1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

How to make combat better.....

Discussion in 'UHall' started by imported_Velvathos, Apr 27, 2008.

  1. By not copying the current combat system from other games.. Targeting and perma-name tags was a BAD move for the combat system.. FPS combat is always better... What they should have worked on was eliminating auto-attack, manually dodging with your character, and having to actually aim your spell and arrow.... Make combat more realistic and RP friendly, not too mention that PvP would be a hell of a lot more funner in a game where PvP is already awesome..

    Similar to Diablo in a way or the game Nox(RIP) PvP in Diablo is god-like compared to UO because of the combat system... There is block and dodge, you could dodge spells, and instead of targeting something to swing your weapon and watch the combat like a movie, you actually do it by the click of a mouse... Similar to Elder Scrolls or a hack and slash game..

    Nox was probabley the only game with a eye candy view where your character could jump, swim and climb on stuff, was really quite amazing..
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Tell that to UO players with slower connections or arthiritis!

    UO isn't an FPS game. That sort of ends that debate.
     
  3. <blockquote><hr>

    Tell that to UO players with slower connections or arthiritis!

    UO isn't an FPS game. That sort of ends that debate.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    You can still use FPS combat.. And slow connections or arthiritis, people are still using these excuses to keep the current UO?? They shouldn't keep holding UO back into the stone age just to cater towards a VERY small group of people, the ones with a slower connection, if they didn't hold it back then they might expand their player base..
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Wait, youre actually serious??

    You just have to think about this logically. There are games with (apparently) better PvP out there. Looking at previous expansions and client changes, I would say that imitation of other games and their systems hasn't done UO much good.

    Because the people who play now, play UO for what it is.

    When you start to change combat completely, like they did even slightly (compared to this idea) in AoS, people did adapt but IMO it just made things a little bit more tacky and I never felt good about the changes. I don't really think that i've had any more fun being able to kill an arctic ogre lord in 3 hits than I did before. Perhaps this is the answer to your other thread, about fixing the economy - revert to Pre-AOS where gold was hard to get!

    I am assuming you are fairly new to UO and have not seen the significant changes over the years. Ur avg. player probably likes the easy combat and not having to use 1000 clicks and mouse movements to kill something (ok so 100 - think Shadowlords). I'd like to know what you consider a "small group" of players, based simply on your own feelings towards UO. Like I said, people that play UO play it because they prefer it to other games with different combat.

    Granted, change PvP rules and you'll get more players for PvP, but do you really think PvP is a big focus of the devs? I don't. And tbh if you changed the rules this significantly, it would further alienate those that currently don't PvP but may consider it sometime. Out of interest though, how do you get round the running on a horse and attacking at the same time, when you have to double click to swing?
     
  5. Masumatek

    Masumatek Guest

    Make combat non item-based....

    Make combat balanced.....


    Those are the two most essential before you even consider what kind of combat you have.
     
  6. <blockquote><hr>

    Wait, youre actually serious??

    You just have to think about this logically. There are games with (apparently) better PvP out there. Looking at previous expansions and client changes, I would say that imitation of other games and their systems hasn't done UO much good.

    Because the people who play now, play UO for what it is.

    When you start to change combat completely, like they did even slightly (compared to this idea) in AoS, people did adapt but IMO it just made things a little bit more tacky and I never felt good about the changes. I don't really think that i've had any more fun being able to kill an arctic ogre lord in 3 hits than I did before. Perhaps this is the answer to your other thread, about fixing the economy - revert to Pre-AOS where gold was hard to get!

    I am assuming you are fairly new to UO and have not seen the significant changes over the years. Ur avg. player probably likes the easy combat and not having to use 1000 clicks and mouse movements to kill something (ok so 100 - think Shadowlords). I'd like to know what you consider a "small group" of players, based simply on your own feelings towards UO. Like I said, people that play UO play it because they prefer it to other games with different combat.

    Granted, change PvP rules and you'll get more players for PvP, but do you really think PvP is a big focus of the devs? I don't. And tbh if you changed the rules this significantly, it would further alienate those that currently don't PvP but may consider it sometime. Out of interest though, how do you get round the running on a horse and attacking at the same time, when you have to double click to swing?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    My idea for UO is for it to become a sandbox game rather than a theme park game like WoW.... UO is currently neither and it hasn't worked, so they need to decide what they are going to do, is gonna be sandbox? Or like World or Warcraft? If you're going with the theme park style game, do it right.. UO was a sandbox game in the beginning but it was never complete, sandbox games generally offer player freedom, which should be the main focus, not PvP, but player freedom within the gameplay, free from the restrictions that limit our gameplay that makes the game boring(World of Warcraft.) Calling UO a PvP game would be selling it a bit short, Of course there's would be a lot of PvP combat and the combat gameplay would be fast paced and fun with FPS style combat. The focus of UO though should be player freedom, which is a sandbox game, and that is what this game should have aimed for, it was built for that, to be a real virtual world.. I want to think of UO as a a game where there are no restrictions to player interaction that don't make sense. Instead of hacking away everything that made UO great they could have done stuff even more great such as adding in Naval Combat, Kingdom Building, More Races, a better Combat System, better NPC interation, better alignment system, maybe some player emotions, jumping/swimming...... If you think hard about, this game has been in beta or in development since it started.. The world use to be dynamic, and instead of making it more dynamic like they should have, they made it static..
     
