Combat system

[Suhiira]

Let's look at a brief history of major MMO innovations overall.

First there were MUDDs, at the time almost purely text based because that's all that was available at the time.
They had the novel approach of allowing multiple players to interact at the same time.

Then there was Ultima Online, many will argue it was the best open sandbox MMO ever created.
It added the element of graphics to the MMO and (initially) allowed players to do exactly as they pleased and ran face first into the concepts of camping, griefing, kill stealing, training, etc. Eventually they introduced to concept of consensual PvP to curb the worst of the abuses.

Now we come to EverQuest. Far superior graphics and an emphasis on PvE (originally PvP was only allowed in a very limited number of specific locations).
EQ raised camping, kill stealing, and training to fine arts and had a serious problem with it's economy since there was no equipment "binding" or "degradation".

Finally we reach World of Warcraft.
It added the concept of viable single-player gameplay by greatly increasing the health regeneration rate and making most MOBs weak enough to be killed by a single player. Another major change was minimal death penalties, in most previous MMOs you lost a LOT of time, gear, XP or all of the above on death. The "rested bonus" allowed players to gain XP very quickly after a period off-line meaning you didn't have to dedicate massive amounts of time just to advancing in the game. Questing also became a significant part of the game reducing the need to "grind". A player could run from one end of the continent to the other without having to pause at a "loading screen". Players found it difficult to become lost, each area in the game world had a distinct look that blended from one to the next.
These changes opened MMOs to casual players.

Newer MMOs mostly seek to "correct" some of WoW's initial problems (and WoW itself has been updated to deal with these issues).
Low "drop rates", or chance of finding the items.
Large numbers of players in a particular area meant that there were often no creatures to kill, or that players would have to wait and take turns to kill a particular creature to complete a quest.
Lack of quests that require players to group making games feel as they are designed for solo play.
And - totally opposite the above - quests that require players to group making solo play difficult.
Dungeons and raids were not player friendly, they could take several hours to complete.

 

[Suhiira]

Intentionally separate from the above diatribe ...

As I see it there are four major approaches to MMOs.
1) Open PvP, party-play centered.
2) Open PvP, single-player centered.
3) Limited or no PvP, party-play centered.
4) Limited or no PvP, single-player centered.

Many games try to combine these approaches, to appeal to everyone, but inevitably fail at one or more because they really are incompatible.
So there are four, not one, MMO markets as most people seem to think.
A smart developer would pick one of the above and tailor their game to incorporate all the features that are "best" for that niche and pretty much ignore the other three.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

The big mistake would be to take stuff from MMO except if they are MMOFPS.

MMOs are boring as hell and involve tons of grind.

They only work because it is massively multiplayer, translating it in a SP game would be a terrible mistake.

 

[Suhiira]

The big mistake would be to take stuff from MMO except if they are MMOFPS.

MMOs are boring as hell and involve tons of grind.

They only work because it is massively multiplayer, translating it in a SP game would be a terrible mistake.

Your opinion, you're free to express it, and it's every bit as valid as anyone elses.

What make MMOFPS worthy of taking information/guidance from whereas other MMOs aren't?

Your opinion, I suspect others may disagree.

Why only because they're MMOs? Why would taking the lessons from MMOs and applying them to single-player be a mistake?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Do you not believe that grind is bad suhiir?

 

[Sardukhar]

Do you not believe that grind is bad suhiir?

MMOs aren't just grind. I generally don't grind, preferring to level in PvP or questing, and avoiding grind quests.

The combat system in WoW is really good - deep, tense and full of strategy. Try high-level PvP or even PvE, you'll find yourself tested.

I value MMOs for one reason - scale. Or scope, I suppose. Take the things other games have and now drop them in a big open world. The potential for trouble goes up muchly.

 

[Suhiira]

Do you not believe that grind is bad suhiir?

I'd say it depends.
I spent hours, days, weeks ... hell months grinding in original EverQuest because it was the only option available. It was a party-centered game, solo play basically wasn't an option (for most classes ... Druids cheated) so you were always grinding with someone, and being a boring click-to-autoattack rather then an exciting FPS game we had time to chat, tell jokes, god forbid ... role play ... make plans for future activity, and any number of other things while grinding so for the most part it wasn't really a problem.
Besides, in my case I was the "Puller" because I was good at it so I was constantly thinking about MOB pathing, re-spawn rates and such so boredom was the least of my concerns.
Or if I wasn't running my Rogue I was on my Enchanter, so again I kept pretty busy mezzing stuff, draining mana, charming MOBs, tracking and reducing agro, etc.

