Combat is boring, a note to Henrik.

[Ori]

It isn't only him. Half the time everyone there is like that (so it may be me, but I haven't had that anywhere else.) I made the video from dueling him because he is well known and respected.

Ah you were over in Meduli dueling with my friend Fatal? Don't seem to have any of those issues over there alright.

 

[Ori]

The people who think the combat is good are the same people who will think almost anything skill-gutting is good.

It's been explained with a plethora of reasons as to why long term the fundamentals of combat won't age well. Have you noticed some of the best players, granted some are self appointed because of how crutched the system is, say the combat is no good. Do you think they say that just to waste time? Why would people who are already at the top disagree with how it works if they are in their own eyes and others 'the best?

Probably because the people who have vastly more experience in MO and other melee-like games have experienced different systems within MO and other games to know what does and doesn't work.

Right now, MO2 doesn't promote skill. There are just people who are slightly better and have better reactions, but an average player can hold their own fairly well against the most mechanically adept. After mechanically adept, ping comes into play. Since the combat is so slow anyone who is mechanically skilled and has good ping - you'll realistically never land a hit on them unless you get lucky and land a good trade.

If you ever want to see who has good ping just look for the people who run around naked and try to duel. They know they won't die because the system crutches and pads their mechanical skill whilst their ping allows uncanny reaction.

The melee system doesn't promote any kind of meaningful skill growth where as MO1 players could progressively get better.

Pulling up the statistics of a poll doesn't reflect the entire communities view. I made a poll to try and gage the communities opinion on delaying release and over 116 people voted, just because a majority voted to delay doesn't mean a majority of the community was for it (even though they were).

Point being, I have a fair amount of people in my guild and only 1 of them has a forum account aside from myself.. and they all think the combat is bad. People in the official discord I know say the combat is bad, there are other pockets of people saying its no good, not to mention the threads that pop up over it. If it wasn't bad there wouldn't be such a vocal outcry.

I know a fair amount of you think the slow combat is better, and have your own reasoning. But please realize a lot of people who are making these threads and trying to draw attention to the topic aren't trying to change the game so it befits them - a lot of them what are environment that encourages skill and the ability to grow in it so the more you practice, theoretically, the better you get. Rather than you hit the ceiling in a few hours as it is now.

I personally can't stand the combat. It drives me crazy. Its inconsistent as all he'll, it still desyncs massively with people running in place and warping around, I get clean hits in my screen and get parried whilst I parry on my screen and still get hit for full damage, etc.

There is also a ton of other stuff wrong with it, in other threads, I've even given lists and reasoning.

The combat is going to age quickly regardless of offensive moves being added, magic, etc. I'm telling you right now - if it stays the same, you're going to watch foot fighters just die out slowly as its not responsive or practical. If you had a choice to play a footfighter or a hybrid with this current combat - the better players will opt to hybrids and then you'll really be hurting and confused when you're just getting slammed by people who just sit and parry you whilst cross healing, corrupt spamming to prevent bandages, and hitting you with spells.

If you keep saying the same things over and over maybe they will become true.

 

[Ori]

This is the second time today you've used anecdotes to dispute statistics. I keep using the phrase "anecdotes are not evidence" because it's one of the first things that will get covered if you take a college-level debate course. Anecdotes can be derived from outliers or insulated communities with high levels of group-think. Statistical evidence is generally more evenly drawn from the relevant population and thus provides a far more solid foundation for an argument than an anecdote.

While you are correct that 53% support vs. 28.2% opposition is not an indisputable figure in a self-selected respondents survey, it is considerably stronger evidence than "Well my buddies said." First off, yeah. People ARE saying that. If the poll numbers are accurate only a bit less than a third of players are. And why would we not expect like-minded players to play together? If I dispute left-wing talking points on my left-wing friends walls they rally and support each other. If dispute right-wing talking points on my right-wing friend's walls they rally around and support each other. It's only a reasonable assumption that guilds that pride themselves on their twitch skills are going to congregate, and those who disagree with their views are less likely to speak up against stances you seem so passionate about.

