It does heavily depend on party composition, yes. Maybe it's more of a class balancing issue than encounter length balancing issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skies
You're late to the party. Read last page. And maybe contribute something useful on topic instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squiggles
~Poll~ Longer fights <Do you want it?>
Printable View
-
07-05-2012, 10:46 PMSoukyuu
-
07-05-2012, 10:50 PMVelhartCan't say how it will be in 2.0, but currently, melees such as DRG and MNK cannot truly interact with the smaller mobs because jobs like Warrior and Black Mage have more convenient AoE abilities that makes those two jobs feel useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soukyuu
Honestly, I think the flow of battle is fine for the most part. I do believe however that single target oriented DPS need to have some unique advantage over AoE jobs that go beyond damage. Having DRG and MNK do have their one AoE ability, but it cannot keep up to the pace of Steel Cyclone and Fire spells. It is pretty much this reason alone why people request BLM's and WAR's through the dungeon process (Not talking about the bosses.).
How do we fix this? I don't know the best approach to it. The options basically are:
1. Help make DRG and MNK more convenient in all dungeon situations. (Not saying they are useless, but not as convenient.). Even something as simple as making future dungeons not based on speed runs would kind of help on this.
2. Gimp the AoE'ers. Now this one I do not agree to. SE is famous for making one job better by gimping another. I don't believe a job needs to be gimped unless they are OP to the point that it is game breaking. What they need to do is find ways to making the jobs that are lacking certain aspects better. No one likes seeing their favorite job gimped.
As I said above. What we have is what we have. Developer's attempt to bring some things of 2.0 into the current game either kind of work or just have a hard time mixing in. I do believe we will see some light on proper party play and all jobs will be able to equally interact with the battles without feeling useless. Just my input however. -
07-05-2012, 10:58 PMSoukyuuI'm not basing my opinion solely on my MNK experience, I don't think it's fine for BLMs to just spam Fire (maybe followed by Fira if other BLMs were slow) all the time either. With mobs being so squishy, they just die before the end of a spell combo. The side effect of that being melees not even getting to do anything except AA/first skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Velhart
-
07-05-2012, 11:04 PMSkiesWait, wait wait wait, what? I mean-Quote:
Originally Posted by Velhart
This is unrelated to the discussion itself, but what exactly does Warrior has AoE-wise over Dragoon? -
07-05-2012, 11:11 PMVelhartSteel Cyclone and Whirlwind? Steel Cyclone has a much smaller cool down time than Ring of Talons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skies
-
07-05-2012, 11:13 PMSkies
Does Warrior have access to Keen Flurry? I sincerely don't remember.
If they do, then yeah they have an advantage, otherwise i'd say they don't.
(with that I close my off-topic mini-discussion) -
07-06-2012, 01:06 AMHyristNo they don't. The idea that Warrior has better AoE potential than Wyvern is because of Overpower, a conal AoE that triggers as a counter, and the misnomer that DRG's don't have AoEs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skies
Dragoons have 4 AoE skills. Sweep, which is an AoE stun centered around the Dragoon which leads into Dread Spike, which is a line AoE between the Dragoon and the Target. Ring of Talons, which is our Steel Cyclone, except it costs 1000 more TP. And Dragonfire Dive, which is our 15 minute ability.
A Dragoon that wants to impress a group with a burst AoE does the following while surrounded.
With 2k TP, Quelling Strike + Keen Fury straight Ring of Talons, follow up with a Dragonfire Dive, and Immediately Ring of Talons again, provided enough enemies are alive to pull you back up to 2k TP with Dragonfire Dive.
If you can survive long enough to complete the combo, most enemies around you will have likely bit the dust. -
07-06-2012, 01:07 AMkhaledThis. 10char.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athaya
-
07-06-2012, 03:11 AMCeryn
My two brothers and I recently restarted XIV, and since I found my characters separated on two different servers, I decided to just reroll entirely to play with them and leave my original character where she is, in hopes of someday getting her back on the same server. Most of my experience of the newer balancing has thus been seen through the filter of a trio going through the world. Lancer, Conjurer, Thaumaturge.
