Tab-Targeting


Pathfinder Online

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm fond of the standard model of the targeting lock, where you can click on a target or Tab to cycle through targets. So if your mouse is elsewhere or there's a pack or tightly crowded targets, Tab is a functional alternative. But with an action bar triggered by the number keys, it's easy to save your mouse for targeting.

This can be tweaked for quality of life. Such as if a creature attacks you (and you are not currently engaged in combat with another target) you auto-target that creature for a quicker counter-attack.
Or instead of starting with the nearest mob when Tab targeting, it starts at the target closest to your mouse then cycles outward so you can aim "close enough" and then target.

Twitch is good for games where player skill is meant to be the primary deciding factor. FPS and the like. For MMOs, level and gear should be a much larger part. It shouldn't be impossible for an undergeared but skillful player to win a fighter, but a low level character shouldn't be able to twitch their way through superior foes.
That will make it a little *too* easy to zerg through the game relying on skill and not caring about death.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Having played ESO I now see tab targeting as such an inferior system it will be hard to go back to. I think anyone else who's tried it can back me up on this. It's not a twitchy system. Aiming is so easy you don't even really think about it. It's simply a more fluid more immersive system. You see your targets, you decide which one you want to attack, and you start attacking them. It's really that easy. Seriously, my gf plays on a laptop with no mouse and is a total badass.

Yeah there is no raid assist and you can't just click the raid assist to pick a target or watch and click healthbars to heal people. I don't see those as features. I see them as ways to make a crappy non-intuitive combat system more playable.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

Having played ESO I now see tab targeting as such an inferior system it will be hard to go back to. I think anyone else who's tried it can back me up on this. It's not a twitchy system. Aiming is so easy you don't even really think about it. It's simply a more fluid more immersive system. You see your targets, you decide which one you want to attack, and you start attacking them. It's really that easy. Seriously, my gf plays on a laptop with no mouse and is a total badass.

Yeah there is no raid assist and you can't just click the raid assist to pick a target or watch and click healthbars to heal people. I don't see those as features. I see them as ways to make a crappy non-intuitive combat system more playable.

I don't like it. I want to target a foe, and if I am not facing when I try to swing my sword, I want the game to auto-face me to be swinging or shooting in the right direction, even if the foe was behind me. I do not want to worry about aim or facing direction - AT ALL. Worrying about proximity is enough for me.

A strong NO to soft-locks or aim-based targeting from me.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm a lot more open-minded about some of the alternate targeting systems folks like Andius have advocated than I used to be, but I'm still most comfortable with simple tab-targeting.

One question I have for the folks who want something different is: would you still want it if your foes weren't also forced to use it? If the answer is "yes", then I would strongly support the eventual inclusion of it as an optional feature. If the answer is "no", then I'd have to assume at least part of your motivation is gaining a competitive advantage over those who are less comfortable with it - even if you genuinely find it "more fun", "more engaging", or "more immersive".

We shouldn't have to wrestle with the UI to explain to the game systems what we are trying to do.

Goblin Squad Member

I like hybrid systems. I also like different classes to feel different. Rogues should be twitchier, Clerics and Fighters more tabby and archers/mages more aimy.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:

Having played ESO I now see tab targeting as such an inferior system it will be hard to go back to. I think anyone else who's tried it can back me up on this. It's not a twitchy system. Aiming is so easy you don't even really think about it. It's simply a more fluid more immersive system. You see your targets, you decide which one you want to attack, and you start attacking them. It's really that easy. Seriously, my gf plays on a laptop with no mouse and is a total badass.

Yeah there is no raid assist and you can't just click the raid assist to pick a target or watch and click healthbars to heal people. I don't see those as features. I see them as ways to make a crappy non-intuitive combat system more playable.

I never thought I would agree with this until I started playing ESO, as well. Coming from Tab-Target games like Final Fantasy XI/XIV I didn't think I would like it at all when I read about it; now I don't know why all games aren't like it!

