Constructive Criticism of 6 month demo Combat Card System

Are we making other games here?

Besides, it was like that in Ultima Online as one example and if that is the only game previously to have such, then it would be interesting and new to have it like that in Shroud of the Avatar. No, it does not need to be a copy of that system, but this card thing is not a direct copy of MtG either.

 

You still couldn't cast any spell you wanted at anytime. You still needed a valid target for the spell... frequently that would have to be yourself if no other options were there.

And No.. I don't want this to be like UO. I'd go play UO if i wanted UO.. I can still play T2A or original free shards if I wanted combat like that. I actually didn't care for the combat in UO. hmm whats that explosion, e-bolt, poison, flamestrike... mmm so difficult... or remove their reflect magic with magic arrow to start...

 

You are not on the same point I was, though. There is a difference between having a spellbook with 64 spells and having to abide by the rules given for each spell, and having a spellbook which has rules and guidelines for when I may read the spellbook itself, in addition to rules and guidelines for the spells.

I am fine with abiding by the rules and guidelines of the individual spells, but I am not fine with a spellbook that I own which tells me "no, you can't read me now, just because".

 

I agree with that.

 

This game is getting better and better by the day. I cannot wait for beta to start. Well done so far devs.

 

I think the biggest problem (for me) with the actual combat system is the feeling of not geting control of your own skills. BUT i need to try it before droping it.

So what i think about it now: In sota we have 1 avatar that can learn all the skills, there is not a skillcap like in UO. This brings the problem that all could mutate their playstyle in base of the items that are wearing in that moment (a skilled player would be too powerfull, and would break teamplay). To solve this, a card system is a legite alternative that add randomness and some obligatory weakness to the skill formula.

One way to not lose the sense of control would be to select a number of skills before yo go out your home (you could have presets, IE: fire wizzard day, debuff warrior day, etc), and in combat you could acces to, lets say 6 or 7 skills that you can have acces anytime with hotkeys and cooldowns. Like a moba (dota 2 for example, i am a big fan of it). Even you could combine with items according to the playstyle, IE: a wizzard with spells based on heavy mana use require some boots of magic, or a counter mage could use manaburn spells, etc.

And what about ramdomness of life? There are many ways to introduce random factor that not feel too intrusive, like fizzle depending of type of armor.

What do you think?

 

Well... if we look at Skyrim, or any other Bethesda game...

 

Not really a fan of the card system or randomness, it will feel cheap to both lose because you got a random bad luck draw of cards and win that way.

Personally, I'd rather either see the combat go more action focused, with skill-based systems (IE a melee combat like found in games such as Severance aka Blade of darkness or dark souls) and range/mounted combat like in Mount and Blade. (whcih is very much an rpg and still makes ample use of character skills and things that influence combat).

If not action focusesd then go for a type of system that works and still lends to players building their character and skills.

I think a system like Guild Wars 1 (not 2) where you learn skills but have a limited hotbar, so you have to pick the skills youw ant to use an dbascially "create" your own deck of skills, so one character of that same class can completely be different then another character of the same class.

Which is something that Everquest Next is doing with it's system where you have the ability to be any class but a limited hotbar to mix and match skills to create your own unique class in term sof abilities.

To me either way would work better with Shroud then a random deck system that takes choice away from the player and puts their fate on random luck.

 

This is exactly my hesitation with this system. I am all for the "random" nature of battle. It is an inherant trait of such chaos. But to say I dont know my own skills until they randomly present themselves?

The randomness of battle to which I speak would be an opponent standing fast against my feints, not allowing me a chance for a more complex manuever. Random skill loss/availability is not a way to explain being out manuevered. Nor is is a way to combat macroing. That will be there 0-day, no doubt.

A way to resolve some of that away, perhaps have slots randomize, but slowly, overtime, they dont? This would feel more like a low level experienced person does not really know when to use a skill, so its a jumbled mess, but over time the random nature is lessoned. Otherwise, what is the point of experience?

 

I've not played the demo, so I don't think my critique can be all that useful. However, from what I have seen, the combat system is antithetical to what most 'hardcore' RPG fans like - it's WoW. Most of us are sick of WoW, or we'd be one of ten million playing it right now.

Firstly, the combat looks too fast paced. Now, I know that the common gamer has attention defeceit issues, but a lot of the classic RPGs I've played - the ones I've liked - they've had slow combat. Tactical combat necessitates slowness. You need seconds to make a decision. What's presented in the gameplay videos... it's quick, it's finger rolling QWERTY LoL/DotA/WoW/Dragon Age/Hotbar button mashing combat. It looks good to a casual player because it's quick, it's smooth, it 'looks' fun and energetic.

I've had more fun playing games that made me sit in anticipation for each weapon swing, where an opponent's next decision could mean my demise (and I'm not alone, I know I'm going to get poked at for even comparing the two - but please, how many copies did Pokemon X and Y sell this month? People still enjoy slow, turn based combat). Fast-paced RPG combat really only works in something like an ARPG, where you're just spamming skills, killing dozens of enemies a second. A quick-paced combat system in a sandboxy, progression-driven, explorative ORPG.... it makes exploration boring - enemies die quickly (or you do), obstacles seem trivial, so combat just becomes a chore instead of something to plan carefully around. Granted, if combat is slow and uninvolving, you've got a boring experience too, but going fast-paced with hot buttons is a road that will kill any momentum this has for newcomers, I think.

I'd say... consider this kind of approach:

Low enemy encounter rate - you don't encounter enemies frequently.
High enemy danger threshhold - combat should always feel tense and exciting and novel.
Long, tactical battles against a single or multiple foes.