I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of sliding scale system being implemented that would work something like (as an example only): Fight in Party against monster: X seconds; Fight solo against same monster: add ~5-10 seconds
This gives benefits to being grouped up, while not completely annihilating the soloability of a mob. You 'could' solo on FFXI, but it required good gear, certain camps, certain subjobs, (or rolling BST. :p) and it was largely just a long, drawn out pain. This is not something that needs to return. Ever. Especially not if anyone wants to see 2.0 do better than vanilla. Grouping wasn't much better in XI, though. Pre-Abyssea, I was often bored to tears by the first hour of a party. The knowledge that it would take a handful more to see a ding made it an exercise in masochism for me, more often than not. Granted, I largely played Summoner and back then all we got to do was play at healing because no one could find a WHM or RDM, but still. Actually being able to summon in a fight, other than just the odd buff, did more wonders for my enjoyment of playing my SMN than any speeding up of exp ever did. But that's a separate issue.
The only con to the sliding scale of adding roughly 10 seconds onto a party-kill-time of 20-30 is then you hit 25-35+ to solo one monster, and that's where you're going to run into problems, in my opinion. It already seems to take a good bit more time to level alone when compared to even a trio, even at the tiny levels my new character is at. So that 'disparity' or 'encouragement to group' already exists. What we need is a way for monsters to survive a bit longer when in group play without it just being artificial bloat on the solo gamer. It would keep solo play viable, since I've read nothing (correct me if I'm wrong, I've been out of the loop a while) about their focus shifting to more party heavy, or party exclusive, while maybe adding some length to the fights for people while grouping so that everyone feels as if they've actually contributed to the fight. It would probably require some testing and formula tweaks on their part, but I'm sure they can figure it out.
XI length fights are not something I would ever want to return to, however. If I did, I would resub to XI and intentionally go drag a bunch of people out to one of the camps to get it. (Yeah, good luck.) But I haven't, and I will not. It isn't so much about a 'now now now' or 'current generation' mentality, as I've been gaming since the Atari and NES, and I spent over 5 years (the latter of it more off and on) in XI and kept on, despite never hitting cap pre-Abyssea, and not hitting it after. It's more about "I now realize that I enjoy a game more when even if I can only play an hour, I see *significant, noteworthy* progress on my character." If I don't, I will get bored or frustrated. Simple. It's about progress, and not having to sink 5+ hours/day to see anything of note. That's not a game, that's a job.
That said, I don't think buffing current mobs up to last ~30 seconds in party play is an overall terrible idea. Just so long as it doesn't push solo kill times up even higher and frustrate the solo/small man playerbase, of which I happen to be part of. And endgame, I couldn't care less what they do or do not do with it, as I have never touched it in any MMO I've ever been part of. :p -
07-06-2012, 03:47 AMAlhanelem
can't believe how this is turning out. people really want longer fights? It's stupid. it doesn't take 200 stabs with a sword to kill somebody. If you want long fights, fight bosses and NMs. There are plenty of fights of varying lengths in the game.
-
07-06-2012, 05:37 AMKraususQuote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
people just always want change, if the fights where long people would be on here asking for shorter ones probably the same people that ask for longer ones. -
07-06-2012, 05:43 AMSephrickThe funny thing is, the fights are as long as anyone wants them to be. XIV is group vs group.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
It's not until endgame till we get into the party vs 1 mob situations a d those fights take a few minutes.
I can't fathom why anyone would want to continuously battle just one mob at a time. Group vs group feels much more lively. -
07-06-2012, 05:49 AMKraususpeople are stuck on XI mechanicsQuote:
Originally Posted by Sephrick
-
07-06-2012, 05:51 AMJockoThis is such an asinine leap of logic, it's nearly mind bogglingQuote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
No one simply wants the fights to take longer, we just want the average encounter (As in, non NM and boss fights) to have more depth and complexity than they currently do. Whether that's by random mobs, or the group leve idea mentioned.
"can't believe how this is turning out. people really want depth? It's stupid"
And again, I don't think anyone is arguing for 1vs1 scenarios either. Even as far as group encounters are concerned, there's little depth in the day to day mob slaughtering that goes on. However, I do believe it's hard to balance an encounter with 8+ mobs to be less chaotic, and they really shouldn't be, that's the point, but I also believe that 8+ encounters shouldn't be the norm for that very reason. Having encounters designed like that is fine, even fun in the right situations, but it should be balanced along side more thoughtful encounters as well. Encounters where Dodo's status ailments need to be prepared for, bringing a WHM with Esuna on standby to help the tank, while another keeps it debuffed, and the DPS have to adjust positioning to avoid it's breath attacks. 40 seconds later, encounter done, exp rewarded, move on to the next. That's what I'm asking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephrick
-
07-06-2012, 06:27 AMHyrist
A group should not need 40 second to take down a single Dodo. I'm sorry. That thing should be dead no greater than 15 seconds in. It's a bird, and not a dangerous one.
Now, if you were saying a group takes on a flock of birds. Then yes, about 40 seconds for a group on group fight consisting of fodder mobs. Longer if say, the enemy group is humanoids, as they should be more challenging enemies then the local fauna.
Now, on the field and in controlled events can be different. Suddenly those weak Dodos are savage killer-dodos trained by the Ixal to rip your face off. They might take a bit longer than than your average Dodo.
Are you getting the picture here. Some general hunts should be more difficult, others should be easy. As you go up through the levels, the fauna should seem easier, even if their so-called 'level' is higher than say the scrapings you were fighting easier. The trained ones? Should be more highly trained like you are, giving you more difficulty.
The disparity between field monsters and beast-men at higher levels is apparent, and actually sensible given the lore. That's not to say your idea to have more depth in combat is wrong, we just have to take diversity into effect when we recommend it - there should be fodder that tries to be dangerous by numbers, and winds up being AoEd to death. I agree that we should have alternatives - but they should be intelligent implemented to have little impact on the above described concept. -
07-06-2012, 08:01 AMJockoSorry, I should have specified, I was thinking on the terms of 3 or so birds (Although preferably, I'd love for group encounters to be mixed, similar to single player FF titles, instead of the usual MMO standard of having specific mob camps)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyrist
This sort of logic has always bothered me. Why does a mob have to be easy because it's not grand in presentation? A Dodo has it's own unique characteristics, and looking at it as "Well, it's just a bird" detracts from that in my opinion. I understand that the first level Dodo's are used to ease players into things and that later versions can expand upon that, but my example encounter is what I would consider 'easy' or 'basic', the standard for which progression, well, progresses on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyrist
-
07-06-2012, 10:00 AMRokienYes because it makes sense for one mob to die from 100 different hits from the next mob. Whether it be an NM or not. You cut something in the throat it will die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
Also it's sooo fuun killing one mob for 15mins 100+ times....... at least normal mobs have more variety to them, and if they get their AI up, it's 100xs better than just killing the same mob over and over again. -
07-06-2012, 02:03 PMAlhanelemThe thing is, any such depth and complexity is artificial. No fight with any common rabble-rouser enemy should take more than 10-20 seconds, period. you swing your sword and cut his heart out, or burn him to ash with a fire spell, or whatever. He's not standing after that. Either that or he does the same thing to you and you're dead.Quote:
No one simply wants the fights to take longer, we just want the average encounter (As in, non NM and boss fights) to have more depth and complexity than they currently do.
I'd like to see a bit more risk without making fights longer. I'm suprised that I have to go 5 levels up or more to get an enemy that's even a little threatening. Then one or two levels more, and it's an impossible encounter. There's something really out of whack with stat scaling in this game. It's not as bad as when the game first came out though, I'll say that much. -
07-06-2012, 02:14 PMJynxDo all open world monster need to be reduced to this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
http://blog.thaeger.com/wp-content/u...eory-kitty.jpg
I much rather my open world monsters and "Rabble rousers" as you so call them to look like this.
http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy...%28FFXI%29.png
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__.../21/Zu_ffx.jpg
http://procrastinatingintheheat.file.../10/ffiv06.jpg
I certanly don't want them to be killed in 15-20 seconds I mean christ why even bother giving monsters TP moves if they aren't even supposed to survive long enough to kill them.
Have people regressed so far into their instanced shells that they only want difficult unique monsters to be hidden away from the world unless we wave our fingers at a gate to summon them? Is it really so bad to have strong monsters wandering the wilderness with no othe goal than to murder you (and provide some hard to gather loot)? Are people so afraid of something happening outside some confines they control that they just wont let it happen.
