DevTracker

[Grummz]

@Torgue_Joey has a UNIQUE STYLE.

Yes, please spread the word of Ember (em-8er). We will have a major update shortly and there will be future rounds of milestones with fundraising. We need to finish the ones we started first!

 

[Ronyn]

I would imagine that many of the scenarios you're thinking of would be ones I would consider non-combat. I would suggest, however, that the ones that are directly involved in combat pertain to the ratio I mentioned prior. They are the subtleties I spoke of.
-
You can change the context of these factors but they still ultimately remain related to the core function I proposed

"Remain related to", absolutely. "Core function", well the choice in term is one way to describe it. My concern is whether or not looking at combat through the lens of " it all boils down to damage in/out" will result in missing the true potential relevance of other factors.

Case in point-

Like @Mk_6 has stated, I would consider tracking to be a non-combat component, much like crafting or gear tuning. It may be related to combat (we have to track down the giant base-eater) but I wouldn't consider it to be combat any more than I would the act of driving to a battlefield.

What is or isn't a combat component will very often depend on the context.

Driving to a battlefield is not combat, but driving under fire or under threat of attack in a battlefield definitely is.
Literally swerving to avoid landmines, running over enemies, putting the armored hull of the vehicle between an ally and enemy fire.

Likewise, "tracking" isn't always relegated to a pre-fight scenario(which was illustrated by my various examples in the previous post). Often the tracking component is something that happens under fire or under the threat of fire. If you're looking for a target that is also looking for you, the person who finds their target first has the advantage. There may even be other threats present during this search. In such cases, threat of harm is constant. There are many expressions of this. If an enemy is behind a wall and I get forewarning from a tracking like skill. If you have been hurt in our firefight, and are trying to escape to a safer position, being able to follow you better due to a hunter skill. Etc.
The converse of tracking would be stealth. Which, again, can have many expressions and happen in the middle of an active battle.

Beeman, bring this back to your own statements of combat being about "how long you stay alive for while completing the objective." Things like acquiring a target and evading discovery will directly affect that. It's absolutely interrelated.

Whether you refer to these things as "the subtleties", just ways to make the core function more varied... is a matter of description. The main goal is that you see their full relevance in a combat model, regardless of description.

 

[Ronyn]

Either way, both you and @Daynen are free to add your examples of the elusive non-combat combat that you'd like to see specifically in Ember.

To be clear, I didn't suggest any sort of "non-combat combat", I suggested two things. The first one was a different way of communicating the idea of what is core to combat and an intent to make classes varied in more ways than just the damage they do. As I expressed to Beeman, I don't think he and I are talking about a different style of combat design just a different way to express it in words. It would be a misrepresentation to turn what I said into some sort of call for "non combat combat".

The second, was the way in which we should approach making a class what it is. I won't make any direct suggestions on what I would personally like to see in Ember as that may be misinterpreted by some as something that is actually coming. That would be irresponsible on my part. Instead I will stick with general concepts and other games that illustrate the general idea I was getting at.

Spoiler: Expanded Hunter concept

On to the class Idea I referenced, the "hunter who hunts", there are a variety of ways to express that idea. Some that require larger systems to be built around it, some that more readily fit into existing systems. A game like Evolve has a rather literal version of hunting, the tracker archetype has multiple abilities for finding the enemy monster. That takes building the whole game around it.

Alternatively, we have games like Destiny, which has a nighstalker sub class of of the Hunter. It has improved search ability (it finds resources better than others) and it can effectively mark enemy targets it has hit. This gives that player a clear knowledge advantage of their targets movement for a few seconds. Subtle, but creates a sense of hunting/tracking. That was added on to an existing game something like a year after it's launch. League of legends added the character Kindred, who can select a target from anywhere on the map as their prey, creating a sort of "I am being hunted" mind game with the enemy player. That was added several years after the games release. The tactician Class in killzone 3 (I think it was 3) has an ability to gain awareness of all enemies within an area for a time. For a time some of the Recon classes in Firefall use to have ways to manipulate the S.I.N. in ways that improved their ability to provide information for allies. Etc..

