infestation that plagues New Britannia while we try to mine ore, or simply just dungeon crawling and exploring catacombs for treasure - a major element in all RPGs and particularly in most Ultimas.

Then consider this game is 6x the Kickstarter budget, 6 months past originally predicted launch date (Oct '14), alluded to an additional year before release (was again supposed to be September '15, then November, and still hinted to being sometime early '16), and you start piecing other things together. Combat is the most divisive issue for this game - a gameplay element that is core to the experience - and the devs are building and working on things like houses (limited feature of the game) and developing street names with the community for imaginary POTs that may not be as big as a hit as they think. Yet we're not seeing active discussion about the combat system, a primary and universal feature of the game, one that will not only have to compete with what games are out there now, but also next year and beyond.

We also get rebuttals like, "It's a niche game" in the same post as "It's going to sell 500,000 copies," like it's some AAA-title that's going to change the face of RPGs as we know it. We see comments like "I believe in the vision" or "I trust in the devs" and "The devs are so responsive," yet the "vision" is subjective, being that there almost is none, not when you compare what has been said over the last five years with what we're seeing developed or even planned for in the future. We have a huge PvP thread that got close to (or over) 40 pages of commentary (after mods when in and deleted entire pages of responses) because Chris said he had a document he was writing up about looting/PvP that he'd share "after the weekend".

That was over a month ago.

Yes, some people in this thread hate the system and never gave it a fair shot. Other don't hate it at all and just don't like the UI, but otherwise love the concept. Some focus more on the random inputs while others focus more on the random availability and lack of control. The point is this system is indisputably controversial, and as time goes on, we're seeing more and more reviews of the game (both from people who rate Shroud positively and negatively) reflecting that. Those of us who are passionately against it don't say these things to be pests; we want to see our money invested turn into something worthwhile. We want to see Episodes 2 and 3 and so on. We just feel, as many of our arguments have already illustrated (it's a long thread, but I don't feel like you fully grasped several key points addressed), that the combat system will be the one thing that turns people away from this game.

And my disclaimer: Yes, this was "aimed at you," but only to address the things you specifically brought up. No, I do not speak for everyone, not even everyone in this thread. My voice, however, is one of many speaking out against this system, a voice that echoes from last year when it was implemented. While I do not speak for many, I do speak for some, this has been brought up to me in private by several people. No, I will not submit their names to the pitchforks of this community; they can share that if they choose (though I doubt it - they're exhausted from fighting the good fight for so very long).

 

I don't agree that 'combat' will be the one thing that turns people away. I do think that we need to have the combat discussion and also that combat will work itself out from us having the discussion. How many games have been played that have awesome feeling combat and still we don't stay with them. Like 'fight, fight, fight and then fight some more. hmmmm I don't disagree to fleshing out combat and this thread and others will make that happen. I loved the combat style in Tera to some extent, but for me ouch it killed my wrist after a while, and the rest of the game was grind grind grind and just not there for me.

So in Shrouds we stopped the game progression for rebuilding the map and that was a very positive step. It is drama for someone, not necessarily you, to say it won't happen in this case. It has taken us a while to get the feel for combat and now even those who like it are able to see it is a bit lacking at this point. We don't know what the plans are, but I am not a naysayer who thinks Portalarium won't address this. I've seen from past comments from them that they do see what we say, even though they don't comment on most of it. It has to run it's course.

I would say that the transition to Unity 5 has been mentioned that it was a BIG transition that took time for everyone. I don't think you are a pest Dewderonomy. I have been insinuated to being a pest about things before and I probably will be again because I am passionate about aspects being in the game that I feel are extremely important. I would still like to hear your examples that would make a good combat system defined in a clear matter. To argue against someone will just be arguing against someone. Everyone has their own ideas based on what we see at this point. Combat and combat fluidity is no more important than any thing coming into Shrouds believe it or not. I have played many games with different combat styles and it was not only the combat that kept me there. When this game is released it will have whatever combat it has because of feedback from us and what the Devs decide. That is a fact. They need feedback that has meaning and examples that have meaning. Arguing back and fourth while fleshing out some ideas does not always do that. Suppose they are not going to scrap the combat system, then if that is the case, what can they do with the current one? I have no idea how this will resolve out, and yes I do believe it will. I have seen amazing things happen as long as I've been here. Continue the roller coaster ride.

 

Very informative post and thank you for taking the time to paint a more detailed picture. I can definitely understand people being disappointed because they were expecting a second RPG revelation with new, visionary mechanics, and instead they got older mechanics that have already been done and a card-based battle system that is nothing like what RG said he envisions for the ideal RPG. Reminds me of the ArcheAge Alpha except Trion actually started delivering and it was great before quickly doing a 180 and destroying it all (though supposedly XL games was to blame, being the developer). *That* was a huge disappointment and I actually hate Trion for it.

You're right that I'm coming into this without hearing the old promises and only knowing secondhand the things that RG has done in the past, and that definitely has an impact on how I feel about the game. I see SotA alone. I absolutely agree about the zones feeling too small and the tree wall being laughable (seriously, just make the whole edge an exit. It not only makes more sense, but it would look a LOT better). I, too, think it's weird how much work is being put into housing and how much the donation goals focus on housing, but I'm also kinda glad there's nothing I actually care about behind a gate of money. I hope for the people that do care that there is a way to get at least some of the higher-end houses without paying hundreds or thousands of dollars. Those are points for a different thread, though. I agree that skills and combos need work, but I think if the devs want to do a deck of cards system then they can totally make it work. I don't even see a problem with the whole "standing still trading blows" as long as the skills and the deck system are fleshed out enough that it's worth it. Basically, I don't think it's the fact that it's a card-based system that's a problem, I think it's the cards. The UI of course also needs a pass so that those who aren't great at multi-tasking don't find themselves staring at the hotbar, which absolutely appears to be happening to a lot of people. The locked hand option looks like it is supposed to be the answer for those people, but it appears to me that there are way too many benefits of using the deck system and so people feel that a locked hand isn't a serious option.

 

NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED!!!!​

(LONG POST BELOW)​

Yeah, ArcheAge was an epic failure. If someone made an emulation of that game without the gear grind and dependency, I'd be there in a heartbeat. So much fun - it was truly the modern UO experience for me.

I don't think many of us expected revolutionary anything, just not archaic systems. It'd be one thing if they were "new" or "fresh" in 2013 when the game's launched in 2016, but to have them "meh" compared to games at the turn of the century? It's a bit disappointing, particularly when you grew up with his games and seen what he's done before (even UO was far more involved than SotA, and UO's PvM left a lot to be desired).

I would argue for there to be a "good combat" system, it would need to follow six major elements:

1. Engagement. The system engages and motivates players to participate and get better at the system. It keeps the player paying attention and not "phoning in" their efforts in some kind of auto-pilot mode. This is even parts player involvement as well as combat mechanics as a whole, particularly from mob AI.

2. Immersion. The system makes the player feel immersed in the action. It focuses their mindset on the game and pulls them into the situation. A good, immersive combat system is one that the player "feels" the situation of the fight, knowing subconsciously how things are going and what to do based on the visual and audio cues, among other things, without a desperate need for a UI (health, cooldowns, etc.) to dictate their current stance in the fight.

3. Tactics. The system demands tactical awareness. It allows evenly matched players to one-up one another by tactical superiority. Recognizing the opponent teetering on a cliff, a player can strafe to the side and push the opponent off the cliff for a fight-changing action, whether it was for a sweet environmental kill or just to create distance so the player could escape the fight.

4. Strategy. The system offers a wide variety of options for character depth and customization to be deployed in a large array of circumstances. A particular set-up might not be best in every role, but if you plan strategically, you can mitigate damage in those disadvantageous circumstances by working with a group or using your planned skills to evade such problematic scenarios.

5. Intuitive Mechanics. The system is easy to pick up and use, offering depth and complexity without demanding a doctorate or a third arm. It feels natural, and it doesn't distract or take away from the experience of the game.

6. Skill-Based Success. The system rewards good gameplay and player-based skill, like twitch, reaction time, working under pressure, outsmarting your opponent, and so on. It takes all things mentioned above into consideration and allows the player to command their own destiny. Gear may offer an advantage but it does not determine a fight. Consumables are available but do not confer invincibility through resources. RNG is a minor wrench in the cogs and provides a means to react to something when it doesn't go 100% perfectly, but the RNG does not dictate the flow of combat - the player does (or in PvP, the players do).

If you use those criteria, you can see how PvP in old and modern games alike stand up well. Take UO, for example, a game whose PvP is heralded as some of the greatest in MMO history. Was it perfect? Absolutely not, but it was damn close, especially given the other core mechanics of the game.

1. Engagement: Absolutely. You were always engaged in the gameplay. The common large spider could easily kill the best of the best of anything, even nowadays with all the fancy gear, if you went AFK for a minute or two. There was no feeling of "invincibility" to even most lower level mobs (even though there weren't really "levels" per se). You had to take every action seriously or die and lose all your stuff.

2. Immersion: Without a hotbar of any kind, yeah, it was extremely immersive, particularly for an isometric game. Even without a health bar you had a feeling of where you stood in any given fight, be it monster or player. You came to know your character and what to expect in pretty much every situation, and it rewarded experience with an innate sense of confidence in a combat situation of any description.

3. Tactics: Especially with Magery, or special moves with melee skills, definitely. Something as harmless as a stone wall meant the difference between winning a fight and being siphoned away from the rest of your team to be ganked to shreds, your desecrated body at the foot of your victors all that remains when the wall came down. Need to stop someone but still shoot them with arrows or spells? Energy field. DPS and synced damage was as important as tactically changing the layout of the battlefield with field spells and controlling the flow of battle. While it was less so with monsters, similar use of the environment made the difference between victory or defeat.

4. Strategy: Again, of course. Class-less system opened up a world of templates, even for its time. While you had the tank mages and stealth archers and similarly reproduced templates, you also had archer/swordsmen/wrestlers with enough magic to cause havoc. Well, there might have only really been one of those, but the point is the option was there, and it could work amazingly in combat. The game rewarded outside the box thinking, both in open field combat as well as subtle sabotage (stealthing and placing boom boxes near people).

5. Intuitive Mechanics: Eh, not so much. While the game was engaging and definitely immersive, what little UI there was did not really help. You could get it to work over time, and the fact that you didn't need it meant it wasn't too much of an issue, but it certainly wasn't something people could make effective use of without hotkeys (and dare I say third party programs, especially on freeshards). A screenshot of a ton of little spell icons was common for many players who didn't attach them to hotkeys.

6. Skill-Based: Totally. From movement on the field to outflanking players, from team work to survive overwhelming odds to utilizing stealth to throw a party into disarray, twitch skills and item management were extremely key player-skill specific elements of UO. It wasn't the prettiest game, but rarely did you have anyone to blame but yourself in a given fight. Melee weapons did have a tendency to "glance" for atrocious amounts of damage, which if you rolled poorly could mean doing almost no damage to people, but you'd be hard to find anyone who said UO combat was just another roll of the dice.

With a solid 5/6 for UO combat, you can understand why, after almost 20 years, people will remember it fondly, no matter what era they played (well, almost - post-AoS gets a little divisive). Let's look at another, ArcheAge:

1. Engagement: Most certainly. The action requires a significant amount of attention for anything other than random pleb NPCs. This becomes more so in PvP where the action is fast-paced and quickly decided if you aren't on your A-game. Not managing your cooldowns appropriately means life and death, regardless if you're fighting a hard mob or a difficult Haranyan (WEST KOREA IS BEST KOREA).

2. Immersion: With your hotbars able to link directly to keys, even with secondary keys associated with them, you could hide your hotbars and still play with muscle memory and timing. That meant in the intense brawls and group fights in Halcyona, you weren't looking at your hotbar for help; you knew your template, you knew your role in the battle, and you engaged the enemy accordingly. You set up your combos and dispatched Furries Firrans with impunity. Once you had your template down pat, combat was second nature, and with how fast it was, it had to be.

3. Tactics: Outside of UO, I've never had as much tactical fun in an MMO as I did in AA. Knocking someone off of a cliff, only to watch them deploy a glider to fly off unscathed, meant I had to react quickly to changing circumstances. Run along the cliff further down, jump off, glide after him, shoot him out of the sky, and watch him plummet. Too far up so he redeploys his glider? Collapse mine, Tiger Strike him out of the sky, free fall with him, Jump Back before hitting the ground to cancel fall damage, and then dance on his corpse. Tactical, spur of the moment combat that relied on a deep understanding of your skillset was extremely rewarding.

4. Strategy: With all the variable "classes", how you approached any given situation was up to you. Want to be a wall of disaster, whittling your foes away? It was an option. Need speed, though? Gap closers. What about stealth? You can have that, too. Your weaknesses would be in what you couldn't counter, so you had to make sure you used your strengths to set up the fights you wanted to have, the fights you were going to win. You orchestrated your own destiny by deploying your skillsets to be the best for the encounters you reveled in: open PvP, duels, naval combat, ambushes behind enemy lines, highway brigandage against your own faction.

5. Intuitive Mechanics: Very. Even the combo system was laid out clearly for you to pick up on. It was easy for beginners to learn, and once theorycrafting came into play, we saw some crazy builds out in the field. It didn't require people to have hundreds of hotbars or half their screen covered in them; you could do so much with so little. It truly reminded me of UO's minimalist approach. At least, potentially; you'll see a lot of people with 3/4ths of their screen covered in hotbars like in WoW, but that's how they wanted to play it. If they felt they needed it, fine; me, I didn't at all, and did just fine with sub-par gear. Which brings us to...

6. Skill-Based: Yeah... no. While the first two months or so were solid, by November it quickly became polarized: you'd either kill four people while laughing or 8 people would get two-shotted and crushed by one person with over 45,000 HP. The gear advantage was disgusting, and while evenly matched players (or outnumbered, evenly matched gear) made for some fantastic circumstances, it was too much of a gear grind and dependency. This was true for mobs, as well, who just sneezed in your direction and deleted your character.

Two games, worlds and decades apart, and you can see 5/6 of the criteria are met, and most people loved AA's combat. It was the gear and credit card warriors that really blew it. Now let's look at SotA's:

1. Engagement: No. The exchange is extremely archaic with a traditional blow-by-blow trade. If I can go wander into the kitchen, talk to my wife for 20 minutes, come back and be surrounded by 5 red spiders and be at 80% health, it clearly doesn't demand the attention at any level to be engaging. Polish may help with this, though, but currently it's exceptionally dull.

2. Immersive: Again, no. While you can get an idea for how much damage you're taking or dishing out, in general, with enough time playing, glancing away from the action routinely to stack, combo or just see what's available means you must have a health bar. You cannot reliably keep tabs on every single damage pip that pops over your head because your eyes are moving all around the UI. I'm not trudging through the swamps, the humid air glistening on my face, fetid water raining down my plate as the torch flickers through the bog fog to reveal whatever dangers lurk beyond. No, I'm watching to see if when a monster attacks me, if I'll be able to stab, slash, or heal myself. The back of my mind is on my cards and whether or not they'll be ready when I need them, not on the adventure I embarked on.

3. Tactics: No. No, no, no, no, no. Tactics are situational, deployed based on circumstances that change. There are two circumstances changing in SotA: one, the actual fight itself (am I winning, am I bleeding, am I poisoned, is the person running away, are they standing near a pool of lava), and two, the deck that keeps cycling. If someone teeters on the edge of a precipice, even as I think, "Man, I would love to slam my halberd into his neck and throw him over the edge," I still have to look down at my deck and see if that move is available. Is it? No? Then that tactical element is removed, not because the other player said, "Wow, I'm close to the edge, I better move," but because my character somehow forgot how to use his polearm advantageously at my expense.

4. Strategy: Yes, definitely. While the skills are unimpressive and need a lot of fleshing out, building a card deck to be useful and matching it with, what, like 20 different skills, requires a lot of thought. What glyphs you choose determines how you will generally approach a situation - in theory. Unfortunately, since several abilities are tactical (Polearms push/pull mechanic, for example) and cannot be relied upon, other glyphs that are always useful (DPS, nukes, mezzes) are going to be chosen more often, hamstringing potential strategies. It is still a major element of the combat system, though, and one that sold me on backing (the potential for a wide array of templates/skill combinations, that is).

5. Intuitive: Absolutely not. Even people who love the system or the concept of the system are throwing up new threads every week trying to make it more intuitive. This is a killer issue and the bulk of most discussions on the combat system.

6. Skill-Based: I don't think so. Sure there's twitch elements and reaction time, using your deck to the best of your ability, but it's still up to the availability of the cards. If you need a particular attack, you can either: A) lock it and be penalized when you use it, but have it available; or B) hope it's available when you need it. You can only have so many locked glyphs, and spend a good third of your available points just to better utilize your deck. Since most people are doing that, why bother making it an option to invest in those skills at all?

Think of it this way. A game of basketball is going on, and a player moves to the 3-point line. He's practiced and practiced, day in and day out, on 3-point throws and what to do in any given situation. He goes to shoot, but instead of looking at the net, he looks to his coach. "Coach, can I shoot?" The coach looks down at his deck of cards, and then shakes his head. "Go for the layup, I've got that one." The player starts dribbling past the opposing team's defense, who looks at his coach and asks, "Coach, can I try to intercept the ball as he's dribbling?" Coach looks down, sees he has the ability to shoot the ball (DPS), dribble it between his legs (DR buff), 3-point shot (nuke), but no intercept. "No, but I'll mind wipe real quick, see if I get it."

Well, the other player has made it to the net. His guard goes to jump and raise his hands, but has to ask, "Coach, can I jump and knock the ball out of his hands before he dunks this ball?" "Go for it kid, I got one of those." Unfortunately, the other coach stacked 5 "dunk" cards and it's gonna' be a doozy. But now you have both players doing their own thing, independently. That's how tactics would play out with the card system, and their decks are constantly leaving them wiping and waiting.

It's rather ridiculous, so instead, they change their decks. Both players line up at their respective 3-point lines and just start stacking their 3-point shots, to make them count. Whoever scores the most points by the end of the game, wins, with minimal input from the other players or team mates. They don't focus on as many defenses, maybe chug some Gatorade if they get tired, but ultimately it's just free throws from around the court, stacking as necessary to make their shots count. The control of the ball is in their hands, yes, but how they control it is up to their coach and his deck, not the shooter who practiced all week at dunks or free throws, and not in the hands of the opponent who practiced rebounds or interceptions.

Probability can be increased, but the input is RNG (where are the cards, a UI issue that could possibly be "polished"), the availability is RNG ("can I take the shot, coach?"), and the output is RNG ("better stack my 3-pointer to get a better chance of it going in"). That would be another long, drawn up, fleshed out explanation of the issues with the system both inherent and comparative to other systems. Hope that helps with explaining a variety of issues with the system that is pretty distinct with a card-based system.

 

I have a hard time reading long posts but that was very well written. I don't agree with you on every point, but I think you have brought up some very good points, and you are definitely not a troll.

I really hope the devs are listening to this. The whole reason to have community feedback is to get feedback that is as good as the stuff you just posted!!!

EDIT: Your second wall of text was good too, but it was so long I had a few points I didn't like, but the final few paragraphs of description won me over again.

 

​

Dewderonomy, excellent and informative, constructive post!

I particularly like your basketball analogy. It really hones in on the basic problems many are having because of the current system, and I can see how the random draws can often hamper the ability to react to specific situations, and how that feels frustrating. I feel this post is packed full of useful feedback that could only serve to help improve the game.

Thank you!

 

Yes I agree Dewderononmy. I enjoyed reading all of it. I could especially picure flying off on our gliders and sky battle. I miss my glider lol, but not archeage. Mages were especially effective in sea battles, not warriers which is what I prefer to play.

 

"TAKE THE WHEEL!" This was a common order I barked on my ships after we hooked another boat.


I was a pirate privateer and would run to the tip of the harpoon cutter, jump on the launcher as we reeled in a fishing ship, jump from that and then Tiger Strike onto the enemy pilot. It gave me the appropriate LoS to launch my gap closer (fishing ships had high wales that blocked LoS), since Tiger Strike was technically a teleport and didn't get hindered by turbulence. Then fear AoE, charge, triple strike, stalker's mark, overwhelm, etc. (by that time the ship stopped moving and my crew was boarding conventionally). That would be a great example of how you could change what felt like a useless class, who lacked range, and turn it into a game changer using tactics ("we've got 'em but we're not close enough to board") and strategy ("I can use gap closers to blink over to enemy ships as a boarding blitz").

Of course, I did that on a few ships only to find out the guy had so much gear I might as well have kicked the entirety of Serpentis in the shin and smiled. That damn Skill-Based Success...

It does illustrate the craftiness and quick thinking a well designed combat system can do. Warriors offered plenty of options at sea, if used correctly. It may not be obvious, or even easy, but that was the joy of the system, to make it work with the tools given and enjoy the positive consequences. If that happened in SotA, imagine how it could have transpired:

I run up, jump on the harpoon gun, and then see if I have a gap closer. If yes, turn to page 42; if no, turn to page 13.

Page 42: Great, now I jump on the enemy ship and try to wrest the ship from him. Okay, I'm on, I did some decent damage, and now I gotta' stop him from sailing the ship - a knock-down will take him off the wheel! Do I have a knock-down available? If yes, turn to page 87; if no, turn to page 30:

Page 13: Frown.

We can do better than what we have, by a long shot. We just need to get started on it. Focusing on how to fit a square peg into a round hole for four months, six months, a year, only to realize it's more than just a UI problem wastes valuable dev time on making something both accessible and unique. Not using the card based combat system does not mean we have to have a standardized WoW hotbar by default. We've got a lot of creative minds; we can come up with some pretty cool ideas.

 

They don't really have much time to waste building something new.

If they have an alternate fallback idea that is something everyone can accept then by all means lets switch.

Otherwise there is no more time to try new creative stuff. This isn't a game they are playing. They are doing a job. If they drop the deck system it has to go to something that is known to work for sure. The time for comming up with new ideas is long past.

So if they drop the deck system I would expect that the alternative will be something very traditional with some slight modifications. I look forward to it.

 

You no get that UI offends? UI offends. Get now? UI hard to use. Make head hurt. Make want to play solitaire instead of SotA. Solitaire more fun. Watching paint dry more fun. You get now? Or concept too hard?

I spoke very clearly, I wasn't "all over the place". The current system isn't just clunky, it's inferior AND clunky, and unnecessary. So I pointed out that it should be rebalanced, and got a "Rebalancing can wait." It cannot. We have potential new players joining these forums and checking us out on Steam RIGHT NOW, that's your first impression, you only get one. I have heard people say that this system only requires time, I've given it time, more than new players will give it, and I still think it blows. Please don't take offense, no matter what you may think about the system you and it are separate. An insult to the system is NOT an insult to you. I don't know why you think I'm being obtuse, or how my post managed to confuse you, it looks pretty clear to me on retrospect. The combat system IS a problem. The bullheaded attitude that keeps trying to win a losing battle by pouring in more stubbornness is a problem. The examples I offered are a direct mirror of the problem, with the video game paradigm stripped away to make the flawed thinking more clear. If it wasn't enough for you to understand, well, I'm real sorry.

Regardless of what level of comprehension or lack thereof any given reader may have, my points stand.

@Spoon
I am not trying to insult anyone, and I have not ( to my recollection at least ) called anyone a liar. If you and a thousand other players should happen to absolutely love the combat system, GREAT! I'm glad you are enjoying it. Of course, one thousand and one players is a teeny bit light for an online community, but them's the breaks. Now, if Portalarium is willing to sacrifice the vast majority of potential future players so that it's pet combat system sees the light of day, I say BOO. A game development company that wants to make an inferior game? That's just silly.

All I can say is I'm glad I didn't drop the cash for a barony when I was considering it, I'd be PISSED with how things have gone.

 

I think there's still time to fix it. We have a locked system that can be built upon, and the deck system and tree has some mechanics that can be expanded. They just don't need to be cards that you're buying, but upgrading those abilities. Combos have plenty of games to draw easy inspiration from, just a matter of it being A Skill > B Skill = C Skill or adding in action RPG elements (positioning, character movement when attacking, etc.). With this crowd, probably the former.

That would be an easy system to continue building upon and balancing going forward, anyway. It's also much more easily accessible to new and old players alike. Mobs can additionally be made more dynamic since players won't have to focus on their hands and available abilities as much, meaning enhanced AI and more engaging encounters (either for E1 or down the line).

As far as people saying not to suggest scrapping the system, if something's broken and on fire, put it out and toss the rubbish in the bin. Don't try to nail things to it that aren't on fire and say, "Well, this should make it more useful." Not to mention, in the end, if this system was scrapped and we went to a strictly locked hotbar, even without adjusting it to be more fun (which is totally doable with the trees and skills they have now), would people quit?

