SE stop doing the "norm"

[Abriael]

IMHO, TERA is B&S lite, combat-wise.
I tested B&S and B&S combat is much more demanding. Screwing up a block usually leads to massive damage even on lower levels and you have to learn the attack patterns of each mob to be able to block efficiently. In TERA, I just spammed hits most of the time and could then recover my hp pretty fast.

Also, unlike TERA, B&S is highly popular in Korea, so that gives me a shimmer of hope. Maybe B&S will deliver not only combat-wise but also overall.

I tried B&S too. Didn't find it any harder than Tera, especially comparing high level dungeons. Also, Tera was highly popular near launch as well. B&S still hasn't delivered to the test of time.

I like it, but that doesn't make its approach any more valid or superior than MMORPGs based on different skillsets.

Yeah... sure... That's why people don't want you in endgame groups if you don't have high-end gear, even if the dps difference is not that high?

Yeah, try to find a group for Argon Corpus hardmode in Tera with tier 12 gear, see how well it goes for you. The same goes for B&S.

FFXIV's "skillset" is too much crippled by gear. If you don't have the right gear in FFXIV, you'll deal less damage and take more damage, even if your skill as a player is higher than of a min-maxed player. Evading/blocking is also gear based.

That's why B&S's system appeals to me, you take damage largely depending on how much your player skill is, not your gear. Gear should be supporting you, but not defining you.

Every MMORPG depends a lot on gear, no matter how much the developer promises it doesn't. A MMORPG not depending on gear would lack a crucial progression factor and would bomb because people would lose interest faster.

In high level encounters of both TERA and B&S (in B&S a little less than Tera, but just a little and not nearly losing it's content gating factor) you can be a master twitcher, but if you go undergeared into an endgame instance you die. No question asked.

In Final Fantasy XIV you can have the best gear you can find, but if you screw up positioning or reaction in most of the hard mode boss battles you're dead. No question asked.

Tera and B&S are based on gear AND on twitch. Tera is a little less based on individual twitch and more on party synergies.

FFXIV, The Secret World and many other MMOs are based on gear AND positioning/tactics/party synergy. Mind you, their advanced encounters (at least for the two I named) are actually way more challenging than anything B&S and Tera offer.

Gear is still a determining factor. The skillset on its side is just different. Neither is more "skillful" than the other.

Twitch does not necessarily mean challenge.

A MMORPG not dependant on gear is simply nothing else than a pipe dream. You have to give people things to look forward to and the only really viable gating factor is gear. If everyone can access every piece of content off the bat (or even as soon as they leveled to the cap), they'll check it out, lose interest and quit to the next MMO released that offers them new content.

There's no way any developer can create new content at a fast enough rate to make the gear grind obsolete.

That's simply the reality of this genre, and you don't make successful MMORPGs with pipe dreams that sound good only on paper.

As a conclusive note, the more you base a MMO on twitch and "action", the simpler group encounters can be. Even if you optimize your netcode to the maximum, there's only so much data the server and the client can pass each other reliably in a certain amount of time. Action combat takes a lot more of that bandwidth for itself, limiting what can be used for actual boss mechanics.

In addition to that, the more you force the player to pay attention to action, the more balancing and accessibility dictate you keep the bar low in term of mechanical complexity.

IE: a MMO with action combat is invariably less challenging, tactically, than one with target-based combat.

Which one is "better" is simply an individual matter of taste. They simply challenge different kind of skills, but saying that Blade & Soul or Tera require more "skill" than FFXIV, TSW, SWTOR or even WoW mind you, is simply conceptually false, and is as valid as saying than an FPS requires more "skill" than XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

Mind you. All MMORPGs are actually "easy" in terms of amount of "skill" required (whatever skillset they cater to), simply because their developers have to keep them as accessible as possible, as their revenue and continued success is directly proportional to the number of people playing.

Want a really challenging "mmo"? Try iRacing. Blade & Soul and any other MMORPG will suddenly look like child's play.

[Soukyuu]

Yeah, try to find a group for Argon Corpus hardmode in Tera with tier 12 gear, see how well it goes for you. The same goes for B&S.