Bah I say. -
07-06-2012, 03:07 PMAlhanelemThe stuff you pictured is not the sort of thing that should be scattered all over the world. If a giant-ass sand worm or plant thing or what have you is encountered, I expect it to take longer to kill than a sheep or a goat or member of the five (current) races.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jynx
That being said, I said nothing of instancing, so you're crossing into an unrelated topic. As I pointed out before, the length of an encounter should be porportionate to the rarity, percieved strength and size, level, intimidation factor, yada yada of the monster.
The kind of monster you pepper the landscape over vs big scary bad guy hiding in dark corner of universe. One fight should last longer than the other, three guesses which. -
07-06-2012, 05:24 PMShurrikhanI pretty well have to agree with this, if only tangentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokien
For starters, it's just weird expecting realism from a game, let alone this one. It's going to be ridiculous, or it's going to be a little more ridiculous. Not much of a difference at the point where something who's head has been cloven open several times is still attacking you.
150x same mob = mob's layer of depth (x % of unique behavior or abilities it's able to use) + mob's group strategy layer of depth. Not much of an increase, especially when, as is common for AOE situations, much of their 'uniqueness' will go unseen due to being killed too soon. Yes, group aspects of strategy come in and of their own, but they're nothing great. Each person does their job right, repetitively, and you'll hardly notice in your typical xp party. And in current implementation, there's virtually no unique mob 'group' behavior.
I don't necessarily see that as an argument for a specific length of fight. It's just that with the reaction speed of this game, using any weaponskills at all requires the mob to survive the first caster barrage, and won't be worthwhile without the target also surviving the rest of the AoEs. At less than 10 seconds a mob, granted that can be a bit of an extreme, we essentially are only using 1-2 abilities per class. Fire-Fira, Pummel-Aura or just Aura. Hence the lacking 'depth.'
If the game's reactivity were faster, time's requested would change again; it's a matter of steps, not seconds. If AoEs weren't the only thing viable for these situations, time changes would have already happened naturally. Doesn't matter how the added depth is accomplished.
Some random stuff that would add depth as long as the gameplay needed could be done:- More AI behavior based off group combat, perhaps including triggers from nearby ally deaths.
- AoE maximums or fewer "pure AoEs" (damage dealt equally over area, and instead something like damage starting in the center and being absorbed or reduced from maximum as it expands outward, or the opposite; more unique patterns)
- Ways for AoEs to play off 'source' ST attacks
- Reasons for patterned orders of killing
P.S. Someone's probably already said this before, but mob difficulty doesn't have anything to necessarily do with leveling speed, as they can always award more xp proportionally. -
07-06-2012, 08:22 PMSoukyuuBecause everyone played FFXI, right? Right? <_<Quote:
Originally Posted by Krausus
So you're actually agreeing with me? Because currently a flock of birds doesn't live 40 seconds in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyrist
-
07-06-2012, 08:34 PMSkies
Also i've just remembered a thing.
You do know that any AoE maxes at 8 targets, right? (or was it 10, cannot remember exactly) Any single AoE utilized will cap at that number of targets, so it's not like if you do a humungous pull you'll run out of targets too soon. -
07-06-2012, 08:53 PMSoukyuuIf speaking in terms of pure AoE spammage, yes. But when you have a mixed single target/AoE DD, you will have melees constantly changing targets because what you just targeted will usually be one of those 8 targets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skies
But yeah, in Natalan even melee can start executing more than one skill. But that's 40+, so for 40 levels you just spam this one skill.
Another thing about AoE being capped to 8, when you have multiple AoE cast on different targets of a mob, the 8 targets it hits is different, so potentially you could cover more than 8 targets in "one" cast -
07-07-2012, 01:29 PMDragonI really cannot agree more; perfectly said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jynx
-
07-08-2012, 01:17 AMRutelor
Here's for a return of the suspense-filled, panting-good times of crowd-control, link management and highly strategical fights.
