Curse

Gli · Jun 12, 2009, 01:40 PM // 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

However, movement should not be one of the axes of differentiation. Controls need to be intuitive. If everything else is running one basic control scheme and your game runs another, that isn't intuitive.

WASD Keyboard movement is only an intuitive control scheme for people who are used to playing games using that scheme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

the point is that those 2-3 days of discomfort are costly and help prevent people from picking the game back up. It unnecessarily adds to the learning curve for resuming serious play, exacerbating the player drain. Serious players come back, realize that they're going to have to relearn a ton of stuff, get frustrated and quit. Why make it harder than it has to be?

For pay-once games, higher rates of player drain aren't as big a concern as lower sales.

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 01:44 PM // 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Leito

It's actually pretty amazing that there's so much flaming and arguing in a thread about controls.

There are huge distributional implications. Good play and bad play are separated by a very fine line. Seemingly small changes have large impacts.

This is also why there is so much fighting over nerfs and changes to game mechanics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

WASD Keyboard movement is only an intuitive control scheme for people who are used to playing games using that scheme.

Market's dominated by them. They're called FPS and consoles (analog sticks are built on the old d-pad, which is a WASD scheme).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

For pay-once games, higher rates of player drain aren't as big a concern as lower sales.

People that leave buy the next game at lower rates. ANet doesn't want you playing 24/7. They want you to take large breaks. But they do want you to come back for the next installment or game. Make it more costly to do so, and fewer players make the next purchase.

MithranArkanere · Jun 12, 2009, 01:55 PM // 13:55

If I want to move correctly I use the WADS. If I want to mve with one hand I use the one-hand movement trick (Click and hold the right mouse button, then click and hold the left, you'll move while holding both buttons)

I find the click to move quite annoying, because it tends to get stuck everywhere.

The options to completely turn off click to move, to double click to activate instead a single click and the 'lose target' options were amongst the best additions to the controls of the game.

To cope with rubberbanding the best option is selecting and activating (i.e.: space) even with click to move, you may be going to a place where you don't want, since targets may rubberband too.

Avarre · Jun 12, 2009, 01:55 PM // 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Leito

It's actually pretty amazing that there's so much flaming and arguing in a thread about controls.

For the most part, there's a consensus that the control system is fine, and removing click-to-move is pointless (and damaging).

Jarus · Jun 12, 2009, 02:05 PM // 14:05

When Warhammer Online (which I think we all know uses the WASD system) was in beta, I argued quite fervently regarding implementing some form of click-to-attack system like we have in Guild Wars. It's not quite like click-to-move but it is very similar (and the code between the two is probably intertwined).

My reasoning was that it made the game such a horrid clickfest, the result of constant WASD movement and constant skill spam. A lot of people were engaged in running and jumping circles around their opponents to get behind them. It was terrible.

I would hate it if Guild Wars devolved into that sort of thing.

ValaOfTheFens · Jun 12, 2009, 02:12 PM // 14:12

Click to move is somewhat irrelevant to me as I have a laptop and find it unwieldy. However, you need it in PvP and therefore it should stay. As a Necro, I tend to become the target of melee rather quickly and CTM allows me to kite(no one runs away quite like a Necro!) while changing armor/weapons and contemplating my next move.

Revelations · Jun 12, 2009, 02:22 PM // 14:22

I currently reside in New Zealand and get a relatively high ping to both American and Euro servers. PvP is definitely the sole reason I have stuck to this game, however due to ping I am unable to play at least two of ten professions to their full ability.

Removing click to move has a seriously negative impact on higher ping players, and will effectively eliminate the possibility of playing a melee class at a competitive level in pvp for those of us affected. This has become very apparent to me after attempting to play several other MMOs. Due to the delay between client and server it becomes incredibly difficult to actually know where you are in relation to your opponent at any given time (as opposed to what it shows on your client), and click to move/follow mitigates a large part of this problem.

As others have mentioned, click to move is the more precise of the systems, and allows for tactics such as quarterstepping that effectively enhance the level of skill one is able to attain. Why try and fix what isn't broken?

Linkusmax · Jun 12, 2009, 02:26 PM // 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

snip

So what your saying is that they should use an inferior system because you don't like change and its what others have done.

Thats the kind of thinking which will stagnate video games.

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkusmax

So what your saying is that they should use an inferior system because you don't like change and its what others have done.

No, I'm saying that they should use an inferior control system because it sells games. You want to market a competitive game to people, you use the controls they're used to. Small improvements in latency aren't enough of a reason to abandon the standard. You use WASD, everyone is negatively impacted equally.

ANet's not trying to build the perfect game. They're trying to sell as many games as possible. Best recipe? Find a dimension you can differentiate on. Valve did it with AI and storyline. GW did it by creating a deep skill set and limiting the skills you could bring to the party, creating multi-layered strategy.

Click-to-move isn't a revolutionary new control scheme that's going to sell games. So why make it harder for your potential customers to pick up your game by implementing unfamiliar controls?

Clobimon · Jun 12, 2009, 03:07 PM // 15:07

My desire is that both options remain. I know I can do without it because I have, but I prefer click to move be there. I've always you've used both options to move depending on what I'm doing.

What I can't get used to and am bugged by is the inability to target an NPC and autorun to. When in a city or outpost, especially if crowded, it stinks to have to manually run around to get to an npc rather than target-space. It's even worse if the game is backwards and has collision/body-blocking between players, rather than player-mob.

Rocky Raccoon · Jun 12, 2009, 03:16 PM // 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

ANet's not trying to build the perfect game. They're trying to sell as many games as possible. Best recipe? Find a dimension you can differentiate on. Valve did it with AI and storyline. GW did it by creating a deep skill set and limiting the skills you could bring to the party, creating multi-layered strategy.

In my opinion I find it much easier to use the mouse to move and it leaves my off hand free for whatever else I need to do. If they could have both options in GW1 there is no reason that can't have both in GW2.

Gli · Jun 12, 2009, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

No, I'm saying that they should use an inferior control system because it sells games. You want to market a competitive game to people, you use the controls they're used to. Small improvements in latency aren't enough of a reason to abandon the standard. You use WASD, everyone is negatively impacted equally.

ANet's not trying to build the perfect game. They're trying to sell as many games as possible. Best recipe? Find a dimension you can differentiate on. Valve did it with AI and storyline. GW did it by creating a deep skill set and limiting the skills you could bring to the party, creating multi-layered strategy.

Click-to-move isn't a revolutionary new control scheme that's going to sell games. So why make it harder for your potential customers to pick up your game by implementing unfamiliar controls?

You're being ridiculous.

Click-to-move isn't a revolutionary new control scheme. It's a staple of the genre we're dealing with here. Diablo II had click-to-move for crying out loud. Sold plenty.

Ec]-[oMaN · Jun 12, 2009, 03:31 PM // 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarus

When Warhammer Online (which I think we all know uses the WASD system) was in beta, I argued quite fervently regarding implementing some form of click-to-attack system like we have in Guild Wars. It's not quite like click-to-move but it is very similar (and the code between the two is probably intertwined).

My reasoning was that it made the game such a horrid clickfest, the result of constant WASD movement and constant skill spam. A lot of people were engaged in running and jumping circles around their opponents to get behind them. It was terrible.

I would hate it if Guild Wars devolved into that sort of thing.

I tried the open beta weekend. Very first thing I noticed was this. Absolutely horrid control combat system, you didn't feel at all connected to the combat within that game, clunky. Again I just can't picture GW2 at least on the PvP side of things being remotely decent without click moving. Then again WAR also suffered from poor performance, used their own bad Engine, UI skill usage/recharge/casting all that was horrible.

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Diablo II had click-to-move for crying out loud. Sold plenty.

It also was released in 2000. Times change. Click-to-move made sense in the fixed-camera, 2D sprites era.

We also live with Diablo 2's trading system in GW - spam in limited population districts and direct trade. I hear that's a popular design decision.

Revelations · Jun 12, 2009, 03:38 PM // 15:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

No, I'm saying that they should use an inferior control system because it sells games. You want to market a competitive game to people, you use the controls they're used to.