I can't comment much on that since the EU publisher of TERA is incapable enough to not be able to fix a bug in a tutorial quest, so I didn't get far in that. For B&S, I didn't go far to not spoil the story since I can't really read/understand Korean.

Still, I don't think any gear will save you if you just stand there idly/spam your attacks and take the hits. The difference is the time span that has to pass before you kiss the floor, and IMHO, in action-based combat it happens much faster.

Every MMORPG depends a lot on gear, no matter how much the developer promises it doesn't. A MMORPG not depending on gear would lack a crucial progression factor and would bomb because people would lose interest faster.

I can't really argue with that...

In high level encounters of both TERA and B&S (in B&S a little less than Tera, but just a little and not nearly losing it's content gating factor) you can be a master twitcher, but if you go undergeared into an endgame instance you die. No question asked.

The difference is though, that in FFXIV, once you have the gear, you're mostly safe and you don't have to worry about anything beyond a set routine/positioning.

Tera and B&S are based on gear AND on twitch. Tera is a little less based on individual twitch and more on party synergies.

FFXIV, The Secret World and many other MMOs are based on gear AND positioning/tactics/party synergy. Mind you, their advanced encounters (at least for the two I named) are actually way more challenging than anything B&S and Tera offer.

Which is kinda weird, since action based combat doesn't only rely on correct positioning/tactics/synergy but also on your reaction that goes beyond "read battle log msg x -> run to other spot in the arena -> continue spamming".

Gear is still a determining factor. The skillset on its side is just different. Neither is more "skillful" than the other.
Twitch does not necessarily mean challenge.

It's a different type of challenge, as you said yourself. Each skillset is there to overcome a type of a challenge. The difference in my eyes is, if you have reaction-based challenges on top of positioning/synergy, which adds one more variable, making a game much more fun.

A MMORPG not dependant on gear is simply nothing else than a pipe dream. You have to give people things to look forward to and the only really viable gating factor is gear. If everyone can access every piece of content off the bat (or even as soon as they leveled to the cap), they'll check it out, lose interest and quit to the next MMO released that offers them new content.

Why does it have to be all about the gear though? For me, the game is not all about grinding for a piece of an armor... so that I can go grind for a new weapon next. If anything, that bores me to death and kills any motivation to log in, especially when it is implemented in the way that requires you to spam the same content over and over again.

There is so much more out there, PvP (which doesn't get old so fast since you're not fighting an AI), world exploration, crafting, simply running around helping people, communicating etc etc.

IE: a MMO with action combat is invariably less challenging, tactically, than one with target-based combat.

Define "tactically". It's a different type of tactics than target-based combat, that's all.
I don't agree on the bandwidth part, either. A typical MMO is using about 1-5kb/s of spike bandwidth. With current minimal speeds of around 50kb/s, there is still about ten times of bandwidth free. In the end, it's all about how the system is implemented.

Which one is "better" is simply an individual matter of taste. They simply challenge different kind of skills, but saying that Blade & Soul or Tera require more "skill" than FFXIV, TSW, SWTOR or even WoW mind you, is simply conceptually false, and is as valid as saying than an FPS requires more "skill" than XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

Generally speaking, you're right. It just annoys me that in FFXIV it's mostly BLM burn instead of actual tactics (or used to be, I'm not logging in much) and the fact that most of the time you just concentrate on spamming your skills as fast as possible, not caring about defense because "magic" will heal you anyway.

I guess you could say that this type of gameplay is not my taste.

[Abriael]

Still, I don't think any gear will save you if you just stand there idly/spam your attacks and take the hits. The difference is the time span that has to pass before you kiss the floor, and IMHO, in action-based combat it happens much faster.

No gear will save you if you're very bad. The same can be said about every MMORPG that simply isn't super-easy or in which you're not way overgeared for the challenge. Mind you, when you're way overgeared you're safe even in action-based mmo.

The difference is though, that in FFXIV, once you have the gear, you're mostly safe and you don't have to worry about anything beyond a set routine/positioning.

Yeah, and in action based MMOs you're mostly safe unless you screw up action. Positioning and group tactics are the basics of the challenge of target-based MMOs, while action is the basics if action-basics MMOs. Neither is safer than the other when you're overgeared. They're just "safe unless you screw up". There are just different things to screw up.

Which is kinda weird, since action based combat doesn't only rely on correct positioning/tactics/synergy but also on your reaction that goes beyond "read battle log msg x -> run to other spot in the arena -> continue spamming".

Action based mmos rely on correct positioning/tactics/synergy a LOT less than other MMOS, for a physical matter of netcode and for a simple reason of balancing.

It's a different type of challenge, as you said yourself. Each skillset is there to overcome a type of a challenge. The difference in my eyes is, if you have reaction-based challenges on top of positioning/synergy, it makes a game much more fun.

The point if you can't have the same level of position/synergy.

Why does it have to be all about the gear though? For me, the game is not all about grinding for a piece of an armor... so that I can go grind for a new weapon next. If anything, that bores me to death and kills any motivation to log in, especially when it is implemented in the way that requires you to spam the same content over and over again.

You're minority. Gear collection is a major element that makes MMORPG addictive for most people, and it's in a developer's best interest for their MMO to be addictive. You'd be probably better suited for a more immediate kind of game with no real gating like MechWarrior online.

There is so much more out there, PvP (which doesn't get old so fast since you're not fighting an AI), world exploration, crafting, simply running around helping people, communicating etc etc.

PvP doesn't get old only for those that actually like it. We already know this won't be a MMO geared primarly to PvPers. World exploration gets old when you have explored the whole world. ArcheAge has one of the biggest, most expansive and fully explorable worlds in the market, yet you can explore it fully in a couple days (I know because i did).
Crafting is as niche as pvp, with the added malus that you *do* run out of possible progression.

Running around and helping people are in no way less relevant in gear based games, with the additional bonus that in gear based games you have more reasons to help people, as the best gear requires collaboration to get.

Define "tactically". It's a different type of tactics than target-based combat, that's all.

No, it's not. It's exactly the same tactics, just with different levels of complexity. Action based combat requires less complex mechanics, leading to a less tactical approach.

I don't agree on the bandwidth part, either. A typical MMO is using about 1-5kb/s of spike bandwidth. With current minimal speeds of around 50kb/s, there is still about ten times of bandwidth free. In the end, it's all about how the system is implemented.

To be totally honest, you not agreeing is irrelevant. That's just client-side bandwidth. It has to be multiplied by everyone communicating with the same server. Bluehole had to develop a completely different netcode to make tera possible, and had to do a TON of compromise with encounter complexity in order to achieve it.

Generally speaking, you're right. It just annoys me that in FFXIV it's mostly BLM burn instead of actual tactics (or used to be, I'm not logging in much) and the fact that most of the time you just concentrate on spamming your skills as fast as possible, not caring about defense because "magic" will heal you anyway.

I wonder what level of encounters you're talking about, because BLM burn will carry you only so far.

I guess you could say that this type of gameplay is not my taste.

That is fine. It just means that ARR won't be for you. At the moment, though, the majority of MMO players seem to prefer (just looking at subscriber numbers) target based combat.

Action combat is interesting, but is also niche, as people that like that kind of approach tend to prefer less gated games like pure third person shooters, or third person shooters with limited MMO elements like world of tanks, mechwarrior online, war of the roses and so forth.

[Soukyuu]

Action based mmos rely on correct positioning/tactics/synergy a LOT less than other MMOS, for a physical matter of netcode and for a simple reason of balancing. The point if you can't have the same level of position/synergy.

Why not? I don't see how balancing is a reason for that. Yes, it makes things more difficult if you have to think about tactics, positioning and synergy at the same time. But it's much more rewarding if you achieve it, so simply saying "it's not possible because it would be too hard" is not an argument for me.

You're minority. Gear collection is a major element that makes MMORPG addictive for most people, and it's in a developer's best interest for their MMO to be addictive. You'd be probably better suited for a more immediate kind of game with no real gating like MechWarrior online.

I guess I am, what do you mean by "gating"?

To be totally honest, you not agreeing is irrelevant.

Excuse me? I was under the impression we were having a discussion here.

That's just client-side bandwidth. It has to be multiplied by everyone communicating with the same server. Bluehole had to develop a completely different netcode to make tera possible, and had to do a TON of compromise with encounter complexity in order to achieve it.

