www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Thursday, March 29, 2007
No skill in MMORPG solo combat
I've mentioned it before, but I'd like to start a discussion about MMORPG solo combat, the situations where you are one-on-one against a computer-controlled mob. Given that in World of Warcraft you can level up from 1 to 70 by doing nothing else, and even the most ardent group-players like me spend a good part of their time soloing single mobs, I wonder why this sort of combat has to be that boring and void of a need for skill.
The reason why I'm thinking about that is me playing the Puzzle Quest demo, where each combat is played out as a Bejewelled-like puzzle. There are elements of chance, and your character stats influence the combat, but in the end you need to be good at this puzzle to beat the opponent. The game has a function that if you can't find a move, one possible move is pointed out to you, but if you always just take this random move, you are unlikely to win. Setting up some clever combo of moves and spells requires some thought, and when you win the game due to that, it is a lot more satisfying.
Back in World of Warcraft combat against a mob appears to be a comparatively boring sequence of button presses. Very often the sequence is the same. WoW even has a special /castsequence macro function, so if you find you're always casting the same three spells at the start of combat, you can put them all on one button. My priest always pulls with Holy Fire and Mindflay, then bubbles up, casts Shadow Word Pain, and then wands the mob to death. Except for sometimes having to renew the bubble or cast a healing spell, each combat is pretty much like the last one, regardless of what mob I'm fighting. My warrior either charges or pulls with a ranged weapon, and then pretty much randomly uses all his different special attacks one after the other until the execute button lights up and I can end the combat with it. The most exciting is fighting spellcasters, where I need to react and either interrupt their spells or try to reflect them back to them. Compared with most other video games, a MMORPG combat needs very little eye-hand coordination skills, and very little decision-making skills. Random button mashing, or even going afk in the case of well-armored melee fighters, often works just as well.
Unfortunately the only "improvements" to this system announced are MMORPGs where you need to target manually instead of locking on a target and repeatedly click on the mob to hit it. I don't see how that needs much more skill, this is just the same "action" combat system that goes back to the old days of Diablo. You create the illusion of action by requiring lots of clicks, but there is no skill in clicking. The outcome of combat will still largely depend on your character stats, and not on whether you made intelligent decisions during combat.
Thus my fascination with both puzzle-based combat systems (Puzzle Pirates, Puzzle Quest), and combat systems using elements from trading card games (Metal Gear Acid. Chronicles of Spellborn is going in that direction, but not far enough). Basically everything which turns combat into a mini-game of its own, and where your skill in that mini-game, together with luck and character stats, determine the outcome.
But other systems would be possible. Asian RPGs often use systems which are based on mobs being resistant or weak to certain elements. The whole Pokemon system is based on that, and the Final Fantasy XI MMORPG is using this in a minor way. The idea is simple enough, the player gets more different spells as he has in WoW, but they don't all work equally well on every opponent. There is usually some diagram of elemental oppositions, and the fire mob will be resistant against fire, but weak against frost, while arcane deals normal damage. WoW has the resistant part built in, but only on very few mobs, and whether a mob is fire resistant would only be interesting to a mage or warlock, and not to a warrior, priest, or rogue.
So what are your ideas to make MMORPG combat more interesting? Please, solo combat only, we'll keep the discussion about group combos and chains for another day.
- posted by Tobold @ 11:14 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
well, personally i like the idea of tabula rasa that positioning is the key to make solo-combat more fun.
that means if you jump up and down constantly and move like in a fps you do a lot less damage and even your hit chance goes down. now when you are crouched you can do a lot more damage but ofcourse you take a lot more damage especially when someone is meleeing you to death ;)
furthermore obstacles would decrease your chance to hit.
that means if you jump up and down constantly and move like in a fps you do a lot less damage and even your hit chance goes down. now when you are crouched you can do a lot more damage but ofcourse you take a lot more damage especially when someone is meleeing you to death ;)
furthermore obstacles would decrease your chance to hit.
The asian ideas of vulnerability are a start, the LOTRO layers of spell tiers are a second. Combos a third.
Combine these.
Basic is Auto-Combat, a rather lenghty battle of fight-and-parry. Not much damage taken, not much damage dished out. No brain cell needed here.
You could start by opening the true combat by stancing. The stance unlocks a whole different set of combat commands. Similar to the general stancing of warriors in WOW or the rogues stealth.
But what I mean is more a sort of positioning stance together with some skill sets. You should also react in a way with the moving pattern of the mob you fight with.
Once you started, you can now choose different layers/tiers of combat commands. The higher the tier of the command, the better the end result (finishing move).
All these layers can be effective against a mobs type/class/position/stance but would be more effective against a certain mob type/class/position/stance. Plus a random element to keep the battles interesting. Basically, make every battle a boss type kind of battle and deliver greater rewards. Instead of single-mindedly slaying 2476 Furbolgs via AoEing 6 Mobs at once, slay 19 + a boss and be a reknown hero in the friendly Furbolg community.
That is one idea. Second idea: Deliver a Nintendo Wii type control which allows you to swing and parry by moving around. That would be fun. (If it is ensured somehow that lags don't hinder the outcome.)
Combine these.
Basic is Auto-Combat, a rather lenghty battle of fight-and-parry. Not much damage taken, not much damage dished out. No brain cell needed here.
You could start by opening the true combat by stancing. The stance unlocks a whole different set of combat commands. Similar to the general stancing of warriors in WOW or the rogues stealth.