So while that survey could very easily have different results if taken using more rigorous methods, it is way better evidence than the non-arguments you keep bringing to the table. If I'm a board room executive hearing two competing ideas on which way to invest my money, and for some reason, I HAVE to accept one of two proposals right then and there, and the two competing proposals are "This self-respondent survey has a 25% gap in results favoring our conclusion" and one is "Well my buddies think..." guess which pitch is getting my money? Questionable data is better than no data.

I usually go for quicker lazy insults, but I guess complete dismantling, destruction and humiliation works too. Each to their own I guess!

 

[Darthus]

This is the second time today you've used anecdotes to dispute statistics. I keep using the phrase "anecdotes are not evidence" because it's one of the first things that will get covered if you take a college-level debate course. Anecdotes can be derived from outliers or insulated communities with high levels of group-think. Statistical evidence is generally more evenly drawn from the relevant population and thus provides a far more solid foundation for an argument than an anecdote.

While you are correct that 53% support vs. 28.2% opposition is not an indisputable figure in a self-selected respondents survey, it is considerably stronger evidence than "Well my buddies said." First off, yeah. People ARE saying that. If the poll numbers are accurate only a bit less than a third of players are. And why would we not expect like-minded players to play together? If I dispute left-wing talking points on my left-wing friends walls they rally and support each other. If dispute right-wing talking points on my right-wing friend's walls they rally around and support each other. It's only a reasonable assumption that guilds that pride themselves on their twitch skills are going to congregate, and those who disagree with their views are less likely to speak up against stances you seem so passionate about.

So while that survey could very easily have different results if taken using more rigorous methods, it is way better evidence than the non-arguments you keep bringing to the table. If I'm a board room executive hearing two competing ideas on which way to invest my money, and for some reason, I HAVE to accept one of two proposals right then and there, and the two competing proposals are "This self-respondent survey has a 25% gap in results favoring our conclusion" and one is "Well my buddies think..." guess which pitch is getting my money? Questionable data is better than no data.

Agreed. If anything people on the forums self-select for people who are more invested in the game and therefore more "hardcore". What seems to be the case is that the more "hardcore" one is and/or invested in MO1s combat, the less favorably you see the current system.

As you mention Handome Young Man (hereafter referred to as HYM), it's mostly likely that newer people to the game don't realize that the system is inherently flawed or has a lower skill cap than MO1 (according to your opinion). To me, that's a more compelling argument: more than 50% of people like the combat system because they are newer and don't know any better. You can claim to know better by having more experience with MO1 and the pros and cons of that system.

So really, the argument would then come down to, "Even though the community overall might support the current system and think it's fine, I know, from experience, that it won't stand the test of time." At that point I'd be willing to listen to your concerns. But yeah, similar to Kaemik, the argument of "Polls don't indicate people are fine with the current system" just doesn't hold water to me.

 

[Rorry]

Ah you were over in Meduli dueling with my friend Fatal? Don't seem to have any of those issues over there alright.

He is European correct? He seemed like a normal fight against a European, whereas Pat is American and it's much, much worse in Bakti. Not similar at all.

 

[Eldrath]

There is a reason by game design by democracy does not work.

I´m here for what SV set out to do when they started - not what it ended up being.

The current combat does not facilitate the vision of skill based game. There is many for reason for this (which I´m not gonna list again) and IMO this needs to be changed. Repeating the same mistake they made with MO1. Pick a lane and stick with it.

There are however people that don´t want a skill based combat. To those I would say that it usually works out better to play the game you want to play (a sandbox that does not require FPS skills) rather than changing this one. Cause in the end it is going to die a slow death.

If you admit to yourself that you won´t be good at the FPS part of it then there are many ways to contribute and have fun.

 

[Kaemik]

@Darthus

Absolutely. Veteran players have the advantage of superior game-knowledge of their game.

They also have the disadvantage of being the most far detached from the new player experience when discussing what will bring players into a game and retain them there.

Often they have mindsets enforced by those in their own small circles and are veteran players because they are willing to tolerate mechanics or even advocate for mechanics that are dealbreakers for many other players. I've seen more than one game where veteran players overlook inherently obvious issues killing the game because those issues help them retain their own elite status. In every case, they will offer an endless list of solutions that "If only (insert minor issue here) were fixed this game would thrive". And when developers listen to them and fix that issue they find a new one to scapegoat. All to avoid dealing with the elephant in the room issue that's not in their benefit to address.