As unbelievable as it may sound there's more to group play then just having the highest DPS rating in some games.

Now ask me if I want to grind in the typical Korean MMO and I'll say no way in hell.

Question, do you plan to address the other questions I asked?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Well you don't actually usually answer mine but very well, I'll humor you.

The big thing with MMO is as I said: the combat is boring. Except for train mobbing which was clever. For the most part its auto-attack.

I do have friends who had high level WoW characters and who did PvP, and all told me more or less the same thing Sard did : the battlegrounds where were I wanted to be and they always chided me for basically having zero patience.

The BIG issue is the time it takes to get there.

Even you, you don't actually praise the combat directly, you praise the social elements that come with it. I seriously doubt for example you would have grinded EQ style if you were all alone.

The really big advantage and problem of MMOs is scale. You have to take account the chinese farmers and so if it takes 48 hours to max out a character in an SP game, it'll take 3 to 4 weeks in an MMO.

I do agree in general bigger == better.

The RPG mechanics also gives ways to exploit the system in ways that you yourself loathe E.g. lvl 80 characters ganking lvl 5 characters which requires absolutly no cleverness whatsoever.

While playing SW:TOR, I found the storyline generally interesting, but the quests lacked depth compared to earlier KOTORs. One thing it did very well was common were group missions and instances, while supporting someone else's main quest you really felt like you were an NPC riding along someone's else journey and that was great for immersion.

But again this is not combat per se.

I can't think of many things that MMOs do better then SP games. I cite MMOFPS, but the only MMOFPS I would take inspiration from would be WWII online and even it can't beat say ArmA. The thing that MMOs did better in general was to socially organize players. Metagames, economy (except for games like Capitalism II), politics, etc.

but the name of the thread is combat

 

[Suhiira]

Even you, you don't actually praise the combat directly, you praise the social elements that come with it. I seriously doubt for example you would have grinded EQ style if you were all alone.

And here I thought I had.

Now ask me if I want to grind in the typical Korean MMO and I'll say no way in hell.

I really think it boils down to two different tastes in combat.
To you anything that's not fast paced, deadly, and filled with unpredictability is boring and not worth playing.
Perfect for FPS PvP gameing.
Unfortunately you're probably going to be totally disappointed with CP2077 since it's not going to be FPS PvP.

 

[Sardukhar]

Unfortunately you're probably going to be totally disappointed with CP2077 since it's not going to be FPS PvP.

I...dunno about that. Witcher combat was quite fast-paced, deadly and unpredictable. They caught hell for it that first month, people were dying so fast. Cyberpunk has strong FPS elements, so i'd lean more that way than, say, Fallout-3 style VATS.

 

[Harthwain]

Unfortunately you're probably going to be totally disappointed with CP2077 since it's not going to be FPS PvP.

They said it won't to be multiplayer shooter, but that means nothing, because it can still be FPS (First Person [Perspective] with being able to Shoot) or TPP, or both. Multiplayer component is also purely speculative at the moment. We know bits and pieces that aren't giving us the full picture or anything yet. Personally I doubt Fallout 3 with something akin to VATS, because they put strong emphasis on action part. I don't think it was even a good combat system as far as combat systems go.

 

[LexiiO]

They said it won't to be multiplayer shooter, but that means nothing, because it can still be FPS (First Person [Perspective] with being able to Shoot) or TPP, or both.

It's going to be both FPS and TPS. Check the leaked data sheet.

The multiplayer part will be something similar to the posse thing from RDR I guess. w/ dynamic events and jobs, that is.

But who knows.

 

[vongo.859]

What leaked data sheet? Was this a recent thing?

 

[Sardukhar]

What leaked data sheet? Was this a recent thing?

Ahhh...no. I WOULD DELETE HIS COMMENT IF IT WAS.

He means this one: http://i.minus.com/jbvuw6XbIqmgEf.png from a talk from last August.

But I would give that zero credence, as they've also said everything is subject to change as they adjust for combat.

 

[dragonbird]

It wasn't a leaked data sheet, just a presentation slide from a technical event with other technical folk in the industry. Not a press release and not a commitment. The same slides also bullet-pointed two rendering techniques that are mutually-exclusive. The words spoken while the slide was being shown aren't known.