But what I mean is more a sort of positioning stance together with some skill sets. You should also react in a way with the moving pattern of the mob you fight with.
Once you started, you can now choose different layers/tiers of combat commands. The higher the tier of the command, the better the end result (finishing move).
All these layers can be effective against a mobs type/class/position/stance but would be more effective against a certain mob type/class/position/stance. Plus a random element to keep the battles interesting. Basically, make every battle a boss type kind of battle and deliver greater rewards. Instead of single-mindedly slaying 2476 Furbolgs via AoEing 6 Mobs at once, slay 19 + a boss and be a reknown hero in the friendly Furbolg community.
That is one idea. Second idea: Deliver a Nintendo Wii type control which allows you to swing and parry by moving around. That would be fun. (If it is ensured somehow that lags don't hinder the outcome.)
I'll use Diablo 2 as an example, since it's a game I'm very familiar with.
Even normal mobs had wildy varying abilities. Although there were basically only 3-4 different mob archtypes (melee, caster, summoner/resurrector), each mob subtype had it's own kinks. Some melee mobs would explode upon death, casters would teleport or AoE and so on. Some classes did have a much harder time against some mobs than others. For example, melee classes would have a hard time fighting their way to a summoner before dying, casters would have serious problems against fast mobs etc. Even heavy resistances and immunities against different types of damage were not unheard of.
One other way that Diablo 2 used was random abilities on bosses. This was both a blessing and a curse. You never would know how hard the fight would be and what tactics you needed to use. These abilities included extra speed, extra armor, resistances, additional attacks, regeneration and so on.
In fact, some mob types were downright deadly against certain classes (A Barbarian against Iron Maiden-casting Death Knights, for example). And once you started hitting Nightmare and Hell difficulties and those random abilities started adding up, you frequently encountered unbeatable combinations.
WoW, on the other hand is much more tolerant, sometimes out of necessity. Unlike in Diablo 2, you can't just keep resetting the game world until you get a tolerable combination. Any class is able to kill a non-elite enemy type of the same level, given enough time.
Why?
Many mobs in WoW are related to a quest in some way. Maybe they drop a quest item, guard a specific location or are themselves a quest objective. If some quests were impossible for some classes to complete or some zones completely inhospitable, the forums would be aflame. Just look at how much gnashing of teeth Molten Core and Vaelastraz caused.
Diablo 2 didn't suffer some the same effect nearly as much, since every act of the game had only 6 quests at most. If you couldn't effectively kill mobs in an area, you could skip it. Mob-specific drops were nonexistent, so it didn't really matter what you killed. In WoW, most of the loot is tied to the type of the mob. If you want some specific loot (even if it is just trade goods like cloth or motes), you have to be able to kill the mobs.
Incidentally, Diablo 2 endgame consisted of farming the Cow Level, which contained loads and loads of plain old melee mobs..
Even normal mobs had wildy varying abilities. Although there were basically only 3-4 different mob archtypes (melee, caster, summoner/resurrector), each mob subtype had it's own kinks. Some melee mobs would explode upon death, casters would teleport or AoE and so on. Some classes did have a much harder time against some mobs than others. For example, melee classes would have a hard time fighting their way to a summoner before dying, casters would have serious problems against fast mobs etc. Even heavy resistances and immunities against different types of damage were not unheard of.
One other way that Diablo 2 used was random abilities on bosses. This was both a blessing and a curse. You never would know how hard the fight would be and what tactics you needed to use. These abilities included extra speed, extra armor, resistances, additional attacks, regeneration and so on.
In fact, some mob types were downright deadly against certain classes (A Barbarian against Iron Maiden-casting Death Knights, for example). And once you started hitting Nightmare and Hell difficulties and those random abilities started adding up, you frequently encountered unbeatable combinations.
WoW, on the other hand is much more tolerant, sometimes out of necessity. Unlike in Diablo 2, you can't just keep resetting the game world until you get a tolerable combination. Any class is able to kill a non-elite enemy type of the same level, given enough time.
Why?
Many mobs in WoW are related to a quest in some way. Maybe they drop a quest item, guard a specific location or are themselves a quest objective. If some quests were impossible for some classes to complete or some zones completely inhospitable, the forums would be aflame. Just look at how much gnashing of teeth Molten Core and Vaelastraz caused.
Diablo 2 didn't suffer some the same effect nearly as much, since every act of the game had only 6 quests at most. If you couldn't effectively kill mobs in an area, you could skip it. Mob-specific drops were nonexistent, so it didn't really matter what you killed. In WoW, most of the loot is tied to the type of the mob. If you want some specific loot (even if it is just trade goods like cloth or motes), you have to be able to kill the mobs.
Incidentally, Diablo 2 endgame consisted of farming the Cow Level, which contained loads and loads of plain old melee mobs..
More reactive combat.
Counter-attacks, spell-stealing, counter-spells, ripostes; there are all sorts of ways to make the combat more involving, and some of these are already evident in MMOs. But it requires more effort on the part of developers to create mobs that will make use of abilities in an unpredictable way which still makes sense at that point in combat.
Kicking casters, while always a good idea in general (I kid), is a good game mechanic for interrupting casting, but relatively easy to utilise, especially in 1v1 where the only thing stopping you doing it is some sort of global cooldown mechanic and your own forgetfulness.