  7. "My idea for UO is for it to become a sandbox game"

    *grabs a bucket and shovel and builds a sandcastle*
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "I want to think of UO as a a game where there are no restrictions to player interaction that don't make sense. Instead of hacking away everything that made UO great they could have done stuff even more great such as adding in Naval Combat, Kingdom Building, More Races, a better Combat System, better NPC interation, better alignment system, maybe some player emotions, jumping/swimming...... If you think hard about, this game has been in beta or in development since it started.. The world use to be dynamic, and instead of making it more dynamic like they should have, they made it static.."

    Darkfall. Has everything you listed there, Naval Combat, Kingdom Building/Sieging, 6 Races, Real Time Combat, Smart AI NPCs, Better Alignment System, Jumping, Swimming is a skill, etc. Plus, Full Loot, Open PvP, no Levels/Classes, 100% Skill Based, etc.
     
  9. <blockquote><hr>

    "I want to think of UO as a a game where there are no restrictions to player interaction that don't make sense. Instead of hacking away everything that made UO great they could have done stuff even more great such as adding in Naval Combat, Kingdom Building, More Races, a better Combat System, better NPC interation, better alignment system, maybe some player emotions, jumping/swimming...... If you think hard about, this game has been in beta or in development since it started.. The world use to be dynamic, and instead of making it more dynamic like they should have, they made it static.."

    Darkfall. Has everything you listed there, Naval Combat, Kingdom Building/Sieging, 6 Races, Real Time Combat, Smart AI NPCs, Better Alignment System, Jumping, Swimming is a skill, etc. Plus, Full Loot, Open PvP, no Levels/Classes, 100% Skill Based, etc.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Indeed... The developers are taking the path UO should have took, that game is going to have good principles like EVE and they have ideal developers, however, the game is not out yet, so I can't see it for myself yet... Might as well try to get the developers to listen to the player base of this game, we want change, not a few tweaks here and there, but real change to the gameplay..
     
  10. Fluffi

    Fluffi Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,351
    Likes Received:
    15
    RTL


    I'm not au-fait with "modern" terminology...

    WTH is a sandbox game?? (Don't give examples; describe the mechanics.)
     
  11. [​IMG] ...
    [​IMG] ...

    By not copying the current combat system
    +
    Similar to Diablo in a way
    =
    pffft!
     
  12. <blockquote><hr>

    RTL


    I'm not au-fait with "modern" terminology...

    WTH is a sandbox game?? (Don't give examples; describe the mechanics.)

    [/ QUOTE ]


    There are two main categories in the MMORPG genre which are often referred to as “Theme Park” and “Sandbox” respectively.

    The overwhelming majority of MMORPG’s today belong to the Theme Park category. A Theme Park is often carefully planned and can deliver some very unique attractions. On the other hand, the attractions usually require you to be of a certain age or length to ride them, you have to stand in line, and none or minimal interaction is needed from your part. Like a real theme park it always looks the same and chances are you grow tired of the rides after 20 times or so, unless the theme park creates new exiting rides to keep the park entertaining.

    In a Sandbox game you are able to create your own rides, and you interact with other players most of the time instead of NPCs. Every time you play will be a unique experience as the player interactions determine the outcome, and the world changes and reacts dynamically to their actions. This type of game typically lasts longer, but requires more involvement by the players.

    A true sandbox game would focus on a realistic graphic style and deep skill- and PvP-system, it is far from the typical MMORPG fantasy games seen today. It would be a very open and player controlled world..

    In UO's case, it has become a bizzar mix of everything MMO's stand for..
     
  13. Basara

    Basara UO Forum Moderator
    Moderator Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    582
    There are a great number of UO players who play it SPECIFICALLY because it ISN'T a First-Person game.

    Had it been FP, I'd have never played it, as I loathe those games (many make me ill just watching the screen). I chose UO for its overhead view similarity to many of the strategy games I played, like the X-Com/UFO, Fallout and Jagged Alliance games.

