"Will Beserker's be the best pullers?"

[Skarlath]

This is the title of a thread I just read on the OVF. If you haven't read it, it doesn't matter, because from the title you will understand along what lines the OP was writing.

These threads anger me. Why?

Because combat hasn't changed. And why is that? Because people don't expect it to. It is a self perpetuating rutt that MMORPGs are driving themselves into. Why pulling? I mean ... come on ... sure we loved the previous generation of MMORPGs, but lets think of some new things! Lets broaden our view of how we could fit into the world! To me, current combat doesn't seem adventurous and heroic enough. I am sure Vanguard's combat has had a lot of thought, but people expecting to be able to 'pull' and 'kite' and 'buff' means that the developers are fairly pigeon-holed.

So what's so wrong about pulling? The fact that it is so artificial, so contrived. Thats what. Have a watch of the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion video you can download from fileplanet (the 20 minute gameplay one). When the player approached some elven ruins, there was a human guard kind of patrolling. He happened to be facing where the player was coming from, as the player broke from the trees. Pretty much as soon as the player behind the screen could make out what it was they were looking at, this guard had done the same and was already moving towards the player. The player was spotted from perhaps 60m off. Why? Because that's how far the guard could see!!

So why are MMORPGs still stuck in the dark ages where monsters only attack when prompted to be specific player actions, and where a humanoid will happily let his pals be slaughtered just 20m away, bang in front of him, without moving from the spot.

Sure, balance between convenient gameplay and realism all you want, but contrived rules are not the way games should carry on heading.

How do you guys feel about such contrived and repetitive gameplay techniques that developers seem to need to adhere to. If you want 'pulling' and 'kiting' are you saying that if you had the chance to invent an entirely new way of approaching combat, you would not wish to change it?

I look forward to reading people's thoughts. :)

[hawnz]

that's fine and all, but you'd need to add a line of sight feature, because you can't see behind you. so you shouldn't be aggroing if your back is turned, and you should be vulnerable if anyone (rogue or otherwise) creeps up behind you and bashes you over the head or stabs you in the kidneys.

then you need to factor in MOB difficulty if every humanoid in the area jumps in to assist whenever you attack a fellow humanoid. so you risk making MOBs too easy because 40 will come at once.

and when you think about it, i could go into any city and start beating the crap out of a random person, and the odds of anyone around who can see what's goin on jumping in to help is very slim.

[Therian]

It is difficult to think outside the familiar. Perhaps there will be pulling in Vanguard. We already know there's going to be ambushes, and mobs that actively hunt players, which suggests that the AI is a little more sophisticated than the sit there till you kill me mobs.

[I find it a bit more tedious when people proclaim that Vanguard's combat is unoriginal and it's all so dull and no-one has any new ideas any more - evidently in complete ignorance of any kind of description of Vanguard combat. It helps so much to actually research a game before condemning it.]

[Skarlath]

that's fine and all, but you'd need to add a line of sight feature, because you can't see behind you. so you shouldn't be aggroing if your back is turned, and you should be vulnerable if anyone (rogue or otherwise) creeps up behind you and bashes you over the head or stabs you in the kidneys.

Well thats all great stuff. The balance is transferred from just being solely about how hard the enemy can hit, to it being very important how sensitive they are to their environment. Higher level monsters are going to be more likely to sense you, and so you wouldn't be able to lay hugely devestating blows before they realise. However you may be able to use the shadows to circle him, and prevent him from 'trying any funny business' when he hears an arrow sliding out of the dark towards him.


then you need to factor in MOB difficulty if every humanoid in the area jumps in to assist whenever you attack a fellow humanoid. so you risk making MOBs too easy because 40 will come at once.

I strongly believe that in most circumstances, if you outnumber the enemies (with the assumption they are still only small in numbers) then it should not be hard to contain the fight. However as their numbers grow, even if there are more of you, they would hopefully work as a team (depending of course on how smart the creature is meant to be).

So monster's might be slightly easier, due to the idea that combat should generally always be in groups, but just because a monster's ability to be aggroed is larger, doesn't mean you will be fighting tons at a time. For starters there should be more interesting mob reactions - not just the run straight at you. If you kill a creature and it screams in pain as it dies, that may well catch the attention of nearby creatures (same species or not). Some creatures might bolt from assumed danger, but a kobold hearing a kobold scream might want to help their friend. That shouldn't mean that they run straight to the players - if they are not in visual sight, they might starting roaming around towards the sound (cautiously) to try and locate you. On seeing you it might decide to just run away, rather than attacking you at all. Maybe it searches for friends, or hides in a hole in the ground, either way, more interesting reactions mixed with use of environments within aggro rules would help ensure that you are not just continuously swamped.