What if the caster also had a Leg Hook ability, which enabled them to counter your kick and trip you? However, you would then have the opportunity to use Leg Sweep from your prone position to do extra damage. To make it so that you don't have to have a thousand action bars for all the counter abilities, you'd have your main bars much like you do in your standard MMOs of today, and a 'reaction bar'. The reaction bar would have, say, five keybound slots, which you could not slot any standard attacks in. Instead, when the opportunity for your character to Leg Sweep became available, the skill would pop randomly into one of the five slots on the bar, and you would have to press the right key quickly enough to activate the skill before it dropped out of the bar again.
Using this mechanic we can introduce a bit more chance into the combat, making the player rely a bit less on number crunching and more on reaction and observation. It can be readily expanded upon too: more powerful counter abilities might pop two or three numbered icons into random slots on the 'reaction bar' and the player would have to press them in numeric order to activate the ability, if you make the abilities attractive enough over standard abilities then players will probably be inclined to attempt them, even if failure means losing a little ground in the combat.
One of the (probably multitudinous) complications with this is trying to integrate the reaction bar into the UI such that you can maintain focus on the combat whilst using counter abilities.
Counter-attacks, spell-stealing, counter-spells, ripostes; there are all sorts of ways to make the combat more involving, and some of these are already evident in MMOs. But it requires more effort on the part of developers to create mobs that will make use of abilities in an unpredictable way which still makes sense at that point in combat.
Kicking casters, while always a good idea in general (I kid), is a good game mechanic for interrupting casting, but relatively easy to utilise, especially in 1v1 where the only thing stopping you doing it is some sort of global cooldown mechanic and your own forgetfulness.
What if the caster also had a Leg Hook ability, which enabled them to counter your kick and trip you? However, you would then have the opportunity to use Leg Sweep from your prone position to do extra damage. To make it so that you don't have to have a thousand action bars for all the counter abilities, you'd have your main bars much like you do in your standard MMOs of today, and a 'reaction bar'. The reaction bar would have, say, five keybound slots, which you could not slot any standard attacks in. Instead, when the opportunity for your character to Leg Sweep became available, the skill would pop randomly into one of the five slots on the bar, and you would have to press the right key quickly enough to activate the skill before it dropped out of the bar again.
Using this mechanic we can introduce a bit more chance into the combat, making the player rely a bit less on number crunching and more on reaction and observation. It can be readily expanded upon too: more powerful counter abilities might pop two or three numbered icons into random slots on the 'reaction bar' and the player would have to press them in numeric order to activate the ability, if you make the abilities attractive enough over standard abilities then players will probably be inclined to attempt them, even if failure means losing a little ground in the combat.
One of the (probably multitudinous) complications with this is trying to integrate the reaction bar into the UI such that you can maintain focus on the combat whilst using counter abilities.
Well, we could look at real-world melee combat.
The skills involved in real-world melee, whether using weapons or bare-handed, boil down to distance, timing and openings.
Stances in the real world are there primarily to alter the lines of attack available to an opponent. I can take a standard stance with a saber, for example, where I'm standing right foot forward, right hand extended with the outer blade ("true edge") of the saber turned slightly outward.
In this stance, my "outer line" is protected from neck to approximately groin. Thus I know that my opponent is likely to attack either my leg, my head, or my torso on the inner line. From those attacks and my subsequent parry, I then have a variety of counter-attacks open to me. For example, if he opens with a strike to my inner line, and I parry in quarte (blade pointed up, basically just moving my sword a few inches to the left) I can counter-attack with a riposte to his head on a couple of lines, or potentially dip under his blade and attempt a riposte to his thigh or knee, or if I'm using a duelling saber or backsword as opposed to something like a cavalry saber, I can go for a thrust to his face or, with a bit more difficulty, his body.
As you can see, these various options depend in their effectiveness. Whilst, when I'm sparring, it may not matter where I hit my opponent, in reality I'd much rather hit him in the head than the leg. And I'd much rather cut him, with a reasonably heavy sword like a saber, than thrust at him, because there's a much greater immediate disabling factor - there are records of fights continuing with each opponent having been stabbed in the body 20 or 30 times. And, of course, some of these strikes are easier to block than others - whist I can riposte to the head, there's almost no point doing that as a single attack, because he can parry in sixte (I think - historical swordplay, which I'm trained in, and sport fencing have subtly different parry names) very easily from his extension and come back very quickly with a powerful riposte to my open line.
Then, of course, you add the problem of "distance" - when are each of you in range to perform these varying attacks?
The problems in translating this sort of combat to an MMO are numerous, of course. But the basic principle seems sound - a combination of position and a combat system that requires you to "maneuver" your opponent into a position where you can execute a devestating attack. There's already the very beginnings of this sort of gameplay with rogues in WoW.
The skills involved in real-world melee, whether using weapons or bare-handed, boil down to distance, timing and openings.
Stances in the real world are there primarily to alter the lines of attack available to an opponent. I can take a standard stance with a saber, for example, where I'm standing right foot forward, right hand extended with the outer blade ("true edge") of the saber turned slightly outward.
In this stance, my "outer line" is protected from neck to approximately groin. Thus I know that my opponent is likely to attack either my leg, my head, or my torso on the inner line. From those attacks and my subsequent parry, I then have a variety of counter-attacks open to me. For example, if he opens with a strike to my inner line, and I parry in quarte (blade pointed up, basically just moving my sword a few inches to the left) I can counter-attack with a riposte to his head on a couple of lines, or potentially dip under his blade and attempt a riposte to his thigh or knee, or if I'm using a duelling saber or backsword as opposed to something like a cavalry saber, I can go for a thrust to his face or, with a bit more difficulty, his body.
