Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What type of combat system do you prefer?Follow

#1 Dec 13 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
22 posts
I was going to make this into a poll but I'm sure others have some options to add. Just curious to see what types of combat systems people prefer. I like having a decent number of spells/ca's in my rotation, with reuse speeds opposed to a global cooldown. I feel that global cooldown's kind of limit what a player can do; however, if all spells and combat arts had reuse on them, I wouldn't mind a small GCD.

Do you guys like having a bunch of spells with recast times, but the ability to queue CA's and spells and chain cast them like in EQ2?

Do you like having a global cooldown with combat arts having little or no recast which allows for a smaller (but effective) spell/ca rotation? (Similar to WoW Rogues)

Maybe a mixture of both? Short GCD with all spells and combat arts having some sort of reuse speed on them to prevent being confined to a short spell rotation?

I am sure there are many other options people can add, but this is a start.

#2 Dec 13 2010 at 1:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
135 posts
I don't care what the system is, as long as its fun, involved, and has depth.

The GCD vs. No GCD debate is dumb. A well designed system can use either and play well.
____________________________

Currently playing: EQ2(AB)
#3 Dec 13 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Decent
47 posts
Cyanix wrote:
I don't care what the system is, as long as its fun, involved, and has depth.

The GCD vs. No GCD debate is dumb. A well designed system can use either and play well.


this. i was about to say "a good one?"
#4 Dec 13 2010 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
22 posts
Well, obviously we would all like the best :) Just wanted to see if people had a preference.
#5 Dec 13 2010 at 2:25 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
Yeah, well in theory I like the idea of the GCD, however when you're actually playing it can become rather irritating. The best thing you can wish for is a balance...

As for abilities I like having a small number of unique abilities that are kind of interwoven and rely on each other, rather than having bucket loads of random spells. As well as classes with unique UI and combat mechanics...
#6 Dec 13 2010 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
22 posts
That is well said. I currently play EQ2 which has a boat load of spells, many that do the same thing. While not having a GCD is nice, I could see combat with a small number of unique abilities actually working quite well with a GCD. As long as abilities aren't overlapping or doing a lot of similar things. Even just adding a certain debuff to a damage spell would be nice, opposed to having 6 different damage spells that do nearly the same thing.
#7 Dec 13 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Default
48 posts
A good one. End of discussion, please stop having ideas and wanting to discuss them further!


But srsly.

I really liked Vanguard's system, however incomplete it was. A moderate number of abilities, but them split between your main 4-6 you'd use every fight, then sometimes abilities, and most importantly abilities that were situation from a design standpoint in that they'd only become available when certain circumstances were met, like after a crit or block or parry, etc.

And I prefer dual-target, because I believe a higher level of interaction between players can be brought into the game. Instead of just you and your single target, adding another target ups the inputs. It's biggest benefit is with things like targeted life-tap heals, or targeted short-term buffs, but other stuff could be worked into a fully functional dual target system, like rescues and intercepts.

We didn't quite see the full potential of a dual target system in WAR or Vanguard, but I hope some day we do.

And no, I don't believe it's the same as simply a single target system and swapping targets. Just like I don't believe text based MUDs are the same as the graphical games that came from them. And I don't think it dumbs down combat unless the devs design it that way.

#8 Dec 13 2010 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
45 posts
Cyanix wrote:
I don't care what the system is, as long as its fun, involved, and has depth.

The GCD vs. No GCD debate is dumb. A well designed system can use either and play well.


agree
#9 Dec 14 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
32 posts
i really enjoyed the chaining and queuing in EQ2. Apropos to the GCD debate, its an issue of internal balance. whether there are such things or not will be universal, and thus becomes irrelevant to balance one way or the other. its just one of many techniques to control the way ion which the game is played.

do hope its an involved system, where you feel that youre in total control of your avatar. im really enthusiastic about immersion =3
#10 Dec 14 2010 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
21 posts
I agree on the GCD vs no GCD debate. The system doesn't matter as long as the combat feels fluid. Whether there is an internal clock not allowing you to hit another ability for 1.5 secs is relative to the number of abilities you have in your ******** If you have 2 spells you hit over and over that 1.5 can feel like an eternity and it disconnects you from your character but say you have 17 spells that same 1.5 secs can seem like it's too fast because you are trying to process which spell you need to cast next. It's a tough balancing act to make combat feel fluid or clunky.
#11 Dec 14 2010 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
22 posts
My problem with GCD is when you have a 1.5 Global cooldown, and 17 spells as you stated, I feel that cooldown makes you not use some spells that you maybe would have without it. When GCD is usually used, a few of your spells will have no reuse. These are usually your cornerstone spells, so casting them a lot is usually beneficial to you. With a GCD, I think that it would confine you to a small number of attacks, leaving some of your spells/CAs unused because your other ones are more efficient. There just needs to be a balance to it I guess.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (12)