Starr Long Discusses Chaotic Aspects of SOTA Combat

I think simplistic and somewhat insulting classifications like this are pretty unhelpful. Our world is polarized only in the view of those who can't see past their own opinions and push for them to the exclusion of everything else.

 

I'm willing to give it a chance. Most of the best products I'm ever built were done by "sailing west to go east". I empathize with the Don Quixote feeling where everyone thinks you're completely crazy...and, in fact, just might be.

I still say:
1) Randomize effect, not intent. So I have a seperate "deck" for attack, defend, dodge, cc/interrupt, finisher
2) No random buttons on UI, just random effects on the same buttons (i.e. 'q' - defend deck) with something like TAB to reset. And they don't have to be thought of as "random", these represent chains and combos.


There are really never rotations in PvP. Those are a PvE thing to max dps. But PvP is about control, burst, and survivability - not dps. It is dynamic and I want to watch my opponent, the terrain, etc. and not the UI. I don't hit 3,5,2 in PvP, I hit cc when I need it, damage when I need it, escapes when I need them. So you're going to see lots of criticism that you're doing all the wrong things in PvP to try to make PvE interesting.

 

I'm not sure how this puts a stake into anything. The system hasn't been tested yet, but I would be happy to have you transfer the difference between your current high amount to the 30 dollar tier to me.

So if you pledge at the $150 have StoA team transfer the $120 to my account.

Have Faith Grumpy, there is a reason way Alpha and Beta builds exist.

 

The problem with a "builds" type system is as soon as some number chuncher figures out how to configure the most effective DPS build then everything else goes out the window and we end with almost nothing but "Stun-lock Rogues" or "Nuke Fire Mages" because they will be what all of he "Pro" players uses to PVP with (just for the record that is not a negative PVP comment, I like PVP). The only variety we'll see is when a new player joins, and only long enough for him/her to figure out that if they want to be competetive they need to use the same build.

No thanks, had enough of that. I'll keep an open mind and be more then happy to give something new a try. It may be great it may suck, but I'm not about to write it off without trying it.

 

I LOVE this game or I wouldn't have put so much money into it on little more than a promise but here you remind me of the creators of mirrors edge complaining that because someones new it should be lauded.

A glass sandwidge might be new, doesn't mean I want to eat it

I know I have posted this before but it hasn't changed


YES I think your changing them for the sake of changing them because thats what your saying "every game does x so we wanted to do someone different". Thats the very definition of doing something for the sake of doing something new

 

I am too. Both in SCA style mock combat, martial arts class and twice in an alley I've had people attempt to mug me and I've had to fight them off.

Here's the thing, if that's the reason then what they're trying to do is code an analog for humans having brain farts and not taking an advantage they might have had otherwise. But guess what? We already have a human doing the combat, we don't need to code for that since I'll be providing all the absentminded mistakes the game needs.

But with this system I have to deal with my own, plus the game saying "no... if this was real you'd be stupider." Thanks guys!

So plan on the fact that I'll forget I know how to cast heal so brings things I'll remember to cast heal with? Wouldn't I look at the item and think "Hey, that's right! I know this spell!"

And there are honestly times that will be frustrating.

Understand that this is a case of saying "If we just let you do what you want, you won't play it right. We need to take some control away from you so you have to play differently." What?

Do you want to really know why other systems end up with 1234? Lets look at culprit #1 WoW: http://www.wowwiki.com/Mage_abilities That's the spell list.

Of the spells that aren't prep spells, or counter spells, there's really only a handful of spells that need to be used in combat. And many of them are just improved versions of a lower level spell. Which is why you see them only casting 12312345.

Can you explain to me how deliberately throwing out half my skills I know so that I can be more sure good ones come up reduces this? It may vary when it happens, but it's not going to add more variety to combat. The number crunchers are just going to figure out the most effective deck layouts and that's what people will use. Behold: http://www.mtgvault.com/ First hit. The reason there are so many for Magic is there are so many cards available. But there will be deck builds posted online, and people will simply grab a deck type to use and build that rather than crunch the numbers themselves. There will be small variations, but there was that in UO as well. Some of us liked inscription to up our defense spells, instead of poisoning to increase our poison spell.


The thing about numbers is, there's only so many ways to count to 100. You can throw the order of the numbers in a blender, but it's still the same numbers.

 

Agreed, Hartsblade, I was hoping for the same, but it's pretty clear that one type of magic will be rare (and, as described, uses a mechanic that makes it infinitely more attractive than any other offensive attack) while focus is the only one of two limited resources in the combat-over-time equation.
Hence my comment that those two in game variables will likely be the primary focus for "builds".. rather than a combat system with more variety, which would be better.

 

I say lets try it out.
I agree with Star Long about random situations.
So if this try of him will fail because we majorly scream "after" we really gave it a chance then at least he can try to make the npc enemies less predictable then in other games as another approach maybe?

 

So rather than being the voice of reason we are supposed to wait until its fully implemented and proves the point and then IF enough people complain (and that IS a big IF even if its an abominal system, remember people defended Xbone and Always Online for simcity) then they MIGHT change it back to a more sensible normal system. Sounds great

 

That would be a typical chain/combo system, which would be great, if tied to several other ideas that were enumerated by a wide variety of posters in the original mega thread.

 

if you want to add some random elements, rather than making the UI take over the game because you now have no idea whats attached to your attack buttons, why don't you add a system of I don't know, how about critical hits and failures. That way you control what you use and you know where it is and what button its attached too so your UI doesn't become the whole focus of the screen (in spite of the fact RG said that he wants to make the UI unobtrusive) and you still have your random elements

 

Ok .

This is a nice battle.
Achilles as you can see is still using the system giving full control of his actions. He moves very under control.
Hector on the other hand apears alot more unsecure waiting for the random skills to apear.
He has some good moves but no chance against Achilles using the full control system.

 

I am sure this is a surprise to anyone following threads on this issues, but I think the idea and think Starr is spot on in those comments. I like to see pre-strategy brought into RPG combat, and think this system will do good at representing pre-planning/training into the mix. I have played many different card games and know how effective stacking a deck is as well as how much fun those random elements can be. It will be very interesting to see how they implement this in SOTA.

I understand the frustrations around PVP; however, normally this is related to seeing PVP as a competitive sport. Since I am not a competitive person this does not bother me at all. Card games can be, and are, competitive as well, but this changes what most people in this sport-field expects: Kinda like when Football started using helmets. In the end, luck exists side by side with skill in every competitive sport: even Football has a coin toss.

With traditional combat mechanics you can macro most winning combinations, and I really don't find these mechanics that fun because they are so repetitive. In NWN, I would always get heckled by my real life friends because they knew I was watching television when I was playing. As such when I got ganked in PVP it was usually because I was so bored I was really not paying much attention: although I won just as much and you really shouldn't be able to do that. I expect to miss a lot more TV shows once SOTA launches: Either than or I might have to spend more time heckling people stepping on my lawn.

 

You are right, the best way to avoid polarization is to just compromise your beliefs and principles and give in. No one is pushing for the exclusion of anything here except the exclusion of quality, skill based pvp. Better to be inadequate equally than to actually have depth of creativity.

So the point of this randomness is to make it more exciting and unpredictable? Wow indeed. . . . . there are plenty of ways this could have been accomplished without removing player control of their skills. So now, after fighting someone, even if you were masterfully and skillfully outplaying them (oh wait, that can't happen now, it's just whoever gets lucky) and they are red lined, suddenly they get a magic draw of a super spell to wipe you out and win. Wow indeed. Is this really your best plan to get inexperienced people involved into pvp? In order to draw in the people who already make it clear that they don't want to pvp, you go with a system that pretty much assures that the people who DO WANT to pvp, hate it?

Let me ask you this? What are your plans for all those people who get involved in pvp, and then after spending some reasonable amount of time doing it ( because they win more battles at the beginning of their experience due to luck) realize how little the outcome actually depends on their skill and experience and makes little sense, and then gets disillusioned with it due to the 'unpredictability' and decide pvp is boring? And in the meantime, the biggest share of the hardcore pvp'ers are already disappointed. So basically, although you can't see it from your perspective, this assures that the one on one pvp encounters in this game will be frustrating and meaningless.

I knew when I saw Starr in that plaid shirt that red flags were going off. . . .

 

there already is PLENTY of pre-strategy brought into RPG combat by the people who actually do it.. . . . . it's funny how so many people want to post what a great idea this is, who openly admit that they have a very limited knowledge if any at all in real pvp combat.

The real problem is this: the developers want pvp'ers in the game for their $$ and the tradition of UO, they just don't want everyone who doesn't pvp to suck at it and complain when they try to participate. By scrambling around trying to find the magic bullet that is going to suddenly make all of you good at pvp, you will never find what you want, and never understand why you didn't. If everyone in this game is reasonably equally as good at pvp because of this system, there will be no quality pvp in this game. End of story. There are no short cuts to success people, all there is are failures of understanding littering the road behind you.

 

BTW I do have a lot of knowledge on PVP combat. Now I assume "real" PVP you classify as UO, but the PVP I experienced was not WOW either.

I do not think this system makes PVP or combat any easier. Go enter a Magic The Gathering competition, and I will tell you flat out that even if I gave you every card ever created it will not be a cake walk for you. Adding random elements like this is not an easy button. Like any games its a rule set that has to be learned and executed. Maybe this will make "you" worse at PVP in SOTA, but it will not make any player better at it. At most, a complete idiot might win a match completely due to luck, but that would be the equivilent of winning the lottery.

I understand you don't like this system, and I understand why you don't like the system. AND I don't disagree with you on some of your points. However if this excludes PVPers that are going to belittle people for liking and seeing the value in this type of system, then I might actually be more in favor of it than before.

In the end the Developers will make the decision on what game they want to make.

 

You can certainly be sure that this will open the floodgates of ganking absolutely, I mean, what pvp'er is ever going to jump you alone and leave 'luck' as a part of the equation? PvP'ers don't fight for fun, they fight to win. Do you really think we are ever going to let you have any sort of edge in any way, other than just flat out being better than us? If you can't stand toe to toe with me and beat me on skill, i'll make sure you never get the chance.

 

I understand completely, if mediocrity excludes the best and the brightest in that arena, you are all for it. And I understand the reasons you like it that way. I'm not asking for any unfair advantages, just a system that relies on player skill, that's why we are players right? Why is this not a good system for crafting then? or farming? why shouldn't we just randomize everything in the game to make it more 'exciting'. Why is it every idea about combat or pvp has to be somehow some crutch to people who don't even like pvp? As if they really plan to or will pvp to any extent anyway.

 

This struck a chord with me. Strictly talking PVE, I like to "push" my character. If I'm lvl 12, I'll go after lvl 12-15 maybe even the higher teens. I push the game mechanics, my gear, my skill choices and myself. If I die, I have made a mistake. I learn from that, change things up and am better in that particular game at that stage. There is nothing "random" about my play-style, choices, or strategy.

So enter SotA's "card/deck/random" combat system. I am fearful of it. After all, we fear what we do not understand. So to better understand it, I tried to imagine something like it in different games. In Borderlands 2, I go for a rocket launcher, I get a pistol and I'm dead. In Red Dead Redemption, I go for the shotgun, get the lasso and I'm dead. In Skyrim, I go for the Fireball, I get a frost spell, it's resisted and I'm dead. So goes every example that I came up with. I just can't help equate "random" with "death."

In straight up, hardcore, serious PVE combat...I am having a terrible time trying to stomach any sort of randomness beyond typical statistical attributes of the combat (mace damage 12-20, that sort of thing). So, like most...it's a wait and see approach. My hope is that I'm dead wrong and worrying for nothing. Maybe it will be great fun and start a new trend. Or...people will just die relentlessly due to "randomness" and the sky will reveberate with the screaming.

The only recent experience I've had with "pre-strategy" was with The Witcher 2. Drinking potions before I needed them...drove me up a wall. It took "buffing" to a weird new level. I know many people love that game, I'm just saying personally...I didn't care for that sort of "pre-strategy" angle. Are there other relatively recent RPG's that have something like what you are tlaking about? If so, I'd like to take a look at them.

 

My take is that its supposed to simulate combat - to the point that its nearly impossible to show to player with out FPS combat. Your not going to use your "lunge forward" skill when the opponent has spear and the tip is coming to impale you - it that case you dont have that awailable to you. ((Even if the game does NOT show it, if this would be chivalry or mount and blade type combat these would not be needed, but that kinda combat brings dosen other aspects in the game that most of us and devs dont want - combat would be to only few people and they have stated that they are making game that all can enjoy and be able to compete in - to point that the character is cabable even if the player is not!)). If you take this point of view in the games suggested combat you suddenly realize what they are trying to do. "What about the heal, heal, heal?!?!" Well you can think it takes too long to cast and if you do it now, sword chops your head off when you are stationary casting and humming to your self. Story telling, narrative point of view. It might just be that this story telling attitude I have on this comes from my roleplaying hobby and I can understand why you feel like this. Mount & Blade style is for FPS games, this is roleplaying / story driven game.

Well we could go Dungeons & Dragons style, Priest gets 3 lvl 3 spells! and untill he rests, nope you used them allready, all forgotten.
Heres a point of view. And same goes with "not using all the skill abilities you have" Because this is classless system that has 1 character AND they are kind enough to desing game that you STILL can achieve most things and experience wide variety of content. SO think of (again magic word, imagine that) it that you have to choose 'class' before combat, your role in it. Would be silly that you could have all the skills in game and use them all at ones. You can learn most of them because they dont want you to have respeck your skill points, make mules etc. Game wise its good desing that you cant have all 100 skills in one combat - balance.

After all this story telling. Before you run to the ramparts and torch me of "supporting" system that has not yet been made OR proven. I havent said that I like the system, yet. But I want to see it and then make my opinion.
So can we now agree to wait and see and THEN complain our eyes out of not having control of the story ? And yes, I have my own doupts in this system and alot of the posts here ring true and make sence to me. And some real good suggestions to make it beter, even when its not done !