As you can see, these various options depend in their effectiveness. Whilst, when I'm sparring, it may not matter where I hit my opponent, in reality I'd much rather hit him in the head than the leg. And I'd much rather cut him, with a reasonably heavy sword like a saber, than thrust at him, because there's a much greater immediate disabling factor - there are records of fights continuing with each opponent having been stabbed in the body 20 or 30 times. And, of course, some of these strikes are easier to block than others - whist I can riposte to the head, there's almost no point doing that as a single attack, because he can parry in sixte (I think - historical swordplay, which I'm trained in, and sport fencing have subtly different parry names) very easily from his extension and come back very quickly with a powerful riposte to my open line.
Then, of course, you add the problem of "distance" - when are each of you in range to perform these varying attacks?
The problems in translating this sort of combat to an MMO are numerous, of course. But the basic principle seems sound - a combination of position and a combat system that requires you to "maneuver" your opponent into a position where you can execute a devestating attack. There's already the very beginnings of this sort of gameplay with rogues in WoW.
I try to make solo combat exciting ina few different ways. ( I play a mage by the way) One way I do it is when a quest required x number of a certain mob, I will try to see how quickly I can take one mob down. Another way to make things interesting is to see how many of a mob I can take on at once, obviously this may not be as interesting for a tanking class, but for a squishy mage fire specd it can make for some interesting fights. Short of that the only other thing I can think of is fighting new mobs I have never seen before can be somewhat interesting, but even that can get old.
# posted by 
: 29/3/07 15:06
: 29/3/07 15:06
I mostly play hybrid classes, horde shaman and horde and alliance druids in particular. For them the complexity of the fight is higher for several reasons.
The driving factor, I find, is mana conservation. Both classes burn mana like nobody's business. I can't use a consistent repetitive grinding approach with my druid because if I stay in cat form I kill fast, but need to pause to heal. If I stay in caster, then I run out of mana and need to pause to drink.
What I find works well for me, both in keeping things moving reasonably rapidly and avoiding boring repetition, is to do a few mobs in caster form. Then when my mana is getting low, switch to cat and do a few that way, taking advantage of stealth to get some extra damage at the start of the fight. When my cat's health is getting a bit low, then back to caster, whose mana by then has mostly come back.
And if I get sick of that particular grind, I go somewhere else and do something else. I'm rarely in a tearing hurry ... I enjoy the beauty of the scenery and running across the terrain and looking at it is enjoyable for me.
The driving factor, I find, is mana conservation. Both classes burn mana like nobody's business. I can't use a consistent repetitive grinding approach with my druid because if I stay in cat form I kill fast, but need to pause to heal. If I stay in caster, then I run out of mana and need to pause to drink.
What I find works well for me, both in keeping things moving reasonably rapidly and avoiding boring repetition, is to do a few mobs in caster form. Then when my mana is getting low, switch to cat and do a few that way, taking advantage of stealth to get some extra damage at the start of the fight. When my cat's health is getting a bit low, then back to caster, whose mana by then has mostly come back.
And if I get sick of that particular grind, I go somewhere else and do something else. I'm rarely in a tearing hurry ... I enjoy the beauty of the scenery and running across the terrain and looking at it is enjoyable for me.
When I did solo combat as a feral druid, I found it very mana-inefficient to switch between cat-damage and caster-damage. As a caster, I would burn through most of my mana killing a single mob, and slowly at that. It was a lot faster to stay in cat and just switch out to heal occasionally.
I like Nomad's comment about making combat more realistic. Further, I would add that getting initiative should result in a short stun (not just for rogues). In real-life combat situations, unlike movies or regulated sports, getting the first shot often determines the outcome.
I also like the idea of different melee damage types. Didn't even the early D&D / RPG games confer a bonus for using crushing weapons against skeletons? :-)
I like Nomad's comment about making combat more realistic. Further, I would add that getting initiative should result in a short stun (not just for rogues). In real-life combat situations, unlike movies or regulated sports, getting the first shot often determines the outcome.
I also like the idea of different melee damage types. Didn't even the early D&D / RPG games confer a bonus for using crushing weapons against skeletons? :-)
Perhaps its a construct of the way we interact with MMOs. Making them too much like an FPS can be hampered by LAG, years of MMO gamers playing similar setups who are ticked off at a new FPS like control, or just an aversion to change in general even though we clamor for it all the time.
Whatever the case, I think altering the way we actually interact with the game is a bad move. I've played some games on the horizon that try to be different by altering control methods, and to say the least... they're not quality "yet".
So instead, the options for making solo-combat more exciting come down to reactive AI, and situation-dependent attacks and parries.
Baby steps before big steps, I say.
Whatever the case, I think altering the way we actually interact with the game is a bad move. I've played some games on the horizon that try to be different by altering control methods, and to say the least... they're not quality "yet".
So instead, the options for making solo-combat more exciting come down to reactive AI, and situation-dependent attacks and parries.
Baby steps before big steps, I say.
Baby steps before big steps, I say.
Well, with baby steps you never get from the current model to a completely different one, like the Puzzle Quest combat system. And I still believe very much in the possibility of a trading card combat system for MMORPGs, which also would take a quantum leap instead of baby steps.
This isn't to say that baby steps are wrong. I read that WAR will have collision detection in combat, which is interesting. No more rogues passing *through* the mob after a gouge to backstab it.
