Funny. I’m on my 4th playthrough with more than 90 hours played and I’ve never needed the developers to tell me what the combat is meant to be like.
Funny. You didn’t answer my question.
People are hung up on the terms “Souls” and “Diablo”. Remove these terms from the discussion: To make meaningful skill-based combat, you have good combat fundamentals. Wicked has this. But if the gear you have transforms your gameplay in such a way that the fundamentals are run over by something like rune attacks that can be endlessly used and trivialize all content, then you’ve broken your combat system.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment that builds overcoming combat fundamentals breaks the combat system. Right now, as you’ve said, gameplay starts out feeling very skill-based with understanding of combat mechanics being required to progress through the game/fights and then endgame (or what we have right now for endgame) becomes having an OP ARPG build. Is that actually inherently a problem? That’s the combat/progression that could be Wicked’s niche in the genre, provided people like it.
It seems to me that Wicked’s current gameplay progression is unique and I’d be interested to know if players are actually upset with the current system, in souls-likes your crazy character with hundreds of levels doesn’t actually play that differently from a character with only a few levels. In Wicked your character at endgame can spam abilities/attacks and has recovery options that all feel dramatically more powerful than a newly created character, I personally kind of like the vertical progression I just don’t think we have an endgame challenge to match it which, imo, is the real problem.
Consider that the skill-based combat might be a gateway for initial progression to be challenging in order for players to get to an endgame where they’re allowed to make a character/build that feels OP in comparison. You’ve already proven you can overcome the game’s mechanics throughout the course of the story, why should you be beholden to them at the game’s conclusion? If that’s the intended system (and it might not be, it’s possible that it would indeed be better if Wicked embraced a single system), endgame builds overcoming combat fundamentals is a source of satisfaction for players rather than a detriment to the experience.
I don’t necessarily agree with the assessment that builds overcoming combat fundamentals breaks the combat system … Is that actually inherently a problem?
If you care about nuance in your combat, yes. Why would a game remove the foundations of its gameplay as you more forward? Why would the mechanical skill decrease significantly as you gear up? Can you think of other successful titles that do this? Fundamentals are meant to be built upon, not removed. Depth is meant to be deepened, not drained. A game should gain depth as you progress, not lose it.
in souls-likes your crazy character with hundreds of levels doesn’t actually play that differently from a character with only a few levels.
This is a fair critique. Weapons in Souls games often feature technical moves that are never used/demanded of the player. Elden Ring has many moves for weapons (like 25 per weapon) but almost very few matter because of poor balance and easier, far more powerful attacks overshadow the roster. There isn’t enough technical requirement in the combat to make use of that many moves.
In Wicked your character at endgame can spam abilities/attacks and has recovery options that all feel dramatically more powerful than a newly created character
Of course you feel powerful, because you are spamming rune attacks and trivializing all the content. What exactly do you see beyond this? Imagine they drop 2 additional acts tomorrow? You take your rune-spam character in and delete everything with 1 button. Is that really what you’re looking for in a game? Or do you want to recapture the magic of the first few hours as you learn how the game works and master the systems. Or what can they do to top such a shallow, simple, dopamine hit? Once you give the ability to be ultra effective with a single attack, taking that away is going to make no sense, so they would have to double down on it. That’s Diablo.
I just want to point out that Wicked is in a state of early access and many of the conclusions you’ve drawn don’t account for this. I believe it has been stated that there will be character wipes before the full release, if this is the case then worrying about how a powerful character that has farmed the content we have now/crucible endlessly will interact with the future content/acts that the devs release doesn’t really have merit.
My concern is that problems you or others may have with the balance of the game right now might not be present when we have more content to play through. I agree that learning an interesting combat system with dodges and parries only to have those mechanics tossed out a handful of hours later as your build starts to come online doesn’t feel great. However, I also think that players that love the game and want to invest tens or hundreds of hours perfecting their character should be rewarded for that grind with a build that feels powerful. It seems to me that the frustration stems from not having enough time to appreciate the mechanics of the combat system before we transition into the more ARPG portion of the game.
As for other successful games, as you gain levels and become more powerful the previous content you’ve completed, for the most part, very much does become trivialized. To give an example you yourself have mentioned, Elden Ring, which is wildly popular, lets you revisit areas or bosses that you might’ve skipped and absolutely annihilate those encounters with powerful spells or weapon skills that you’ve gotten later in the game. In many cases you can entirely bypass challenging encounters only to come back later and have the luxury of ignoring the combat fundamentals. I believe that many people actually like having this option. So I don’t necessarily agree with your design philosophy that mechanics should only ever be expanded upon rather than trivialized, I think it’s better to put that decision in the hands of the player.
As for your desire for Wicked to not become like Diablo, I can probably agree with that but I think it’s important to remember that many aspects of Diablo and ARPGs are quite popular and could be a good choice for Wicked if the playerbase likes them. I think it’s primarily an issue of popularity, it might be worth creating a poll and seeing what players actually think of the ARPG endgame system as its kind of weird when compared to most other things. Right now it seems many people like the combat system and I think the devs should be wary of changing fundamental aspects of it, though it’s possible that impression is wrong.
Pacing of the combat and enemy design in general is slower and more strategic → Souls like base.
Breaking out from the standard Souls Like, methodical combat loop is possible… BUT: If you want to do the most damage, win the fastest or have the strongest defense you have to lean into the Souls Like aspects of the game.
Also many build options should focus on Souls Like aspects (parry, block, dodge, backstab)
Or even expand on it with more strategic options (feints, zoning, displacement, cover, distractions, …).
I am glad this was started as a separate discussion. It was not really in keeping with the topic we were discussing in the other thread.
I would be interested from everyone on how they play the other two types of games that keep being mentioned. I find personally that I play both the same way. I don’t farm the game in either Diablo/ARPGs or souldlikes and this is part of the issue I have with both types of games. In souldlikes this adds difficulty for me (which I don’t mind) but in Diablo for instance by the second act I am destroying enemies with one click. People who enjoy farming these games must find then easier. I don’t get the dopamine hit, I think from the new gear drop that other’s do so Diablo becomes a little boring after a while.
I think how people play these games and what they want from them is vital to the question being asked. I would prefer the soulslike combat myself as the intracity and thoughtfulness of the combat is what draws me.
A second question I would ask is did people get that same feeling when they started a second/third character fresh from the beginning? Was that, often describes as viseral, purposeful methodical combat, still the same? Or did they, through learned experience, find it easier overall? Did they try new weapons and builds and where they distinctly different from their first build? Did they run straight for something they knew worked (META build in a small way)?
Another question do people want META build availability? Do they want the overpowered fantasy build?
I think PennyToast (and others have said it elsewhere) is possibly onto the biggest thing the developers should be doing if they want to make the game appeal to all of us (not one game for all before anyone says it) but rather that it leaves the option open. In the souls games people still look for the META build so in a way it has many similarities to ARPGs. I think the META is possibly more work.
Sorry long post many questions but this has been on my mind for a while and seems to permeate most conversations we all seem to be having with one another on this forum.
EDIT: Also I forgot to say I don’t use Runes (as I am old and forget they exist! and the build I ended up with had zero focus due to affixes on my armour)
Please look up what feedback means. You’re clearly missing the point of this thread. If you don’t like the feedback then chime in-but don’t tell people to not give feedback.
For many of us the type of game rapidly changes after 10 hours. Is this intended? Is it not? Without knowing the the intention of the developer it becomes very difficult to give feedback. To me it seems unintended to go from a souls like to a single button endgame. Is it really asking too much from the devs for an answer? I don’t think so. I also don’t care what the answer is, just that there is an answer.
Of course I could also just give feedback like this:
Love the first 10 hours, hate the last 10 hours. Is that helpful feedback? Don’t think so. Or, game is challenging first 10 hours, stupid easy last 10 hours. Fix your games dev! I mean, sure, that’s feedback but maybe they WANT the game to play like that and I’m totally fine with it. I’ll just go find another game.
This game has the label (Souls-like) on Steam. People who bought it after seeing the label found that after playing it, they found that it was not that (Souls-like), but a little bit (Open World Survival Craft), a little bit (Diablo), and a little bit ( Warrior Series), and a bunch of other elements (building waiting time of mobile games).
OK, I understand now, this game is a shoddy stitched product, it is indeed a new game type, Palworld
@tsubasamio_kuroi Moon Studios did not use the misleading labels. Those were user-defined labels. The official labels are “Action, Adventure, RPG, Early Access” which properly define this game.
See everything you’re speaking of as broken is so OBVIOUSLY broken I can’t see it being a major issue. Yes rune spam is bad unless you’re a magician & even then which is why I do think this game will have its own combat identity later on. You say Souls or Diablo combat you can do both it is player choice. I personally haven’t made a rune spam build but could, but I willingly choose to fight EK like it’s a soulslike fight.
If I bought a precise action combat game and for the duration of the 2 hour refund window it delivered on being a precise action combat game, then after 30 hours it turned into a Golf Simulator I would consider that a problem. I don’t see much of a distinction between that and what you just said.
This is a massively disingenuous argument that I only hear made by people who are only interested in a subsection of the game’s mechanics. You can’t maintain the challenging soulslike combat which this game initially presents with unless you flat out refuse to engage with the RPG and character building systems, make no attempt to minmax anything at all, stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALA. To retain that early gameplay you have to deliberately make your character bad while ignoring all of the options the game throws at you, which shockingly enough is not an appealing proposition for an RPG.
This might be OK for a hypothetical pure action player who only wants to do challenge runs without creating a character or touching any of the RPG mechanics whatsoever, but why would such a person be playing this game in the first place?
You say ‘obviously broken’ but pick any ARPG like Diablo IV, POE and LE and what many of us are calling game mechanics in NRFTW as ‘broken’ are ‘properly working systems’ in Diablo 4, POE and LE. Those 3 games rapidly devolve into 1 button mashing with zero strategy and zero skill required.
In NRFTW it feels like the first 10 hours require skill, the last 10 hours require zero skill. Since the developers have said they are blending elements from multiple games, which elements are they really trying to achieve? It’s just not clear and it’s a bit frustrating that we haven’t seen any feedback on this. Isn’t that the purpose of a feedback thread? Isn’t that the purpose of EA? Or did I just get hoodwinked into paying $30+?
They do pay attention, if you’re in the discord you’ll see it a lot, and they are aware. The ceo has made a tweet saying it’s fun seeing the broken builds people have come up with and say they’ll have to be reined back so yes I do think it’s obviously broken and in D4 those games are press a button & obliterate a whole room type games. I can’t even choose to make the games interesting without massive handicaps to myself. In Wicked I just make a fun build, I make a swordsman who uses fire attacks, and it can still be fun without being broken & without me needing to avoid certain affixes/weapons/armor sets