A game would do well to listen to its veteran players. And it would do even better to realize that they are only one group who is very fallible and sometimes listening exclusively to the people who spurred you on through your past mistakes won't help lead you into a better future.

 

[Rorry]

SV made the mistake of not listening to veterans in MO1 and it didn't go well. They listened instead to the newer players (who, even if in the majority don't often know what the repercussions of choices will be, and who have not much invested in the game, so will move on when the next thing comes out anyway) who wanted everything to be made easier/ safer. I am here commenting and trying to get them to do it differently this time.

 

[Kaemik]

I do not know you personally but I do know I do not know a veteran player of any game to ever exist who would tell me a different story no matter how counter it runs to reality. Not saying you're a liar, I fully believe that you believe what you just told me. But I am suspect of how your perspective on the matter lines up with the reality of the situation.

 

[Kaemik]

Mind you I am not saying your perspective should be discounted entirely. But I expect if I were to ask a SV employee "Has feedback from MO veterans had a significant impact on the game?" they may give me a very different answer from what most of their veteran players would say. And bearing that in mind, I think they need to consider the perspectives of all players that fall within what they've determined is their target audience in how to best appeal to a broad amount of players.

I do not think the target audience of professional FPS players is quite broad enough or fits the format they're trying to deliver either.

 

[Rorry]

I am nowhere near an FPS player. I am MUCH better with the combat system of MO2 than I ever was in MO1.
I was leader of one of the biggest guilds MO1 had. I helped many, many new players and watched most of them quit within 2-3 months. It was never the combat system that they mentioned as to why they left. So, I think the combat system needs to be built with a high skill ceiling because it is for those who keep playing over time. It will be other conditions and systems that need to be great in order to keep most of those who will try the game.

The combat system should be easily understood, but require a lot of practice to master. (More than the 2 days necessary for a new European to be able to beat me reliably now.)

 

[Eldrath]

Mind you I am not saying your perspective should be discounted entirely. But I expect if I were to ask a SV employee "Has feedback from MO veterans had a significant impact on the game?" they may give me a very different answer from what most of their veteran players would say. And bearing that in mind, I think they need to consider the perspectives of all players that fall within what they've determined is their target audience in how to best appeal to a broad amount of players.

I do not think the target audience of professional FPS players is quite broad enough or fits the format they're trying to deliver either.

This is the second time you mention professional FPS players.

I think you should ask yourself why there are 20 million people who play CS:GO every month when only a couple of thousands in the world are professionals.

 

[Kaemik]

Because they aspire to be the better at a very fair highly competitive twitch-based system in format (small non-persistent arena matches spread across multiple servers) that lends itself well to it.

I think the more relevant question to ask is "Why would you aim to play a single server RPG even if you are consistently saddled with a ping of over 150+ and that includes elements like taming and domination that are distinctly non-twitched based?"

I think most players are not going to give an answer of "To play a game that derives all the challenge from twitch combat or inherently rewards twitch combat more than tactical teamplay! I just love when game developers implement mechanics in such a way as to recognize my chosen role in the game as inherently inferior to people who live next to the servers!"

 

[Ori]

It was never the combat system that they mentioned as to why they left.

I left because of the combat system, I am not alone.

 

[Kaemik]

I'll put it this way. If primarily twitch focused combat is meant to be the primary focus of the game, then we should get a NA, EU and Oceanic server. I would prefer to play in a smaller community catered to the way the game is being developed to be played than a large community unoptimized to the format of the game.

By keeping the game single server, I think they're conceding the game needs to be somewhat slower and more tactical than titles like Counterstrike. The current system is fast for an MMO though. And to a certain degree I think that's great. It will just never be what you seem to want and also be a game with broad global appeal.

 

[Ori]

I'll put it this way. If primarily twitch focused combat is meant to be the primary focus of the game, then we should get a NA, EU and Oceanic server. I would prefer to play in a smaller community catered to the way the game is being developed to be played than a large community unoptimized to the format of the game.

By keeping the game single server, I think they're conceding the game needs to be somewhat slower and more tactical than titles like Counterstrike. The current system is fast for an MMO though. And to a certain degree I think that's great. It will just never be what you seem to want and also be a game with broad global appeal.