All that it tells us is that at that time (about a year ago) they were exploring first-person AND third-person.

 

[Sardukhar]

Mod Attack!

 

[vongo.859]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks!

Although I am a little disappointed that this means there isn't anything new for CP2077.

 

[Sardukhar]

640K is more memory then anyone will ever need.

Side issue - Gates never said this. Quite the opposite. Go figure, Internet.

I found Bloodlines tolerable. Alpha Protocol the same. The combat didn't thrill me, but ti was better than Deus Ex. Not sure what exactly Nars didn't like about the Bloodlines crosshair/stat-modified shooting. Or Alpha Protocol.

It is a fallacy that because you point the crosshair, you should see the bullet go there and that is realistic. It is not. I've always found it a little annoying.

So I don't mind the bullet striking off-center. In fact, I would prefer it, and then have that modified by....wait. This whole subject should be somewhere else.

Ahh..here we are. Right thread. Anyway.

My issue with FPS-style like Deus Ex, Bloodlines and Alpha Protocol isn't where the bullet strikes, it's the clumsiness of the shooting. There is something...ungainly about the playstyle associated. The movement, the zoom, the...the fluidity.

I can play a game like Wolfenstein and have half my bullets miss on a burst and still be pleased at how smooth the game feels.

What I'd like CP2077 to feel like, is Wolfenstein. And have my abilities modify how many rounds hit the target, where on the target they hit relative to the crosshair, how much recoil I experience, how fast and smooth it is to reload.

Now, Suhiir and @Nars and Poet and 221, what would you like to specifically see in that situation of, say, a firefight?

 

[Nars]

Not sure what exactly Nars didn't like about the Bloodlines crosshair/stat-modified shooting. Or Alpha Protocol.

I have no problem with bullet not hitting a place where crosshair is. Per se. But only if this system connects with ballistics (bullet drop etc.). In other cases game just punishes me, though I haven't done anything wrong.

The prime examples in AP and Bloodlines is (simplified) situation like:
I got my crosshair on enemy's occiput, standing 2-3 m from him I shoot... phew there is no kill, but there is alarm and I'm detected.

If you gone all guns blazing (which I rarely do in RPGs) it makes combat a parody of itself, when you try to shoot a moving enemy, not get hurt in process, and not only you have to get enemy in cross, but also game have to flip the coin if you hit anybody. More frustrating and unfair than "normal" aiming.

Also "tolerable" is pretty much the highest praise this system can get. And i believe, that this is not the point.

 

[Suhiira]

Now, Suhiir and @Nars and Poet and 221, what would you like to specifically see in that situation of, say, a firefight?

I have no problems with using a crosshair or mouse movement to initiate or indicate the target of an attack. Like Nars said I also dislike where my attack with a bullet (as opposed to melee where the opponent may have dodged or parried - and that's rarely represented in combat animations) totally misses a target at point blank range. If you're going to have a cosshair type shooting system then don't totally ignore it when an opponent is in melee range and being 5-10 degrees off center in any direction is meaningless.
But I don't want the timing and exact position of the crosshair to be the sole determining factor in hit/miss. Because that totally invalidates character skill and makes it entirely player dependent.

Let character skill make the valid target area larger, give you more time to aim, increase the probability of significant damage, any or all of the above. Or perhaps some other factor(s) that make your characters skill as opposed to yours as a player significantly influence the outcome of combat (ignoring that perhaps player tactical decision may, or may not, have an effect). It's not an either/or solution, you can blend player and character skills into combat. Sure, inevitably one or the other with be a larger factor but you don't need to ignore one or the other completely.

I also don't want to see the typical "never misses, can fire thru keyholes, dodges bullets, never reloads, injury has zero effect on their rate of fire/accuracy" NPCs one sees in every game. Sure adding these factors to combat for NPCs as well as characters would be a little bit of work. But nothing a single competent programmer couldn't manage in less then a week (assuming the design team got their parameters right). And believe you me the audience would love you for it! (Well, the 13-year-olds that think their Rambo probably won't)

There's no such thing as "perfect computer combat simulation", simply because you can't simulate fatigue, fear, and real life-or-death tactical uncertainty (is there someone hiding around the next corner - is anyone behind me - etc.) on ANY game. But you can get a lot closer then 99% of games do.

Too much to ask?
Not from a purely technical standpoint.
Now if catering to some target market as opposed to making the best possible game is your primary goal, then yes, you can't have your cake and eat it too.