    FPS have no attraction for me for the simple fact that you don't have any situational awareness, like you would in real life. You can't hear someone coming up behind you the way you can in real life - audio &amp; visual cues as to where you are being attacked from are not as instantaneously replyable to as if you were having someone approach you that way, simply because you are working with speakers and software that cannot accurately reflect the senses you have in real life. With an overhead view, you may see a foe coming in, but that is really a compensation from the fact that both of you are having to deal with a combined few tenths of a second of lag, when playing MMO (as opposed to on a local network), and that seeing someone come at you .25 to .5 seconds ahead of time ACTUALLY is allowing you to react to them as if they came up you in a local game (or real life) in a 10th of that time, because of how even the smallest amounts of latency add up. You are effectively getting the information to react to at the moment you need to react, due to compensation for the latency.

    When the day comes when you have pure audio-visual 360 degree XYZ First person shooters at a speed available to most (as an example, "The World" Virtual Reality MMORPG that is the basis for the ".HACK//" (Dot Hack) anime, manga and console games - talk about a meta-game; console solo RPGs emulating MMOs of the future as the setting) - THEN the term First person will be relevant (and maybe they might become playable).

    Current "first person" are really "second person" games - you're effectively standing on your avatar's shoulder, telling it to do things - not really doing it yourself.
     
  14. I am not talking about first person view..... I am talking about sandbox gameplay, which many single player FPS- RPG's use to today such as Elder Scrolls, Freelancer, The Sims, Grand Theft Auto, they have open and never ending gameplay...

    Nox had FPS-style combat, but was not a FPS game..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGbJvbDMEf8

    It is very similar to UO's view, with amazing gameplay and combat..
     
  15. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understand your point of view and agree that RPGs could use combat mechanics that don't seem like they were invented in the 80's, it's far too late for Ultima Online to impliment them now. Age of Shadows tried to mix it up a bit, noble attempt.

    UO2 was going to take a nice step forward but that wwent wrong.

    For now you've got two choices:

    Tabula Rasa or Age of Conan.

    Anything else is just starting at a hotbar for hours instead of watching the game.
     
  16. <blockquote><hr>

    I understand your point of view and agree that RPGs could use combat mechanics that don't seem like they were invented in the 80's, it's far too late for Ultima Online to impliment them now. Age of Shadows tried to mix it up a bit, noble attempt.

    UO2 was going to take a nice step forward but that wwent wrong.

    For now you've got two choices:

    Tabula Rasa or Age of Conan.

    Anything else is just starting at a hotbar for hours instead of watching the game.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I agree about TR and AoC, however, the games aren't true sandbox games, but the combat they use is meant for sandbox style games.....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9XJOeGuH4Y

    This game, Fury, is a button smasher... I went through 2 keyboards, button smashing through this game, it is hailed as a good PvP game, I disagree, it takes no skill.. You can't manually do anything with your character, like in WoW, you can't dodge, you have to target something to attack it, auto-attack is on, which is where you click something and your character automataclly attacks, you don't control any of your movements, you don't aim your sword, you don't aim your spell and your character automally dodges and blocks it depending on how high their skill is in blocks and dodges.. That is unrealistic combat, it gets boring and there is no skill involved.... If UO really wants to improve something, they can improve the combat so that it is not like that..
     
  17. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>



    I agree about TR and AoC, however, the games aren't true sandbox games, but the combat they use is meant for sandbox style games.....

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Yeah I forgot to mention that. Unfortunately everyone loves the co-operative multiplayer approach rather than the true virtual world.

    Fury is a great example of how not todo it. It's what scares me most about upcoming games like Warhammer Online. From watching videos, it's more games with endless hotbars of icons with spells/abilities that a lot of the time, overlap each other.
     
  18. "FPS combat is always better... "

    You forgot to add "IMO".

    If I wanted to play a FPS game, I'd go pick up an XBox or PS3.


    "Make combat more realistic and RP friendly"

    I'm missing the link between combat and RP. Afaik, they have nothing to do with each other. Combat is game mechanics while RP is a RL person "pretending".


    "not too mention that PvP would be a hell of a lot more funner in a game where PvP is already awesome.."

    First off....there's no such word as "funner". It's "more fun". [​IMG]

    That said, you're completely ignoring PvM in your suggestions. Specifically with the Paragons &amp; Blackrock infected creatures that move at speeds that can't be matched by a player and would be near impossible to manually target each time you wanted to do something.

    UO has survived for 10 1/2 yrs with the current system. It's fine just the way it is.
     
  19. DrDolittle

    DrDolittle Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    1
    <blockquote><hr>

    FPS combat is always better...

    [/ QUOTE ]Go play a FPS console game then. I have no interest in seeing UO turned into a twitch shooter.
     
  20. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    FPS combat is always better...