Furthermore, the developers would by all means have this dilemma in mind whilst creating the game. I am sure that dispersal of creatures would be deliberately be according to how many creatures the players should fight on average. Monsters would be given patrols that passed through shadows, allowing ambushes on them, or might stand in a small group behind a tent - as long as you prevent them from making noise, the rest of their camp wont come running. And if a reasonably large number did take an interest in you (perhaps you just stumbled into the centre of a gnoll camp) then their behaviour may mean that they might cowardly hang back (not wanting to put themselves in danger) and only enter the fight if they have to. In real life, people aren't going to queue up to tackle invaders. They would stand ready nearby, to see if they could be of any use.

Every battle should be tricky, and should require a fair amount of player skill and team coordination, and monsters do not have to be made into one-swing-kill punchbags.


and when you think about it, i could go into any city and start beating the crap out of a random person, and the odds of anyone around who can see what's goin on jumping in to help is very slim.

As I said above, the two nearest brave people might jump in and throw you back and 'forcably restrain' you. But others nearby might be willing to do the same, but can't really get in there, once the first two are there.

Now of course the effect of this might be that battles would last large lengths of time - each time you kill a gnoll another one decides he needs to be helping - but if you are this outnumbered then you have done something wrong and deserve to die. Players would learn to be careful not to aggro more than they can handle, but this wouldn't be along the lines of 'pulling', but instead would just be knowing when to stop moving or provoking the enemies. If players couldn't handle the entire camp, they should pick off those on the edges who by all logical rules, will not be seen to be missing.


It is difficult to think outside the familiar. Perhaps there will be pulling in Vanguard. We already know there's going to be ambushes, and mobs that actively hunt players, which suggests that the AI is a little more sophisticated than the sit there till you kill me mobs.

Yes, a lot of it sounds very exciting. The prospect of ambushes and roaming monsters is a fantastic one. It will be great to see how Sigil develops this, because it could go so, so far.


[I find it a bit more tedious when people proclaim that Vanguard's combat is unoriginal and it's all so dull and no-one has any new ideas any more - evidently in complete ignorance of any kind of description of Vanguard combat. It helps so much to actually research a game before condemning it.]

I hope I did not come across quite like that. Vanguard will have many new and interesting aspects I am sure. No doubt it will feel different, exciting and a lot of fun. What I was trying to voice was my dislike that many fans don't just want nothing more than the same combat mechanics, but expect them. Surely this must do some damage to the thoughts formed by the developers.

I am sure that as the MMORPG market becomes more and more saturated with 'mainstream' MMORPGs, there will be some who do things entirely differently. I feel strongly that MMORPG combat has a lot more places to go, other than the traditional 'tank and damage' fights.


I just sort of imagine a raid on a high level dungeon to be a little more like .. well, a raid. I don't want the defenders to lamely stand in their rooms and wait for me. I don't want there to be one root inside, or one method. I want it to rely of players' choice of actions. Do they try and scale the keeps walls, wait until a patrol (or leaving cart) has the gate opened, then sneak (or rush) inside. Do we stay in the shadows, or do we run across the open courtyard. Do we time it so the guards are looking away, or do we not bother and just kill the guards before they can get help.

I would like to see combat take a far more film-like quality. No damn repetitive pressing of the same button because it's the most energy-damage efficient skill you have, but real teamwork and coordination. Perhaps this would be to the extent that it would not take much for you to die, however you would get plenty of controllable ways of not getting hurt. A fight wouldn't be about sticking to one target whilst adds slash you in the back, but it would be about keeping the entire situation under control. Knock back the zombie you are currently fighting, but do it in the direction of a friend so he can slash of the zombie's head from behind, whilst at the same time dodging a swing from the zombie attacking him. Whilst he is swinging his sword, you pull out a throwing dagger, and use it to knock over a far off but incoming zombie (so as to slow him down) before diving forward to help a different friend who has just been knocked to the floor.

/sigh.

[Therian]

I hope I did not come across quite like that. Vanguard will have many new and interesting aspects I am sure.

Nope - wasn't referring to you. Sorry for being unclear. [I really shouldn't read the FOH boards.]

[Haze]

2005? Um why is this on the front page of the general forum? I can't resist replying and no I didn't bump it myself I saw this on the front page :eek: :eek: