The way the deck system should work

Ha yes, hindsight is indeed 20/20. "Drat, all this fuss over a single word."

I personally ran into a similar situation modding for the Sims. Used the word "caste" as a means to describe a type of "group".

Never lived that one down.

 

I so very much agree. The deck/card metaphor is a huge turn off for me too. It reinforces and reminds me of what i really do not like in a ton of MMOs and CRPGs in general over the years, the use of a random number generator to cover for lack of design in systems. RNG is so -- meh -- i want to feel in control of my character.

I have multiple issues with what is described thus far. I would much prefer that we focus on the opponent rather than the interface for feedback on when/how to use abilities. A more modern approach has been for opponents to "telegraph" moves to indicate a specific attack or opening, and that a disrupting or evasive skill should be used. This seems a far better direction to go. It seems there is room for innovation in the genre for certain.

Are there other terms we can use (rather than deck/card) that evoke a more appropriate response to what Starr and his team have shared with us thus far?

 

Yeah too bad wildstar got to that idea first. Also too bad its a space cartoon joke of a game. Just downloaded the beta and stupid ncsoft software corrupted my browsers so now i cant surf the web or reinstall them cause i cant get any browser to not say search is corrupted and then it crashes.

 

My impression, from what is described so far, you get adventure XP from killing things / completing tasks, and then you spend that experience, as points, to obtain ranks in each respective combat tree.

So, as a simple example, say you gain 100xp from killing a Kobold, and you kill 100 kobolds for 10,000 xp, to get one point to spend. Then you spend that point in the Swords Tree to obtain "Thrust".
Now, if you killed another 100 kobolds, you have another point to spend. If you spend it in Swords, you have a choice, take Parry or Double thrust. At the same time, possibly/presumably, you also get "Vital Points", a passive that increases your damage with bladed weapons.

Also note: " Adding skill points to Active Skills increases the number of copies of that skill the player has therefore increasing the frequency that skill will appear during combat. "

 

Wonder what kind of deck a new person starts with, and how big it will be when you have your first fight.

 

It's funny you say that, I was designing an rpg with a friend and he wanted everything to be static, no variance in hps, damage dealt etc. I explained how that isn't fun, you know exactly if you should stop attacking, use a heal, how much damage exactly to expect every time. so our fireball always does 7 your attack always does 6 your heal always does 10, the enemy always hits you for 7, the enemy always has 30 hps (yes it varies from enemy to enemy, but you learn these exact numbers) so then it just becomes a deal where you know the exact number of times to hit attack, then heal, and there is no reason to fireball because ordinarily it would do between 4 and 10, but now that it's static it's hardly better than your attack. things like that.. It just isn't nearly as much fun if you aren't uncertain, there is no risk anymore because you know exactly what will happen.

 

They've mentioned there are minimum deck/list sizes to prevent players from overly "stacking the deck" in their favor, to preserve the random slot mechanic. I believe (and I could be wrong/mis-remembering) something like a 30 skill minimum was mentioned at some point, with 6 slots to begin with, working up to 12 max slots.

If I recall correctly, the context for the 6 month demo was that there was no deck/list in play, so the skills displayed were being drawn from all available skills, as per this, where they stated:
"
Skills appear from your equipped list which you can create multiple custom lists. If you don't have a list equip it just randomly chooses from all your skills.
"

 

Chillblain and Chris went over some possibilities in the Dev+ section.. I think it's okay if I just say they are going to make it so it's easy to get started and then builds up. Very few options/small to start out. It's meant to give you a good learning curve as you advance.

 

Absolutely valid. There are of course extremes at the other end of the spectrum that would also not be very interesting or fun.

 

First really successful MMO was Ultima Online and that game had a combat system (magic) that didnt use what you describe as "open with attack #1, then do #4, keep mashing #3 until #2 is ready, then repeat".

It was so much more sophisticated and incredibly playerskill demanding . The keyboard buttons i as a player used were never the same cause i had to adapt my button pressure depending to my opponent's tactic.

What were "4, 6, 5, 5, 5, 3, 7, f, ctrl-a, shift-q, 3, 5,8,1, 1, 1" in my first fight could be "9, 1, 4, 6, 6, 3, 3, 8, 2, 2, ctrl-s, 5, 4, 1, 7, 5, 5, 3, 3" in my next fight. That was just to show how different one fight could be compared to another and those button pressures could have prolonged for 20-30 minutes when 2 really skilled equal players fought it out.

And those buttons had to be pressed with perfect timing since button smashing didnt work in Ultima Online. Button smashing got you killed in 10 seconds. Just getting out of being poisoned took alot of skill and timing.

Ultima Online combat system seem to me to be lightyears ahead of SotA when it comes to needed player skills and evolving your combat skills as a player.

UO were the first successful UO and it had the best combat system so why invent the wheel again and also fail by doing it?

The only ones that seem to like this random and luck based card combat system seems to be the more casual PvP player that see it as a way to have more of a chance winning a 1 vs 1 fight out. That system is not a system for the seasoned PvP player that like a more challenging combat system.

 

Bring on the Deck System

 

Omg mine too i ended up having to delete all my browsers and reinstall a ton of software now chrom is the only browser that works how did you get it fixed to use your old browser? That is the worstbeta catastrophe ive had i nearly had to reformat my HD

 

Ahem... mmjarec, take a quick peak at the guy you just quoted, I'm not too sure you'll get an answer from him (or rather, you have it already)

 

Hey well every court needs its jester

 

Ah ah great comeback !

 

Ok, quick points.

Polls:
The reality is the people in the not sure camp will break into a distribution of for/against over time, and all signs would point towards a distribution continuing along the same path as already existing. So the trend of the undecideds is to break towards not liking it. You can argue that the sample group is only amongst people who answer online polls, but the counter point is that it's the people who've dug the most into the system so far as well.

Which means, while it's wrong to say "over 50% are against it", people don't get to co-opt the middle ground for liking it either. The reality is more people are against it, than are for it, and a lot of people just don't know, or care, enough to have a position.... yet.

Real combat:

"This is fantasy" - but it's meant to reflect the nature of combat through it's presentation. Highlight the things that make it exciting, dump the stuff that is tedious. If you don't like the realism someone is trying to infuse into it, show why it's a detriment, don't just brush off their concerns because this isn't a full on combat simulator.

"The nature of combat is chaotic." - you bet it is. I teach it, and have been in several fights in and out of a ring. But I don't need RNG to get there. The thing that makes combat chaotic is the human factor. We already have one of those built into the person at the keyboard. Adding to that is only doubling the effects of the unfun part of combat, and ensuring that my skill (the point of any game) has less to do with the actual combat and more to do with planning for it in town, and trying to manage this extra chaos.

Mechanics:

"You can survive most fights with your auto attack" - What? So 1234123412345 is boring, but standing there is more interesting because there's the possibility that you'll get an interesting combo, maybe, if you find them...? What of the fights where I should be able to use my skills to beat that are beyond my auto attack ability? Oh, my skill as a player doesn't matter in the battle, only if the cards are drawn when I need them. Boo.

"We don't know how the hot keys will look, it might not be that hard to watch" - This is a simple question of UI. If I have a ui that does random actions at random times, I have to pay attention to it to know what it's up to, how and why. There is no other way to look at it.

"there are only a few skills WoW uses all the time. This will add variety." - No. It won't. You know why they're making a minimum sized deck and not a maximum sized deck? Because the standard strategy is to put in LESS cards and limit your options.

"PvP will not be based on player level, and lower level characters have a chance." - interesting thought, but went about doing this the wrong way. Instead of transfering it to player skill (which is the interesting part of PvP) it will rely heavily on deck draw order. If two players of equal level with the same decks square off, far too much emphasis will be put on the order of draw over the player's skill. This isn't PvP, this is PvE masquerading as PvP.

Rhetoric:

"We don't want another WoW" - Who does? Other than the people playing WoW right now, everyone here is looking for something new. Not wanting this is not a vote for WoW, any more than saying I haven't made up my mind about it, is a vote for or against this system.

"We need to see it to know for sure" - No. We really don't. The details have been spelled out in great amount. This is card game combat for a real time combat engine. Some people will like that, some of us won't. But there is plenty of reason to be against this system, as well as for it. I just think the people that are for it are wrong. Not to mention it distinctly feels like they're kicking the can down the road. March, well now later for the actual mechanics. Yeah, it feels like they're trying to run out the clock.

and my favorite I've seen in this thread:

"I don't see any problems with the deck system" - See above then. And some of my other threads. And I know some of you most definitely have seen them. This is not a system for a Lord British game. It's not interactive, it's controlling, wonky, and honestly gimmicky. It spends too much time getting between the player and the action, distracting them from it with a hopeless UI, and causes them to spend time building decks instead of playing the game.

 

I have not spent any money so I guess I have no say, but I'm a long time fan of RPGs and the Ultima Games.

I've been trying to follow this game but there seems to be a lot of focus on the housing system and I'm having trouble finding much on combat. I guess it's still being worked on but I liked what I read about magic and combat schools and trees.

When I heard about there being a deck system I nearly died with visions of KH:Chain of Memories in my head. People say they like "Magic the Gathering". Well that's great, I like soccer but I wouldn't expect kicking balls to become a major part of an RPG. Though many of these card games are set in a fantasy world they are not RPGs. It's a different genre. It might make some sense that some people play a card game within an RPG but it shouldn't be a major mechanic.

Some people say "wait and see". The problem with that is it usually eliminates the possibility of totally nixing an idea. You see in game development once something is designed and implemented into a working form it represents a significant amount of time and money. Even if it's really bad discarding it is really hard to justify. "Wait and see" may sound like a neutral position but it's actually a pro position.

Blizzard did not invent the idea of having all abilities available. I may be wrong but I think Richard did (at least in computer based games). There is something to be said for limiting that but I can't get behind a system that makes it random.

Conditional is something I could sink my teeth into. There could be reasons why certain abilities are available or not. If you are flanked you'd be able to do some things and not others. Realistically you would be able to try to do anything you can but would likely fail at some. Coding something conditional is probably harder than random though.

So has there been anything on the combat system? Like a video? A description of how combat would progress?

 

The only video I am aware of regarding how the system *might* work was the original six month video : http://avatarsportal.com/videos/2014/02/shroud-of-the-avatar-six-month-demo (around 18:00 if you want to skip ahead).

We'll have it in our greedy little hands in April though (if the current early release schedule is maintained), so I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion at that point.

 

Doesnt it make you kinda nervous this far along their adding barrels and candlesticks while combat has little to no info available

 

Nope, not at all.

There has been sufficient information on how combat should work to sate my conscience. The deck system looks interesting with strategy elements that appeal to me.

All that remains is actual implementation, which really can only be shown, not told.