Well, with baby steps you never get from the current model to a completely different one, like the Puzzle Quest combat system. And I still believe very much in the possibility of a trading card combat system for MMORPGs, which also would take a quantum leap instead of baby steps.
This isn't to say that baby steps are wrong. I read that WAR will have collision detection in combat, which is interesting. No more rogues passing *through* the mob after a gouge to backstab it.
You're right, single combat, avatar vs. generic mob, does get redundant.
I do not know the solution for this. Imagine if each solo battle did require a mini-game, my goodness, it would take forever to grind.
I think of it this way, usually it is not the mob we seek to fight, but what it gives us after we defeat it; ie. exp, drops, faction, etc. And often they require large quantities.
So, making each fight require intense strategy and decision making may make it more of a turn-off than the current drag of the "redundancy factor".
I don't know what the happy medium would be.
---Rotz
I do not know the solution for this. Imagine if each solo battle did require a mini-game, my goodness, it would take forever to grind.
I think of it this way, usually it is not the mob we seek to fight, but what it gives us after we defeat it; ie. exp, drops, faction, etc. And often they require large quantities.
So, making each fight require intense strategy and decision making may make it more of a turn-off than the current drag of the "redundancy factor".
I don't know what the happy medium would be.
---Rotz
# posted by : 29/3/07 16:39
: 29/3/07 16:39
Imagine if each solo battle did require a mini-game, my goodness, it would take forever to grind.
The length of time for a single combat has nothing to do with the amount of time needed to grind. If the current game has a quest to kill 50 foozles, each combat taking 30 seconds, and the new game would have a puzzle combat taking 5 minutes, then the quest would just require killing 5 foozles, ending up taking the same amount of time.
The length of time for a single combat has nothing to do with the amount of time needed to grind. If the current game has a quest to kill 50 foozles, each combat taking 30 seconds, and the new game would have a puzzle combat taking 5 minutes, then the quest would just require killing 5 foozles, ending up taking the same amount of time.
I would agree with Bildo: making the game too much like FPS isn't good -- at least for a game like WoW -- where it would make it all to dependent on lag, twitch reflexes, etc.
One thing that I would like to see though is some advances to let you use terrain. Nothing too complex, but it would be nice if, for instance, you could get above a target and do increased damage (or increased crit chance), but risk a knock-down. Or maybe if there was at least enough collision detection that you could use terrain to keep multiple mobs at bay and face them 1-2 at a time by constraining their approaches to you. This would allow some tactical use of ground.
And, of course, the smarter mobs should be able to use a few tricks like this themselves.
More mob special abilities -- like the aforementioned resistances -- would also be a good idea. Although it rarely fazes non-casters, this could be done. Just as skeletons are immune to bleed effects, you could extend this. Some mobs (say, slimes and skeletons) might take less damage from impaling attacks. Others from bludgeoning. Suddenly your melee types have some more decisions to make!
I like the puzzle approach, and the card approach too, but those are specialized games. I wouldn't like WoW nearly so much if it had such an abstract and non-immersive mechanism for resolving combat.
One thing that I would like to see though is some advances to let you use terrain. Nothing too complex, but it would be nice if, for instance, you could get above a target and do increased damage (or increased crit chance), but risk a knock-down. Or maybe if there was at least enough collision detection that you could use terrain to keep multiple mobs at bay and face them 1-2 at a time by constraining their approaches to you. This would allow some tactical use of ground.
And, of course, the smarter mobs should be able to use a few tricks like this themselves.
More mob special abilities -- like the aforementioned resistances -- would also be a good idea. Although it rarely fazes non-casters, this could be done. Just as skeletons are immune to bleed effects, you could extend this. Some mobs (say, slimes and skeletons) might take less damage from impaling attacks. Others from bludgeoning. Suddenly your melee types have some more decisions to make!
I like the puzzle approach, and the card approach too, but those are specialized games. I wouldn't like WoW nearly so much if it had such an abstract and non-immersive mechanism for resolving combat.
# posted by : 29/3/07 16:53
: 29/3/07 16:53
If blizzard mades it "run of the mill" mobs more complex, the time requried to fight these mobs would increase. If the time fighting these mobs increased I would hope so would the experience.
To make mob fights more dynamic, blizzard only has to add some better AI. I've seen mobs get smarter as I level. The first 13 levels are almost all melee. Then you run into those damn casters in moonbrook and things get a bit tuff. Unless you are leveling an alt. Melee mobs eventually use different attacks, like gouge and kick, casters are known to use frost nova. Some hunter mobs even scatter shot now. Mobs heal, and mobs heal other mobs(this can be very annoying for some classes who pulled two healers). Mobs closer to the end game silence and counterspell. Mobs call for help. Some mobs even talk to you about not taking their candle, or mushroom.
All of the above makes your random mob fight more stimulating, but from a grinding standpoint do you really want your mage to be silenced every 20 seconds. It is really freakin annoying. Esp when you just want to kill 3 more of these mobs and goto sleep.
I think blizzard shouldn't change the way the "basic" mob works, or fights. Blizzard should however include more rare mobs, with more AI, more use of player, and even non player abilitys. I'd love to see a rogue style mob vanish. Put us both out of combat, then after I start attacking the next mob. The rogue comes and hits me from behind. This would be annoying as piss if you had two kill 20 "vanishing rogues", but if it only happens when you goto kill a rare mob with a good drop....then its all good. I'd like to kill a warlock mob and have it use a soulstone. Id like a hunter mob to ice trap me and /dance....the AI arena opponents in BRD used ice trap.....blizzard could learn a lot from just reviewing that encounter.
To make mob fights more dynamic, blizzard only has to add some better AI. I've seen mobs get smarter as I level. The first 13 levels are almost all melee. Then you run into those damn casters in moonbrook and things get a bit tuff. Unless you are leveling an alt. Melee mobs eventually use different attacks, like gouge and kick, casters are known to use frost nova. Some hunter mobs even scatter shot now. Mobs heal, and mobs heal other mobs(this can be very annoying for some classes who pulled two healers). Mobs closer to the end game silence and counterspell. Mobs call for help. Some mobs even talk to you about not taking their candle, or mushroom.
All of the above makes your random mob fight more stimulating, but from a grinding standpoint do you really want your mage to be silenced every 20 seconds. It is really freakin annoying. Esp when you just want to kill 3 more of these mobs and goto sleep.
I think blizzard shouldn't change the way the "basic" mob works, or fights. Blizzard should however include more rare mobs, with more AI, more use of player, and even non player abilitys. I'd love to see a rogue style mob vanish. Put us both out of combat, then after I start attacking the next mob. The rogue comes and hits me from behind. This would be annoying as piss if you had two kill 20 "vanishing rogues", but if it only happens when you goto kill a rare mob with a good drop....then its all good. I'd like to kill a warlock mob and have it use a soulstone. Id like a hunter mob to ice trap me and /dance....the AI arena opponents in BRD used ice trap.....blizzard could learn a lot from just reviewing that encounter.
At risk of sounding like a broken record I must again commend Guild Wars here. The solo PVE game in Guild wars is far more challenging and more entertaining to me than the more traditional MMORPG model you describe.
One of the reasons is the need to select a limited number of skills out of the huge range that are available. Another reason is the ability to use and control npc henchmen and heroes. Enemy and henchmen AI are also generally much higher in GW than I have experienced in WOW. For example there is no taunt mechanism but you can body block. If you want to pull a mob away from beating up on your healer in GW you might have to physically stand between them and absorb the blows. It all makes for much more skillful combat where positioning, timing, correct use of skills and movement are part of the mix.
I think the original intention of Guild Wars was to offer a PVP game but use PVE as a kind of trainer for PVP. That explains a lot of the choices good mob AI and lack of taunt for example. Over time however the developers have realised that many many players never touch PVP and they have greatly expanded the PVE content and gameplay. Of course PVP still rules the roost in terms of skills. If a skill proves too powerful in PVP it will be nerfed even if it has proven handy in PVE play. This sometimes causes grumbles among PVE players but generally the system works.
One of the reasons is the need to select a limited number of skills out of the huge range that are available. Another reason is the ability to use and control npc henchmen and heroes. Enemy and henchmen AI are also generally much higher in GW than I have experienced in WOW. For example there is no taunt mechanism but you can body block. If you want to pull a mob away from beating up on your healer in GW you might have to physically stand between them and absorb the blows. It all makes for much more skillful combat where positioning, timing, correct use of skills and movement are part of the mix.
I think the original intention of Guild Wars was to offer a PVP game but use PVE as a kind of trainer for PVP. That explains a lot of the choices good mob AI and lack of taunt for example. Over time however the developers have realised that many many players never touch PVP and they have greatly expanded the PVE content and gameplay. Of course PVP still rules the roost in terms of skills. If a skill proves too powerful in PVP it will be nerfed even if it has proven handy in PVE play. This sometimes causes grumbles among PVE players but generally the system works.
@tobold...
That is true, they would just lower the requirements, and lower the amount of mobs needed in a quest.
But what if you are grinding for your own needs, like drops and gold?
I see this issue through the lenses of WoW. You bring up excellent ideas, which, as you point out, are starting to be implemented in the nex-gen MMORPG.
In WoW, it is just too late to make solo-combat on an average mob exciting, and each battle distinct.
But good ideas, aye.
---Rotz
PS. I read your Blog everyday, you are awesome, truly; smart, interesting, and insightful.
That is true, they would just lower the requirements, and lower the amount of mobs needed in a quest.
But what if you are grinding for your own needs, like drops and gold?
I see this issue through the lenses of WoW. You bring up excellent ideas, which, as you point out, are starting to be implemented in the nex-gen MMORPG.
In WoW, it is just too late to make solo-combat on an average mob exciting, and each battle distinct.
But good ideas, aye.
---Rotz
PS. I read your Blog everyday, you are awesome, truly; smart, interesting, and insightful.
# posted by : 29/3/07 17:06
: 29/3/07 17:06
Try Chronicles of Spellborn that goes open beta soon. It promises quit a lot of skill to play
# posted by : 29/3/07 21:52
: 29/3/07 21:52
I think the main problem is technical. Making MMO combat faster and more twitch-based requires faster networks/servers or trusting the client. If you trust the client, you can make wicked awesome combat. MMO combat can be like any other kind of video game. But... good luck with keeping hackers and bots from ruining everything.
However, I think there's lots of room for more strategy both before combat and during combat in MMOs.
Pre-Combat Example
I came up with a spell system for an unreleased isometric action-RPG (Diablo 1.5, basically) years ago that I thought might work in a MMO. You had core spell crystals and buffing crystals, which were either single triangles or combinations of same-sized triangles. Each core spell and crystal had colors on each side. You had to put them together so they fit, so you were limited in how many buffs you could add to each spell before you ran out of sides. If you also matched colors, you gained additional bonuses.