R -
07-08-2012, 01:35 AMAlhanelemIt's not really perfectly said. The things he doesn't want killed in 15-20 seconds are things that probably already arren't going to be killed in 15-20 sconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragon
I don't want fights to last of some arbitrary length. Fight lengths should be appropriate and porportional to the sort of enemy you're fighting. Big scary boss = long fight. Bloated burble = short fight.
More accurately, I want better fights, not longer fights. Time and sophisticaiton or difficulty are not directly porportional.
Short fights can be intricate and challenging, and long fights can be simple and dull.
These things already exist. Someone hasn't played Good King Moggle Mog or United We Stand or Hamlet Defense. And, as I said just a moment go, length of fight does not necessarly determine level of strategy or sophistication. We could immediately make all fights in the game longer by tripling enemies' HP or giving them super duper defense but that doesn't make combat more strategic, it just makes it take longer. Longer != more strategic, panting good suspense filled fights. Longer fights just mean longer fights.Quote:
Here's for a return of the suspense-filled, panting-good times of crowd-control, link management and highly strategical fights.
-
07-08-2012, 01:49 AMJynxYou know I've seen you say this often in this thread but would you mind giving us an example of a "Short but intricate" fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
We sure as hell don't have that in this game, or any other game with short fights that I've ever seen. No aiming for the head/bodypart is not a "Intricate" tactic either. -
07-08-2012, 02:34 AMAlhanelemAnything that breaks from continuously repeating the same action with no others in between is adding intricacy. I will not accept your arbitrary "doesn't count as intricate" rules. The incapcaitation system is an intricacy, as is the combo system, as will be battle regimens if/when they come back. None of these things require a certain amount of time to pass to be utilized. We already have enemies (e.g. bombs, cactuar) that have a significant consequence for allowing them to live too long. Mechanics like this allow short fights to be interesting.Quote:
No aiming for the head/bodypart is not a "Intricate" tactic either.
Most of the problems with combat in this game come from
1) the lack of primarily-enfeebling type actions
2) lack of sophistication in enemy actions. With the exception of boss fights and instanced raids, few enemies have any variability in their behavior and are all extremely predictable, so even in the worst case situation you know what's going to happen.
3) lack of probability in complications to the player's actions. While original accuracy and resistance rates were really bad, it feels like things may have been taken too far to the other end of the spectrum. There is rarely a case where you have to choose anything other than your universally most powerful action because you can always count on it working.
None of these problems with combat have anything to do with fight length. The only point at which fights are "too short" is if you are literally one/two shotting enemies of comparable level. I don't know, maybe super triple melded people are doing that? I know I can't. It usually might take me three spells plus some abilities to take out a ~50 monster? Which isn't much different from FFXI- the only real difference with XI is the amount of time spent auto-attacking or waiting between actions.
Depth of combat != length of combat. You don't need to spend minutes per monster battling common enemies to have combat system with reasonable depth.
I'd love to hear your ideas on making fights more interesting. I don't want to hear your ideas on making fights longer, because making fights longer doesn't make them automatically better.
Take games like the kind where we stuff little critters into balls and make them fight eachother- where battles can sometimes be decided in a single turn, and other times can take dozens of turns. The combat system for those games seem simplistic, but is intricate for the sheer variety of moves available in the game (something that is being limited by this game's engine right now, as I understand it) and number of factors you have to consider (such as type). There is a significant crowd of people that play it competitively as a result- battles can sometimes last a long time, and sometimes be very short.
(There are a few things in FFXIV, such as differences between monster types, that were dumbed down to make experiences more consistent, and this does represent an area where I think things took a direction they shouldn't have)
[note; above section vague-ified to not sound like an advertisement]
TL;DR: advocate for better combat, not for arbitrary durations of combat.
-
07-08-2012, 02:49 AMGukie
This is a great idea, the fights should last 1minute-5minute giving us a bunch of exp such as 2000-5000 exp instead of 3 second and giving us 1000 exp.
At least it will actually be fun ranking up****
I Hate grinding because it's boring---- but seriously grinding every monster and killing all of them in 4-10 second, there's no fun and no point of even having that.
they might as well give us a rank 50 job... this doesn't help nubs become better; but at least it doesn't waste my time grinding every monster out of boredom.
I say make the fight last longer with of course more exp to make it equal to how much exp you get now per hour.
POWER LEVEL..... -.-..... fix that B S otherwise you might as well give us rank 50
I don't mind Healing power level... but seriously invite disband power level? killing monster out of party with high rank?? If your going to allow that- just give us rank 50 at start. -
07-08-2012, 02:52 AMJynx
Longer fights can lead to.
1. Monsters using more varied TP style attacks that have strategies to avoid and or minimize damage
2. Enfeebling effects have time to actually be usefull (Using slow on a monster that dies before he would even swing next is useless)
3. Incapacitation effects are actually usefull (Same thing as enfeebling mostly)
4. Gives players time to use positional tactics (Combos and whatnot are extremly hard to even try using on "Mooks" because the thing is either spinning like a top or dead before you even walk behind it.
I gave a few of a long list of reasons longer fights (I don't mean marathons for every fight) But a fight that can last a good 1-2 minutes per monster.
You say systems like enfeebling effects and combo system are not effected by fight length and you couldn't be anymore wrong. It takes time to cast a enfeeble and feel it's full effects. Being paralyzed for 5 seconds missing a single action (if your lucky to even have it proc once) is much different than being Paralyzed for 30 seconds and the monster missing several actions.
This works on the other end of the spectrum as well, nobody cares about debuffs like poison on themselves because shortly afterwards the monster is no longer a present threat and all attention is focused on you. Longer fights cause more scenarios that will test healers/tanks than short battles. -
07-08-2012, 02:55 AMGukie
For every player's who doesnt want grind- Why don't you play Street fighter or mortal kombat C.c.. instead of MMO?
the character is built up and you can instantly fight other characters c.C? go play Street fighter online ._.????
Or go play League of Legends if you want a more mmo style game that allows you to rank up quick.
Or just Put a tread up that you want a server that gives you all rank at 50 all jobs at 50 all gear maxed out and allow you to fight a single boss solo.
Thanks and hope you enjoy that server you ask for!
There is way tooo many noobs in this game... seriously just because 80% of you noobs want 10-30 second kill and never learn to use your job. Waiste the rest of the good players time trying to learn it on Garuda >.> No wonder no one uses the search and seek system, shiet Normally i'am the type of guy who likes to make pick up party but yet I decide not too because of the fact this game carries way to many noobs who are 50 who can't play there jobs.
I understand some elite players wants to be rank 50 quick and do endgame... and that not everyone needs training to be a great player, but you are talking about people!!!!! do you really think people are educated enough to know how to play a game ?? nop that's why they created the WII!!!!!!!
the easy mode Controler c.c..
alright i'am off topic now ;D -
07-08-2012, 03:00 AMAlhanelemThat's not what I said, but I'm not wrong, I'm right. Just as with buffs, this game has been favoring more potent but shorter duration effects. An enfeeble doesn't have to last a minute or two to have its effect. 15-20 seconds is plenty.Quote:
You say systems like enfeebling effects and combo system are not effected by fight length and you couldn't be anymore wrong
We're never going to see eye to eye here. You don't seem to understand. I'm not advocating for fights to be as short as humanly possible. I'm advocating for combat to be more polished- this means making combat better in its technical aspects, not saying "Fights must last at least X seconds or they are unfun." There is no set duration of time required to make a fight fun or interesting. <30 second fights can be fun, and >30 second fights can be unfun- How much fun a fight is does not necessarily depend on length. Period, end of story.
I feel like part of the reason you want an arbitrary minimum time for a fight is to slow down XPing- If they increased the average time a fight takes, I would demand more EXP per fight to compensate.
Endgame battles are already of reasonable length. Thus this really only concerns EXP grinding, and frankly, I'd rather my EXP grinding be over as quickly as possible, because that's not the part of the game I enjoy the most.
That's like saying if I like speed, why not play a racing game instead of a puzzle game? The answer is because it's the kind of game I like. Not every game in the same genre is the same. I hate tournament fighters. Your comment is probably one of the stupidest I've ever read in my life. Funny thing though, fighting games are an example of combat that is often fast yet intricate. But that alone doesn't make the game for me. I like the story, the epic bosses, the exploration, cooperating with others, etc. of MMOs- street fighter and mortal kombat don't have that. Grinding is the only thing I don't like.Quote:
For every player's who doesnt want grind- Why don't you play Street fighter or mortal kombat C.c.. instead of MMO?