    [/ QUOTE ]Go play a FPS console game then. I have no interest in seeing UO turned into a twitch shooter.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    There is two things UO has the potential to become in the near future..

    Like this..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYHzQPwOt28

    Which the devs are currently in favor of, it has rapidly moved into the state most MMO's are in...

    But UO also has the potential to be like this..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBbu4zLjV3o

    I'd prefer the second one...

    Keep the eye candy view though...
     
  21. I've played WoW, and am back at UO, so I think that takes care of your first video.

    For the second, that was horrid. I'd quit UO if it went to that.


    If you want an FPS, then go play one. UO doesn't need to be like that nor should it be.
     
  22. <blockquote><hr>

    I've played WoW, and am back at UO, so I think that takes care of your first video.

    For the second, that was horrid. I'd quit UO if it went to that.


    If you want an FPS, then go play one. UO doesn't need to be like that nor should it be.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I don't know, I quit when UO started to look like World of Warcraft with Kingdom Reborn (feature wise.) Was the last straw for me.. To me, a FPS fantasy game is
    closer to classic UO than WoW is..... MMOFPS's coming out such as Darkfall,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlV3iTzA

    and Mortal..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYsUi80jOE4

    Seem to draw more inspiration from classic UO than UO does from World of Warcraft.... Both games offer a dynamic world, world wide PvP, full player loot, real-time combat, 100% skill based.. Doesn't look like they've been itemized with broken systems left and right.... Any fan of the older days of Ultima Online should love this type of stuff, but instead, people prefer that it look like WoW..

    The best thing about UO was the player Freedom that it offered, people felt it offered too much freedom apparently, so they hacked the game apart with AoS.. Instead of improving or fixing what was already in place, they gave us a brand new game...
     
  23. "I quit when UO started to look like World of Warcraft with Kingdom Reborn (feature wise.)"

    Then why are you here trying to change a game you no longer play? Those of us that play UO happen to like it the way it is for the most part. Obviously you don't.


    "MMOFPS's coming out such as Darkfall"

    Until I see Darkfall on a shelf somewhere, it will continue to be the vaporware that it is and has been.


    "world wide PvP, full player loot"

    UO and WoW, along with many other games, gaves options to these for a reason. There's also a reason why the options are more popular than not.


    "The best thing about UO was the player Freedom that it offered"

    Players still have freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want. They just don't have the freedom to gank PK and dry loot at whim. There's a reason for this too, and just happens to be the same reason why there are options in most games.
     
  24. DrDolittle

    DrDolittle Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    1
    <blockquote><hr>

    There is two things UO has the potential to become in the near future..

    [/ QUOTE ]Despite years of neglect and block-headed moves by EA, Ultima Online remains a rich virtual world with a history and background that a mere game will never match. UO is far more than a lame shooter designed solely to snag a few bucks from the ADD crowd.
     
  25. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Here's some YouTube Videos of Darkfall. Some look blurry/muzzy because of YouTubes video degradation, however on most of them they're are links to downloads of the Video that let you get a good look at Darkfall's Graphics. Impressive to say the least. Plus, some of them screenshots/videos are of the old graphic system, they now have a improved graphic system of Darkfall.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiIY8tg2qBs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bYYT6Wg3Gg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEE4cWA8H4c

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnXebFCagBs


    For those of you that think Darkfall is vaporware, check these out, they have some info on Public Beta Testing, as well as a good bit about the features.

    http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3070-Darkfall-Dev-Journal-24-Full-Freedom-Gameplay-and-Substance

    http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3570-Darkfall-Dev-Journal-25-Philosophy

    "Our progress with publishers is steady, unfortunately everyone moves at their own speed. Unless something unexpected happens, we are self-publishing in at least one territory so we've been working on that and using our time constructively to that end. Our publishing capability allows us to go ahead with public beta if this process looks like it might take much longer. Speaking of public beta, I read someone wished we would give a date, and equated that to professionalism on our part. I won't disagree with that, however giving a public beta date in order to get preorders, even if that means you have to announce consecutive delays, while professional, is not part of our business model. We'll announce a public beta date when we know for sure that it's the right date. Until then, at best, we can give you an idea of our milestones. Darkfall preorders by the way aren't applicable. Our hope for Darkfall is that you won't spend a cent on the game until you've tried it and decided you want to play it. At the moment, our target for public beta/ playtesting is ASAP, and we're doing everything we can to get there. We want our public beta to be the full game; we want this period to be a solid gaming experience and not one day here and thirty minutes there. We want it to be fast, fun and stable. This is why at the moment we're engaged in heavy internal beta testing using professional testers to get the game ready."
     
  26. Guest

    Guest Guest

    [​IMG]

    NOX was awesome