But it gets more complex... You had to power your spells, and this was done with a sort of Rocky's Boots system. There were crystals that would split power evenly or unevenly, crystals that would oscillate between 2 or 3 outputs, etc. So you could power all your spells weakly for variety, power one fully, power several in a pre-set sequence, etc.
This doesn't make the combat itself much more interesting, but it does give you more to do outside combat. The challenge is making the interface simple and fast enough for players to change spells quickly between or even during fights.
In-Combat Example
The easiest thing to do would be to change the combat model to something other than RPG mechanics.
If you don't care about other players watching combat, you could just play some generic animation (such as a repetitive attack and block animation or a cartoonish "fight cloud" with arms, legs, and various weapons occationally poking out), then you can make the combat anything you like. Combat could be anything from "Turn-Based Console RPG Combat" (although that's usually not more exciting) to a puzzle game (PuzzleQuest), to something like a CCG, etc. You could even make combat a trivia game or steal board game mechanics (I challenge you, vile unintelligent monster, to a game of Puerto Rico!). I can think of a few ways to add some RPG elements to games like Tichu, Pit, Carcassonne, or something more obscure, like Tamsk. The core mechanics wouldn't need to change much, but the presentation would need lots of adjustment...
But you'd lose some of the feel of a multi-player world since once you enter combat, you leave the regular world and are locked into a mini-game where other players cannot interact with you.
Also
Group combat doesn't have to be multi-player, either. If, instead of controlling just one adventurer, you controlled several adventurers or even a small army in a multiplayer environment, that might open some more options for interesting combat. But it moght come at the expense of a single avatar the player (hopefully) strongly identifies with.
If, however, you want other players to be able to see combat in-progress and interact with it (and I personally prefer the chance of killstealing to not being able to help a stranger in need), the problem becomes far more difficult. Or if you want to keep RPG mechanics, but make it much more fun, skill-based, and interactive...
That's something that would actually require me to think. For a year or two. Hm.
However, I think there's lots of room for more strategy both before combat and during combat in MMOs.
Pre-Combat Example
I came up with a spell system for an unreleased isometric action-RPG (Diablo 1.5, basically) years ago that I thought might work in a MMO. You had core spell crystals and buffing crystals, which were either single triangles or combinations of same-sized triangles. Each core spell and crystal had colors on each side. You had to put them together so they fit, so you were limited in how many buffs you could add to each spell before you ran out of sides. If you also matched colors, you gained additional bonuses.
But it gets more complex... You had to power your spells, and this was done with a sort of Rocky's Boots system. There were crystals that would split power evenly or unevenly, crystals that would oscillate between 2 or 3 outputs, etc. So you could power all your spells weakly for variety, power one fully, power several in a pre-set sequence, etc.
This doesn't make the combat itself much more interesting, but it does give you more to do outside combat. The challenge is making the interface simple and fast enough for players to change spells quickly between or even during fights.
In-Combat Example
The easiest thing to do would be to change the combat model to something other than RPG mechanics.
If you don't care about other players watching combat, you could just play some generic animation (such as a repetitive attack and block animation or a cartoonish "fight cloud" with arms, legs, and various weapons occationally poking out), then you can make the combat anything you like. Combat could be anything from "Turn-Based Console RPG Combat" (although that's usually not more exciting) to a puzzle game (PuzzleQuest), to something like a CCG, etc. You could even make combat a trivia game or steal board game mechanics (I challenge you, vile unintelligent monster, to a game of Puerto Rico!). I can think of a few ways to add some RPG elements to games like Tichu, Pit, Carcassonne, or something more obscure, like Tamsk. The core mechanics wouldn't need to change much, but the presentation would need lots of adjustment...
But you'd lose some of the feel of a multi-player world since once you enter combat, you leave the regular world and are locked into a mini-game where other players cannot interact with you.
Also
Group combat doesn't have to be multi-player, either. If, instead of controlling just one adventurer, you controlled several adventurers or even a small army in a multiplayer environment, that might open some more options for interesting combat. But it moght come at the expense of a single avatar the player (hopefully) strongly identifies with.
If, however, you want other players to be able to see combat in-progress and interact with it (and I personally prefer the chance of killstealing to not being able to help a stranger in need), the problem becomes far more difficult. Or if you want to keep RPG mechanics, but make it much more fun, skill-based, and interactive...
That's something that would actually require me to think. For a year or two. Hm.
The point about reaction-based combat mechanics and general performance is very much true. Currently, WoW is very conservative when it comes to network traffic, because this is an MMORPG. Network traffic increases exponentially as more and more players get into the same area. For each action, the server has to send a reply to every player in the vicinity, so that their clients can render the appropiate effect.
Currently, thanks to the Global Cooldown, players can usually do something every 1.5 seconds or so (if we exclude movement). Depending on how many casters are involved, the average time between actions could be even higher. Even twitchy classes like rogues don't act faster than that on average. Currently, this system can handle 80 players (Alterac Valley) relatively well. It starts to break down after that. 150 (capital city raid or a Southshore vs Tarren Mill ping-pong match) is pushing it, and 300 players causes a "server crash".