As I've said before, making fights longer doesn't make them automatically more interesting. Good combat mechanics are what make a fight interesting. Forcing the fight to last a certain amount of time doesn't achieve that.
-
07-08-2012, 03:03 AMRannieQuestion is is this in a party setting or non party setting. are you soloing or not and also if it's solo the ifrit and moogle thing is voided because with certain classes/jobs are played a different way. when I solo on lnc/drg i can't get behind my oppenent like i could if i were in a party so i can only use certain combos that are available. aka leg sweep and a couple of others. In the end with one mob around my lvl it takes me a few minutes or so to fight or even longer if I'm going after a mob that's at most 2 levels higher than I am. Using thm wasn't the best example and now most people have no aoe attacks anymore either unless they're tp movesQuote:
Originally Posted by Rokien
-
07-08-2012, 03:10 AMArcellAgreed. While the fights would have to last a little longer for them to make better use of the existing systems, they don't need to be obnoxiously long simply for the sake of being long. I'd personally like to see further use of the Incapacitation system in a meaningful way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
-
07-08-2012, 03:16 AMHyrist
I'll put it this way, if they inflate the lenght of the battle simply by expanding Mobs' HP pools, I'm going to be ticked.
If they make the fights more interesting by giving them beter behavior patterns and resistances, I should be ok with it.
But we honestly need a better party XP system than simply killing monsters out on the field, it's trite and boring no matter how long the individual fights are. And it teaches players nothing of endgame tactics they need to learn. I want real training runs for players. -
07-08-2012, 03:19 AMJynxGood for you, some people here think that the exp is the part of the game they enjoy the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
I've allready told you we will never see eye to eye on this subject, I'm not asking for a arbitrary time lengthening either but the fights are too damn short as it stands. Obviously a better polished system would have longer lasting battles with rewarding gameplay.
I'm not asking someone to auto-attack for 5 minutes and stare the monster in the eye for the whole duration. We both want a better combat system, we just don't agree on what that is. -
07-08-2012, 03:31 AMHyrist
Alright Jynx then let's clear the air.
No smoke and mirrors, no complaints about what is. I want to hear your ideal system for leveling up in parties. Start to finish.
Warning: Just so you know, I'm going to pick it apart when you're done. -
07-08-2012, 03:35 AMAlhanelem
Time warp to about 8 years ago in FFXI, and be a teen level in the dunes or early 20s in Yuhtunga Jungle. That's probably what he wants. Every fight is like a boss battle. It's fun for a little while, but it starts to wear on you after a while- which is why I'm glad things were later sped up. Boss battle length fights should be reserved for actual battles with bosses.
Honestly,t he best way to learn about endgame is, and should be, doing endgame. Leveling never teaches you about endgame in any game. It didn't in FFXI, WoW, or any other MMO i've played. Endgame has a lot more structure and scripting and is different in every way from what even the best leveling experience is like. The best way to learn is to make a mistake and fail. Yes, it sucks but the lessons stick with you.Quote:
And it teaches players nothing of endgame tactics they need to learn.
-
07-08-2012, 04:05 AMHyristKay let's stop with the Hyperbole and let the man speak for himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alhanelem
There's different formats to endgame. Raiding, boss fighting. And yeah, while every boss is different, the basis of the idea is the same. These ideas can be introduced early in the game so that while you will still have to go through the process of trial and error. But having regular practice at such concepts will allow you to adjust more quickly.Quote:
Honestly, the best way to learn about endgame is, and should be, doing endgame. Leveling never teaches you about endgame in any game. It didn't in FFXI, WoW, or any other MMO i've played. Endgame has a lot more structure and scripting and is different in every way from what even the best leveling experience is like. The best way to learn is to make a mistake and fail. Yes, it sucks but the lessons stick with you.
That sort of system can be done without making life more difficult on other types of players, and would be healthy for the playerbase as a whole. I think it should be supported and implemented - the players will enjoy it, it can be both constructive and rewarding, and it shouldn't really overlap too much with field systems.