I doubt it. I highly doubt anyone's playing the game thinking, "Man, the only reason I'm interested in SotA is that sweet card-based combat system." However, there are many, many people who will (and have) walked away from this game if the combat system remains similar to how it is now. Pretty sure logic is clear on this one.

 

The liar bit was the other person I refered to in the same post, not you.


Now I agree fully with your bit about the need to fix the static/hybrid decks to make them more fun. Lots of people find the deck system no fun at all and it would be good to have an equivalent alternative. I also agree with dewd that it would be nice if that alternative was a less "in your face" type of UI.

BUT if you were indeed "not trying to insult anyone" then I would recommend that you would consider using less insults?

Saying that the devs and/or people who do like it are foolish, like to piss people off, has no sense, are blindly pushing an agenda, patronizing, and less intelligent well... might, just might, by some people, be recognized as actual insults, you know?


Regarding your estimate that a "vast majority" etc. I would find it very interesting to know how exactly how many it is that feel this strongly about the issues with the combat system. Such numbers would be great to refer to. But right now we don't have such hard data. However I think that it is safe to say that if it truly was a dealbreaker for the vast majority we would see many more people leave and more people giving this feedback in the forums. So far the people selling their accounts mention a lot of other things but not the combat system.

However I do have a fear that the devs might be looking too much on their own metrics from in the game and thus get a very skewed dataset. This due to a couple of factors but mainly A) that people who leave don't show up in the metrics B) that people find static/hybrid less competetive and is thus 'forced' to use random draw C) that people don't like it but don't find it a dealbreaker and continue to play it D) people don't purchase the game after seeing a demo.
Thus giving more data that makes one assume that people prefer the existing system over a potential other system.

But I think that so far my guesstimate seems more accurate based on metrics, player retention and communication.
In my own very limited universe I've taken in and helped about 50+ new folks and teaching them the basic game systems and I my experience with them very much differs, but again skewed dataset and all of that jazz.


When we reach 'alpha' it would be great to hand out X nr test keys with a follow up survey trying to determine what people like & dislike.

 

Is it considered broken and on fire because it isn't like UO? I'm not so sure about that.

I personally like the system, I don't find it hampers me in any way when fighting when I set up my deck. Do I get the perfect skills up every time, no. That's what I like about it to be honest, it adds a unpredictability to combat.

I'm not going to write a huge post, or say that I represent the "many" or the majority, this is simply my opinion.

 

I've been playing old-school cool-down combat MMO's for the last couple days and oh my, how boring can it get. Going back to that style after playing SotA really feels like a downgrade in the fun department for me. Full of such mind-numbing repetition, that I'm so glad to get back to playing with SotA's glyph system. There's definitely something right in this design. The unpredictability really does a good job keeping my blood flowing as I'm never too sure when a fight will go my way or theirs. Sure skill can help, but in the old system, the best build wins, every time. And that's exactly what they're trying to avoid here. If we're trying to come up with a solution to make combat better, I feel we should try to keep that goal in mind.

 

I actually know some people who liked ultima 9... I never played it, or any ultima other than Ultima Online.

And as much as you praise UO Combat, I detested it. I still think UO combat was/is horrible... and this is coming from someone who has been playing since '99, still have characters on pacific with a keep and co-owner of 2 houses inside Luna.

Now, I do agree that there is an issue with standing in 1 place and whacking away at your opponent. I do not like twitch combat systems. Something that gets you moving needs to be added, the cover system wont help too much, infact, it might root people in place more than anything. But, I think we need to start looking at things to get players moving around during combat. - Which is usually going to be abilities(both from players and npcs) with an indicator that you should get out, whether it's as simple as you can see them charging up or an actual red blob (which I'd prefer to avoid).

 

I like the combat deck system, it is the micro-managing or mini-game of stacking and combining that I can not find any fun in. Current combat has to much focus on managing the combat bar.

 

@Dewderonomy
The nuclear post I liked. Now we are getting somewhere.

Hmm, gonna give that 6 elements some thought on how the static deck could embrace more of that. However some of that runs into the tech limits of lag and client<>server distribution. Others into budget limitations.

 

Bravo!!

I mean, we have only been telling them for a year and a half that this "random card generated combat system" would SUCK. https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/6-month-demo.3772/page-14#post-67277

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/6-month-demo.3772/page-11#post-67097

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/6-month-demo.3772/page-11#post-67087