I would think if they thought they had the following to do it, they would love to have regional servers.

 

[Kaemik]

I left because of the combat system, I am not alone.

Yeah. I never really delved into MO1 combat as much as I wanted to because it was bogged down by so many other issues that really just drug the game into the realm of unplayability for me. But I do remember hours of trying it not yielding half as much fun as I experienced in my first ten minutes of MO2 alpha.

It feels amazingly better from a new player perspective.

 

[Darthus]

Reading the past page of so of comments, the argument seems to come down to two sides:

1. The combat is not deep/skill based enough and/or MO1 combat was better in this regard. This lack of depth in combat will make the game shallow and cause players (new and old) to get bored and leave.
2. The combat is enjoyable, even if it’s not as deep or twitch as say Mordhau or an FPS (or MO1). It’s easier to understand, feels thematic, and fits the game world. It may not be ideal in terms of speed or skill depth, but it also equalizes things that are very difficult to equalize, like ping when everyone is using one server.

@Kaemik, your last comment solidified for me why I’m in the #2 camp (and I think SV is too). They want a skill-based, realistic, relatively twitch combat system. But they want an organic, one server fully realized world which supports players who partake in a variety of activities in that world more. They’ve worked to develop a system (with some sacrifices), which facilitates people across the world participating in this game in a way where it feels as little as possible that someone just beat you because they have the better ping. They’ve done this by slowing it down. This isn’t the “best” system for this game and may “worse” than MO1s in some regards, but SV is unlikely to go back to the drawing board, because it serves their primary purpose of creating an immersive game in a single shared server which is ping tolerant.

As Kaemik says, we are so lazer focused on whether or not the combat system will sustain extreme tactical depth and assume people will leave if it doesn’t, simply because it’s really the only fully realized system in the game right now. 99% of MMOs (including sandbox games) have combat systems much less twitch or less deep (in the melee side) than this. And that’s because there are a multitude of systems that layer on top of this system to create interesting things to do.

 

[Kaemik]

I'd say I fully agree with the added argument of I want to see them do their best to make it deep, rewarding, and skill-based over time. I Just don't want that skill to come from how FAST it is. Nor do I think faster is an inherently better way to make anything deeper and more skillful. And I think that's where I differ from some of the people here.

 

[Skydancer]

Yeah. I never really delved into MO1 combat as much as I wanted to because it was bogged down by so many other issues that really just drug the game into the realm of unplayability for me. But I do remember hours of trying it not yielding half as much fun as I experienced in my first ten minutes of MO2 alpha.

It feels amazingly better from a new player perspective.

+1 to this from my small group. I played on and off since 2010 and managed to bring a small group in last year for a while. We weren't really PVP focused and as oceanics it would have been disastrous anyway (exploiting prediction hit trading is not a game mechanic and we never played the game that way).

What ultimately made us lose interest was the fact that even PVE as oceanic was really unplayable; AI landed hits before animations played meaning parrying was out of the question vs humanoids for most of the time. The brain has difficulty dealing with an observable reality that can't be trusted which is what I believe is the most important part of syncing what our characters see with game outcomes as much as is possible in an mmo. When I would watch videos on youtube showing tips on how to kill x or y it was like these people were playing a completely different game; they could easily block and parry AI creatures by responding to their animations and made it seem trivial.

When we hit the point the remainder of PVE challenges were unplayable due to the flaws of the combat system the group eventually gave up logging in altogether. There were other gripes here and there like pets not logging out with owners that really hurt play sessions but the combat was the last and largest straw.

They came back for the free weekend to give it a go and in that short time noticed incredible changes in responsiveness and the fact that they were able to respond to what they saw on screen and the game actually recognized this. No more crystal ball required to anticipate what's going to happen 2 seconds into the future in order to parry/block attacks. Of course we haven't seen how this will play out in PVE yet but if it's using the same rules we should actually be able to respond to AI attacks too.

In summary, MO1 combat was awful for oceanics even if it was possible to exploit prediction to PVP advantage it did not equate to any kind of fun and is also the primary driver of the group leaving the game. The limited time the group spent in MO2 stress test was miles more enjoyable for everyone as they could actually respond to what they were seeing on screen.