Quote:
Originally Posted by Tappin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You might be interested in GW2. Who knows if the game will flop or not. I have pretty high expectations for the game but I have for other games in the past, just to be sorely disappointed, and not always only to the MMORPG genre. There obviously is a massive hole in the gaming market out there these days, or at least the online gaming market. I've been MMOing since EQlive back in 2000, when I was 12. I've played most every major MMO title since then and none of them are good enough to keep me from wanting to play a game that is over 10 years old?
I'm a PvP junkie for the most part, except for in EQ, because, really... ? GW2 is supposed to try to do a lot of what you are asking for, more involved combat with active dodging, no auto attacks, aiming skills, or being positioned for those skills at least. But again, its silly to get hyped for games these days... like was already mentioned, the publishers want your initial game purchase and for the most part they are happy with that and don't care if you like their game or not. I hope GW2 isn't this way, and they can't really afford to do this since they have no monthly sub and rely on their game quality to convince you to buy their expansion packs.
|
Thing is, is the environment as interesting as the combat will be? In EQ, we have to watch spawn placement and pathing because non-players will attack us and add as well. We have to be careful where we walk or we could fall and even die. In a lot of games, these things don't happen. We need lots of CC abilities because we have to control for adds that might come and for potential wanderers that get in on the action. I've said a couple times that maybe basic combat needs to be simple so that we can keep our minds on all of these other things. But it's not a done deal. I'm not convinced that we're exhausted and cannot have a more involved combat system. But anyway, I'm not saying EQ isn't an involved game, I'm merely assessing its combat system, and explaining that it's not very involved or fun, in my view. KEEPING IN MIND, the basic combat system is just the fundamentals: it does not include cc or spawn awareness or other concerns.
Basic combat is when you walk up to a creature and target it and /autoattack. You trade blows automatically. If you're a melee, there's not much more to it than just clicking kick every 6 seconds. I know and you know, that combat is more complicated with everything else included. But I'm trying to avoid over complicating this.
I would like to see more conditions so that there're more unique situations. For example, if blunt weapons stunned non-players automatically then players might save a blunt weapon for the last 20% when a creature attempts to escape. Or they'd use for casting opponents. If slashing weapons created bleeding on the opponent then you might use them at the start of the encounter to 'dot' it. If more players attacking a opponent decreased its defense then having your group members on one creature would be a good strategy, but you'd have to weigh this with all of your other concerns, like adds (hey, we have off tanks for a reason). If we could aim our weapons to target an opponent's legs or whatever it uses to move then this might allow us to 'snare' it. Then we'd switch to more critical body parts. If everyone could 'backstab' because hitting a creature from behind increases your dps then this would at least make the fighting seem more believable. Flanking would get a bonus too. I'm not sure how that would markedly CHANGE the strategy, though. (I mean, most players in EQ are on an opponent's back anyway because they're trying to avoid ripostes and don't like to get mixed up with the tank.) Maybe if a creature tries to run away and changes direction then you have to make sure you stay on its back. The game should reward players AT THEIR KEYBOARD. But other than that, it's more about the believability. Remember how in battles we flank the enemy? We do this because they have exposed a weakness. It doesn't make sense for a creature to not expose itself when it focuses its attention on one player or turns its back to you. It doesn't make sense that a creature has the same defense no matter how many foes it has actively attacking it. Believability is not as important, though, as encouraging strategic, choice-oriented gameplay. But it's still important.
More abilities, like hte AA abilities on live, would be welcomed by me. In fact, the rest of the game could probably use more things like this as well, not just basic combat or combat-related activities. For example, a 1 hour recast-time Sprint ability that gives you a 30% boost to runspeed for 1 minute would be a great way to outrun a non-player if things go bad. This would have the effect of allowing you to avoid certain death, but it comes with its share of responsibilities: you must use it wisely, and know WHEN to use it. Even the placement of guards in a zone is somewhat similar to this mechanic. Instead of outrunning your enemy, you're running to a guard for self-defence. You have to know where the guard is, and you have to gauge your chances of getting there in time. Sadly, a lot of games don't use guards effectively or even at all. But a good balanced use of guards both improves the believability of the world and also gives you a CHOICE when things go bad. Too often, games just remove bad things so that they never happen. But in the process of doing that, they remove choice and danger from the game. Not only that, it feels a lot less believable; aka. candyland.
The other day I was thinking a nice ability to have would be "Concentrate". Basically, it would allow me to cast on a non-player much higher level than me. If I was trying to escape from something, I could use it and then snare the bad guy so that I can escape. This is just another way to do the same thing: control bad things, rather than removing them.