No. You want a competitive game you keep any elements which keep players adhering to a higher standard of competition. Most posters have agreed that click to move is healthier for competitive pvp and I am inclined to agree with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarus

A lot of people were engaged in running and jumping circles around their opponents to get behind them. It was terrible.

I would hate it if Guild Wars devolved into that sort of thing.

This has been the result of every single MMO I have played, GW being the exception. Age of Conan, WoW, Fury, and Warhammer Online are among the most well known culprits, and their pvp is nothing short of terrible for it.

If Anet wants to keep their game unique and competitive then removing click to move is a step in the wrong direction.

Gli · Jun 12, 2009, 03:41 PM // 15:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Times change. Click-to-move made sense in the fixed-camera, 2D sprites era.

And it still makes sense now, hence the many players who use it in games that offer it, and the many players who do want it in games that threaten not to have it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

We also live with Diablo 2's trading system in GW - spam in limited population districts and direct trade. I hear that's a popular design decision.

Straw man alert! I can do that too, you know: WASD movement was the only option in many early 80's home computer games. They only had a palette of 16 or sometimes even less colors. I hear that's a popular design decision.

Greedy Gus · Jun 12, 2009, 03:48 PM // 15:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Alvito

Click-to-move isn't a revolutionary new control scheme that's going to sell games. So why make it harder for your potential customers to pick up your game by implementing unfamiliar controls?

Because for meaningful competition, click to move is necessitated for what matters (precise character positioning and movement/stopping) in an environment with latency. In FPS it's aiming that needs to be precise, not bodyblocking or move/stop timing, so you wouldn't WASD your crosshairs around while clicking to move.

Painbringer · Jun 12, 2009, 03:49 PM // 15:49

I am a click fan and this saddens me

Although i use the keys to move I am a clicker for the skills also for the "O" sh*t moves and when you need to target that hard to grab thing

Commander Ryker · Jun 12, 2009, 04:07 PM // 16:07

I use the arrow keys to move around and I much prefer that to anything else. Like someone else said, left hand for skills and right hand to move.

Martin Alvito · Jun 12, 2009, 04:10 PM // 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

And it still makes sense now, hence the many players who use it in games that offer it, and the many players who do want it in games that threaten not to have it.

And there are plenty of gamers out there that would rather WASD and don't like being forced to play click-to-move. You don't observe as many of their posts in this thread due to two selection effects:

1) People that are happy with the design decision are less likely to post than those that are upset.
2) People that like to WASD are, according to the cost theory, more likely to have left the game and stayed away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gli

Straw man alert! I can do that too, you know:

You've missed the point. I build the straw man to illustrate by example the flaw in your logic. Your argument was: click-to-move does not impede the sale of games because Diablo II used it and sold a ton of games. So I picked a particularly terrible feature of Diablo II that players in GW live with and hate. This illustrates that not all features of Diablo II should be copied.

No one complained about that trading system then. They do now. Why? Back then it was fine compared to the alternatives. Not true today.

Ironically, the example you give also happens to illustrate this. Design decisions must be evaluated in the context of the available alternatives at the time. Thus, you can't argue that click-to-move is fine because D2 used it and sold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy Gus

Because for meaningful competition, click to move is necessitated for what matters (precise character positioning and movement/stopping) in an environment with latency. In FPS it's aiming that needs to be precise, not bodyblocking or move/stop timing, so you wouldn't WASD your crosshairs around while clicking to move.

Among other questions that this raises:

1) Should GW PvP be about hyper-precise positioning? I agree that this is presently true: play a relic run in Halls or try to force a boost to see how much this matters. Is this what the designers were trying to market to us, or is it an unintended and undesirable consequence of the mechanics?

2) Is this fun? You could make an argument that Bull's Strike is one of the worst things that ever happened to this game, because it created a ton of opportunities for small latency variations to be decisive.

3) Is click-to-move the only solution if a game based around precision movement is undesirable? Would it not make more sense to remove the problematic mechanics, so that the game is refocused on what was supposed to matter (which skills you bring, which ones you use, and when you use them) and not on movement?