Battles, if they're going to use a card system, or hot-bar combat... every single solitary skill should have a side-effect to it. A huge draw back, a huge boon. Psychologically, people get excited when gambling gets involved. Of course, you don't want things to be lucked based, but again, the Pokemon analogy just makes sense to me - in a single turn in Pokemon, everything can reverse itself, every move you make is potent and meaningful, which is why I think people enjoy playing it. It's not just because "Nintendo" is attached to the box art.

If you attack recklessly, you should get a defensive penalty, for example. If you attack defensively, you should get a fatigue penalty or something. There should be times when enemies are extremely vulnerable to damage, times when enemies' damage threshold skyrockets, and times when you just need to run away and fight another day. Making the wrong move could result in your character losing a large chunk of health, forcing you to back off.

If the systems designed trivialize combat, make it too arcadey and actiony, reduce it to an experience you can find in WoW or Guild Wars... no amount of player housing or player crafting is going to enthuse people, I don't think anyone backed this hoping to get The Sims: Medieval.

I'm not even going to bother whining on the damage numbers all over the screen. I thought that too was antithetical to the design philosophy expoused in the kickstarter? I guess it's too much to break from the convetions WoW has entrenched into RPGs. Damage numbers are meaningless screen filler that exist only to boost the egos of people with ADHD.

 

Yep, and you bring a DP'd katana to finish off their friend.

 

First off, let me say I haven't read everyone else's posts. Was going to put this in the demo thread and thought it would be more appropriate here. I will catch up, but just wanted to put this down before I head out to work for the day.

I think this quote from Kazin accurately represents the sentiment of many players. The UO combat system was "invisible" to the player - meaning they were so excited about the content that they didn't even notice the UI. There have been a lot of games, and a lot of spells/skills we've seen in that time. I don't know if anyone could come up with completely new magic etc. that wouldn't feel contrived or overwrought. So, content isn't likely to wow anyone's socks off - expectations are too standardized now. How can we make combat a more active pursuit while maintaining the sandbox feel of a game like UO?

An ideal system would take into account dev and player concerns

• Requires a player to pay attention to battle, understand the opponent and the consequence of her choices
• Produces appearance of freedom for the player (actually limited by points, player choice and other factors such as focus and reagents)
• Allows her to respond in kind to attacks with little forced delay (waiting seems to be a bad thing)

When a character dies, the player should really feel it was their fault, or that they were outmatched by their opponent.

In refining this system, if there was any way to move the attention of the player from their own 'spellbook' to the target of combat, I think this would go a long way to helping acceptance of a new system. Why? It feels (3rd person of course since we haven't played) that I am fighting myself, not fighting the opponent - which may ultimately be frustrating.

 

Pretty sure it was sped up for demo puproses. The skills were coming up faster than they have suggested they would and they were likely super buffed for 1 or 2 skill kills when the avatars they showed us were level 1 and 0 exp. I wouldn't take too much of what was shown to be indicitive of combat 6 months from now.

I'm pretty sure they also intend to put something more into the game than stand here and use your skills. moving out of the way of powerful attacks is very popular right now and is a fun mechanic. I'd expect that to be added in.

You'll also notice they showed numbers in the Demo, RG has said there would be no enemy helathbars and no numbers, so it's a little puzzling why it's in there now, but it might be for testing purposes.

 

I have to agree with Bubonic. I can see random things happening in combat but my skills shouldn't be random. I'm a well trained fighter/mage/healer type and my abilities just pop into my head, are there for a short time and disappear if I don't use them? That doesn't make sense. If I'm making a strike with my sword and I am trained in sword usage that skill should always be available to me, EXCEPT when it is in cool down at which point I would have another ability to fall back on, say parry.
The second thing is this. The whole time I'm in combat hunting my abilities, that means staring at my tool bar. Because I have no idea whats going to pop up where and if things have a limited availability while on the toolbar that means I have to stare harder at it. The only other option is watch the fight and just keep blindly pressing things hoping you get what you're looking for. Either way, that is no way to do combat in any type of game.

 

It's random so in theory you could still win without looking

lol

 

Chris said thatthey would add the option to turn on all the UI stuff if people wanted. I think flytext would be a part of that.

 

I think it's intended for fun gameplay, not for realism. They can explain it in a way that has some basis in reality. Such as, you think of using this move to counter that move or maybe you don't, but that is a thin stretch. I think it's intended to change up combat from the norm. Personally I don't care much for the combat/skills in any games out there right now outside of some single player rpgs... and many of them I dislike. Yeah I don't like Skyrim.

This isn't random, this isn't a coin flip. It involves more strategy and more planning and the right mix of the right skills to give you a perfect pool of skills/spells to choose from so you can beat your opponents with your superior choices of what you want to draw your abilities from. I think the system only turns away people who don't think of things and ways for this system to be an even better tool for showing your superiority. I tend to be very good at games like dominion and thunderstone and mtg(I always place high in sealed deck tournments, where many people would think they have garbage cards or no good rares ive built winning decks), I think these skills of picking and choosing the right things to go in my draw pool is what will help me defeat you all in PVP.. come at me bro.

 

If you don't like Skyrim, I don't think we can be freinds.
(btw - I just beat the main questline last night.)

My pal really likes MTG; we had a convo that went something like this:

"You know, some people on the forums play Magic the Gathering and say that they like this combat system."

"I play Magic the Gathering. I f-- love Magic the Gathering. But I don't want it in a f-- real time combat game like this!"

 

I hope SotA fights that trend in videogames!

 

Running time - 32:51