As you can see, the hunting/finding/tracking concept can be expressed in many ways. Not all of which require the whole game based around it. My whole point was that the class/character designer has to look for ways to capture the sense of "hunting", and not just make the hunter a ranged-dps-class-with-no-sense-of-hunting whatsoever. The damage model being solid, by itself, is not all that is required to capture the essence of what is a hunter.

Again, it's not about any sort of "non combat combat", it's about viewing traits other than damage in/out as equally important to what makes the class what it is.

Hopefully that gives you a better sense of what I was referring to.

Spoiler: What little I can say about progression and end game

First let me say I appreciate your critique on Planetside 2, I'll be sure to look into it myself.
I can tell you that Ember will have mostly horizontal progression. There will be some vertical climb but it will be rather tame compared to what we would normally expect from vertical progression. Exactly what that will mean in terms of power growth and weapon choice, I could not say at this time. Here is a little bit of info on weapon customization.

As for end game content, I can tell you two things. 1: Grummz is not a fan of wasted content. So it is highly likely that few if any areas on the map will become irrelevant to a player simply because they leveled up a lot. 2: One of the goals of progression is that the player unlocks new abilities and new gameplay over time. You can expect that "Endgame" (if that is even a term we end up using) will take advantage of those various options.

I am, of course, not allowed to share everything I might learn and there is quite a bit still being decided but, rest assured, there are some well thought out reasons for the why and how things are being approached.

I must say, it's very cool that folks are so interested in this stuff.

 

[Grummz]

This is really helping me dial in on what worked and what didn't. TY!

 

[Ronyn]

Mission objectives simply change priority. Essentially, your combat scenario is going to boil down to the following
How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective......

This is probably an issue of how we choose to describe a thing rather than any disagreement of what is actually involved.
I would not use the statement that combat "boils down" to the following: "How long can you stay alive for, while still completing the objective."

As I said before, I would say that combat always involves it and tends to revolve around it. Which, in my opinion, is exactly what your examples illustrate. I'd refer to that interaction differently. This is primarily a matter of description, what we choose to emphasize in words in hopes to communicate a way to build something. What you refer to as the "subtitles" involved can be, to me, just as much the ends as they are the means to any combat system. At the end of the day I get the sense that you and I could effectively design a very similar combat model, but have made it there from a somewhat different path.

is a function of

Alright, let me see if I can help here.

I think @Daynen 's underlying concern is that a lot of games showcase a limited view of combat variety, because they rely so heavily on the damage in/out aspect without adding the depth around it/to it, without bringing (what you call) the subtleties to center stage. Choice in phrasing aside, I'd argue that he is right to want that. That his concern is a valid one. So, when he reads your statement of what "combat boils down to", it may come across as you wanting to do that same thing. Though, for what it is worth, I do not think that is necessarily your intent.

To illustrate what I think Daynens concerns are, I'll use a simple example.
How many games have a "Hunter" class, that lacks a relevant tracking/finding component? (As in, they don't actually hunt)
Most commonly a games enemy and mission mechanics either lack any real need to find or track enemies so the class then has no need for such capabilities or the designer's just don't give the hunter any enhanced capability to find and track the enemies that do.
All the "hunter" class is really made to be is a ranged damage dealer with a certain look and theme. Of course simply doing ranged damage does not properly capture what a "hunter" is by definition. A lot of times we might get a trap, a pet, or some cool ammunition types, but the most core aspects of a "Hunter", the ability to hunt something down, is missing. The "hunter" may fit on a damage in/out model just fine, and that is definitely an integral part of the class. The problem is the designer might think they have a solid version of a "hunter" simply because of that damage model. But I would argue that capturing what makes a hunter a hunter (the ability to hunt) is just as important, just as central to the class, as anything else could be.

Now, who sounds more likely to make sure the hunter can hunt and not just do damage- The designer saying "combat boils down to damage in/out" or the designer saying "damage in/out is only part of combat""?. Again, it's not to say that both designers couldn't end up making a hunter who can hunt, but one sounds more like they are actively looking for it. Actively looking for it is the key. That is, I think, what Daynen is asking for.
Hopefully you see what I mean.

I'm half afraid you'll say something like "The faster you can find the enemy the faster you can do damage to them, therefore it still boils down to damage in/out".
Which would be both true in a certain regard and essentially missing the whole point in another regard.