Currently, thanks to the Global Cooldown, players can usually do something every 1.5 seconds or so (if we exclude movement). Depending on how many casters are involved, the average time between actions could be even higher. Even twitchy classes like rogues don't act faster than that on average. Currently, this system can handle 80 players (Alterac Valley) relatively well. It starts to break down after that. 150 (capital city raid or a Southshore vs Tarren Mill ping-pong match) is pushing it, and 300 players causes a "server crash".
stamina should be implemented a bit more. when you get tired or the figfht becomes long you will dodge less and you will hit less.
so you will retreat more often, rest more etc. i know it's less fun, but now it's just buttonbashing all the way, stop for regain health/mana and go again.
there is no progress in the fights itself.
when i play rugby i cannot make tackles 100% of the time, my body will start to protest during the game and i will get tired. so my reaction will get slower.
so you will retreat more often, rest more etc. i know it's less fun, but now it's just buttonbashing all the way, stop for regain health/mana and go again.
there is no progress in the fights itself.
when i play rugby i cannot make tackles 100% of the time, my body will start to protest during the game and i will get tired. so my reaction will get slower.
# posted by : 30/3/07 10:11
: 30/3/07 10:11
"This isn't to say that baby steps are wrong. I read that WAR will have collision detection in combat, which is interesting. No more rogues passing *through* the mob after a gouge to backstab it."
That would allow us to leap forward in progress to 1997. I always knew that eventually MMORPGs would evolve to the point that UO was at last century. Give them time... they'll catch up. ;)
That would allow us to leap forward in progress to 1997. I always knew that eventually MMORPGs would evolve to the point that UO was at last century. Give them time... they'll catch up. ;)
# posted by : 30/3/07 11:55
: 30/3/07 11:55
I'm a solo player when it comes to leveling. I'm not completely anti-social but I find it very relaxing. I also like the freedom of changing the scenery when I want to, even if a quest isn't completed. I can always come back later.
I find it relaxing not because it's button-mashing and brainless. I think it's the opposite. Afterall, what skill does it take for 2+ players to slay these very same mobs?
For me, I like to mix it up. I consciously shoot above my head - that's what keeps it exciting. Take on 2 when I should only do 1. Figure out how to pull one from the pack - the one I need. Go into zones that are over my head and see what I can take down. I'd rather spend more time killing a mob much higher than me and get the extra xp than mowing down more that are lower. I hunt for quality of the encounter not quantity.
Sure, I'm all for more randomness and intelligent AI, but I'm not looking for an FPS-style MMORPG. I'm not likely to play anything that has me mouse-clicking all over the place to select my target. That's just more work, not skill or fun.
Let people experiment with combos, layered spells, tiers or something that adds a more personal touch to the combat, and that will make it more interesting.
It also wouldn't hurt to reward people for taking on more challenging situations. So in addition to letting me make decision that really affect how well my combat selections are, reward me better if I took on a mob that was +4 levels above me. Sure now I get more xp, but it takes more time to do it, so in the end I'll level slower than groups if I do that consistently. Instead what if I can get temporary buffs - 15min +STA or health/mana regen because I killed four +4 mobs in a row. Or I'm a clothie and I took down a melee +3 above me, perhaps I get +spell damage for 5 mins.
They could also incentivize players to make things more challenging on their own with customized drop tables. AC2 used to match the drops to the classes that killed the mob. Hell WOW doesn't even do that with quests. You know how much it pisses me off to finish a quest and be presented with a piece of mail armor? WTF. They could make the drop more significant or more customized to the player with the killing blow if the encounter was within a certain level of challenge.
Dunno. I'd like something but don't want it to be more clicking for the sake of saying it's not auto-select or auto-target. More work <> more fun, and I'm playing to have fun.
I find it relaxing not because it's button-mashing and brainless. I think it's the opposite. Afterall, what skill does it take for 2+ players to slay these very same mobs?
For me, I like to mix it up. I consciously shoot above my head - that's what keeps it exciting. Take on 2 when I should only do 1. Figure out how to pull one from the pack - the one I need. Go into zones that are over my head and see what I can take down. I'd rather spend more time killing a mob much higher than me and get the extra xp than mowing down more that are lower. I hunt for quality of the encounter not quantity.
Sure, I'm all for more randomness and intelligent AI, but I'm not looking for an FPS-style MMORPG. I'm not likely to play anything that has me mouse-clicking all over the place to select my target. That's just more work, not skill or fun.
Let people experiment with combos, layered spells, tiers or something that adds a more personal touch to the combat, and that will make it more interesting.
It also wouldn't hurt to reward people for taking on more challenging situations. So in addition to letting me make decision that really affect how well my combat selections are, reward me better if I took on a mob that was +4 levels above me. Sure now I get more xp, but it takes more time to do it, so in the end I'll level slower than groups if I do that consistently. Instead what if I can get temporary buffs - 15min +STA or health/mana regen because I killed four +4 mobs in a row. Or I'm a clothie and I took down a melee +3 above me, perhaps I get +spell damage for 5 mins.
They could also incentivize players to make things more challenging on their own with customized drop tables. AC2 used to match the drops to the classes that killed the mob. Hell WOW doesn't even do that with quests. You know how much it pisses me off to finish a quest and be presented with a piece of mail armor? WTF. They could make the drop more significant or more customized to the player with the killing blow if the encounter was within a certain level of challenge.
Dunno. I'd like something but don't want it to be more clicking for the sake of saying it's not auto-select or auto-target. More work <> more fun, and I'm playing to have fun.
# posted by : 31/3/07 01:09
: 31/3/07 01:09
That would allow us to leap forward in progress to 1997. I always knew that eventually MMORPGs would evolve to the point that UO was at last century. Give them time... they'll catch up. ;)
/agree
Post a Comment
/agree
<< Home