Server farms are not running on a DSL-lite type connection, and Bluehole did make it possible. Team Bloodlust seems to have done better, not concentrating only on making combat appealing, at least so far.

Even assuming B&S does just as bad as TERA, using those 2 games to say action combat = less complex encounters is generalizing. If it's not possible atm, it will be possible sooner or later. TERA and B&S did a step in the right direction, others could simply expand on it and learn from the mistakes they did.

Meanwhile target-based combat is getting more and more stale with each game that is using it.

That is fine. It just means that ARR won't be for you. At the moment, though, the majority of MMO players seem to prefer (just looking at subscriber numbers) target based combat.

Action combat is interesting, but is also niche

It's not clear whether the majority prefers it or just settle for it because the majority of the games come with target-based gameplay because it's the current norm. TERA didn't fail because of it's combat, but because of failing publishers (EU) and the game not giving you anything interesting except for the combat.

Anyway, I'm not claiming TERA/B&S are better than FFXIV, but this thread is about SE settling for the norm, which is not the way to go imho.

[Elexia]

Excuse me? I was under the impression we were having a discussion here.

One does not simply have a discussion with Abriael.

[Abriael]

Why not? I don't see how balancing is a reason for that. Yes, it makes things more difficult if you have to think about tactics, positioning and synergy at the same time. But it's much more rewarding if you achieve it, so simply saying "it's not possible because it would be too hard" is not an argument for me.

Balancing is a very important factor. A MMORPG to be successful needs to be accessible, so the level of challenge needs to stay within some rather precise parameters. Most MMORPG, for better or for worse, offer pretty much the same level of challenge.

I guess I am, what do you mean by "gating"?

It's the process of regulating how fast the average player will get to use up any given content of the game. By "gating" it behind gear checks, you know it'll take the average player a certain amount of time to burn that content, giving you time to make more.

Excuse me? I was under the impression we were having a discussion here.

There are things that are simply fact. If someone disagrees with fact, that's pretty irrelevant.

Server farms are not running on a DSL-lite type connection, and Bluehole did make it possible. Team Bloodlust seems to have done better, not concentrating only on making combat appealing, at least so far.

Server farms also don't run on physically impossible bandwidths, and need to be able to serve very high numbers of players at the same time. Bluehole and Bloodlust did part through optimization and part through streamlining mob behavior by quite a lot, especially boss encounters-wise = less tactics involved.

Even assuming B&S does just as bad as TERA, using those 2 games to say action combat = less complex encounters is generalizing. If it's not possible atm, it will be possible sooner or later. TERA and B&S did a step in the right direction, others could simply expand on it and learn from the mistakes they did.

They did not make mistakes (not in this at least), they had to compromise in order to make the action approach even possible.

We're talking about the present or the foreseable future here, not some remote future that doesn't apply at all to FFXIV: ARR.

Mind you, Korea is already way into the future compared to us, since their average connection speed and bandwidth is the best in the world, and by a long shot.

Meanwhile target-based combat is getting more and more stale with each game that is using it.

is it? According to who? Some people say that turn based combat is "stale". XCOM is there proving them wrong. Basic gameplay mechanics are just a mean to an end. There are way more important factors to the success of a MMO.

It's not clear whether the majority prefers it or just settle for it because the majority of the games come with target-based gameplay because it's the current norm. TERA didn't fail because of it's combat, but because of failing publishers (EU) and the game not giving you anything interesting except for the combat.

Besides some of the best graphics in the industry and way oversexualized visuals (which sells, a lot), it had plenty to go for it, but the combat lost its novelty for many quite fast.

Saying that people that disagree with you do so just because they "settle" for something is a tad of a copout.

Anyway, I'm not claiming TERA/B&S are better than FFXIV, but this thread is about SE settling for the norm, which is not the way to go imho.

And this thread is based on a false assumption. If SE was settling for the norm, there would be no ARR, and this game would be a F2P throwaway by now.

There's plenty way for a MMORPG to distinguish itself without reinventing the wheel. A square wheel may be original, but it simply doesn't roll as well.

[Soukyuu]

Akihiko Matsui: "skillful play"

Battle Reform Blueprint

Hmm, good point. I forgot about that one, they should be highlighting this more, not burying it in some subforum IMHO.
Well, as I said, we haven't seen anything from that so far, every battle content they shown was just spamming skills.

Balancing is a very important factor. A MMORPG to be successful needs to be accessible, so the level of challenge needs to stay within some rather precise parameters. Most MMORPG, for better or for worse, offer pretty much the same level of challenge.

I'm not saying it's not important, but you're making it sound like balancing an action game to be on the same difficulty level as target based games is impossible, which isn't the case.

There are things that are simply fact. If someone disagrees with fact, that's pretty irrelevant.

Last time I checked, facts required a citation of a trustworthy source (article, book, etc). So far your "fact" is only your opinion.

Server farms also don't run on physically impossible bandwidths, and need to be able to serve very high numbers of players at the same time. Bluehole and Bloodlust did part through optimization and part through streamlining mob behavior by quite a lot, especially boss encounters-wise = less tactics involved.

I'll be able to judge that later, but from what I've seen so far, it's not any less tactical than FFXIV, which seems to be what you're implying.

is it? According to who?

According to the success rate of your average MMO copying most from the predecessors.

Besides some of the best graphics in the industry and way oversexualized visuals (which sells, a lot), it had plenty to go for it, but the combat lost its novelty for many quite fast.

Exactly. Which didn't happen with B&S so far.

Saying that people that disagree with you do so just because they "settle" for something is a tad of a copout.

No, what I said was that if we at least had a comparable distribution between target-based and action-based MMOs, then the results might have been different. If you have 2 games of one genre and over 10 of the other, which genre has the higher chance to be chosen?

And this thread is based on a false assumption. If SE was settling for the norm, there would be no ARR, and this game would be a F2P throwaway by now.

Actually, it goes like this: people get bored -> quit waves -> no new people to fill the hole -> f2p.
It has nothing to do with a game being the norm or not, else TERA wouldn't fail, having the out-of-the-norm action combat.

There's plenty way for a MMORPG to distinguish itself without reinventing the wheel. A square wheel may be original, but it simply doesn't roll as well.

How about a wheel that is bigger or can change it's pressure depending on which terrain it's rolling over? Why settle for the same features over and over again? Where is the progress in that? Or fun?

[Abriael]

I'm not saying it's not important, but you're making it sound like balancing an action game to be on the same difficulty level as target based games is impossible, which isn't the case.

No, I'm saying that to retain the same difficulty the player needs to be able to pay attention to the same number of factors. Is the factors involved in combat increase, other factors need to decrease in order for the game to remain accessible to the same crowd.

Last time I checked, facts required a citation of a trustworthy source (article, book, etc). So far your "fact" is only your opinion.

I checked the definition of "fact", and that's not included.

I'll be able to judge that later, but from what I've seen so far, it's not any less tactical than FFXIV, which seems to be what you're implying.

if you said you didn't want to spoil the story for yourself, I seriously doubt you managed to see any advanced encounter.

According to the success rate of your average MMO copying most from the predecessors.

You mean like wow? Yeah, definitely unsuccessful.

Exactly. Which didn't happen with B&S so far.

Actually the korean servers are already declining.

No, what I said was that if we at least had a comparable distribution between target-based and action-based MMOs, then the results might have been different. If you have 2 games of one genre and over 10 of the other, which genre has the higher chance to be chosen?

They're not different genres. There are a crapton of defining factors in MMORPGs other than targeting.

Actually, it goes like this: people get bored -> quit waves -> no new people to fill the hole -> f2p.
It has nothing to do with a game being the norm or not, else TERA wouldn't fail, having the out-of-the-norm action combat.

The "norm" in handling a MMO, when it's not successful, is to fire almost everyone, reduce the team to barebones, and go f2p until it dies. That's definitely not what SE did.

How about a wheel that is bigger or can change it's pressure depending on which terrain it's rolling over? Why settle for the same features over and over again? Where is the progress in that? Or fun?

The fact that a game has some of the same features doesn't mean it has them all. Progress doesn't mean to be revolutionary to be progressive. Originality for its own sake has no value in game development.