Goblin Squad Member

Though many seem to be highly opinionated on this topic I myself don't particularly care. I've played with and enjoyed many different combat systems, and the associated advantages and disadvantages don't seem to weigh any particular direction for me; I'll adapt to and be happy with any kind of system thrown my way as long as it isn't some unmanageable eldritch beast.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Avari wrote:
I like hybrid systems. I also like different classes to feel different. Rogues should be twitchier, Clerics and Fighters more tabby and archers/mages more aimy.

I'm not suggesting this for PFO, but I've often thought it would be really cool if there were a completely different client for each class, with radically different game play. Obviously, that won't work in a game where you can mix and match skills and abilities from multiple classes in a single outing.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think a "lock current target" with auto facing or even a tab between targets option added to a ESO like combat system would detract from my experience. I actually think those attempting to rely on the tab between targets option would be disadvantedged against me after having used the alternative a bit.

Target assist and selecting healing targets through the party menu is another matter. Those prevent an advantage so stong that any competitive player will be expected to use them.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius, would you have a problem with /assist if the character using it still had to have a clear line-of-sight to the target in order to do anything, and would hit obstacles in the way if they didn't? The main reason I don't have a problem with /assist is because in the real world humans (and dogs) are very adept at following others' gazes to see what they're looking at. There are myriad clues we give via body language, gestures, and eye contact that simply can't be modeled (yet) in any game.

I hear you about healing by watching and clicking on health bars, and it sounds like the PFO devs hear you, too. But rather than making it difficult to target the character you'd like to help, I'd rather it be (potentially) difficult to get close enough to them to make a difference. I think the real problem is being able to stand in the back and heal folks thirty yards away without having a clear line-of-sight, not the fact that it's easy to indicate to the game systems whom you are trying to aid.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
I want the game to auto-face me to be swinging or shooting in the right direction, even if the foe was behind me. I do not want to worry about aim or facing direction - AT ALL.

Anything but this :(

I'm pretty open to the targeting system and have enjoyed multiple types. Had a blast playing Tera/FF14 (twitch based), and have always enjoying the Tab Targeting of WoW. But to have the game auto-face you would ruin so much for me.

As an assassin, if it comes down to a face off, or I'm in a fighting situation, I'm depending on my skills (either actual gamer skills or skills within the game) to maneuver behind my target, where assassins belong. If the game just auto faces them towards me again, my skills are wasted.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tigari wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
I want the game to auto-face me to be swinging or shooting in the right direction, even if the foe was behind me. I do not want to worry about aim or facing direction - AT ALL.

Anything but this :(

I'm pretty open to the targeting system and have enjoyed multiple types. Had a blast playing Tera/FF14 (twitch based), and have always enjoying the Tab Targeting of WoW. But to have the game auto-face you would ruin so much for me.

As an assassin, if it comes down to a face off, or I'm in a fighting situation, I'm depending on my skills (either actual gamer skills or skills within the game) to maneuver behind my target, where assassins belong. If the game just auto faces them towards me again, my skills are wasted.

Remember that the old school "backstab" is not a factor here. So far as I can remember, you will need a friend to help you get "flank" bonus.

There could be an argument for lost "opportunity", I suppose, if they don't have to move around as much to get a bearing on you.

Goblin Squad Member

@Tigari, except as Ryan pointed out, the time for the character to turn to continue facing you is vanishingly small, compared to the "lag" the player may be experiencing due to comms or graphics rendering.

There may be in-game methods your character might have for gaining an advantage - but as outlined so far, PFO "Sneak Attacks" don't require you to be outside of the target's view.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Andius, would you have a problem with /assist if the character using it still had to have a clear line-of-sight to the target in order to do anything, and would hit obstacles in the way if they didn't? The main reason I don't have a problem with /assist is because in the real world humans (and dogs) are very adept at following others' gazes to see what they're looking at. There are myriad clues we give via body language, gestures, and eye contact that simply can't be modeled (yet) in any game.

I don't think it adds anything to combat. I absolutely hate games where group PVP becomes a matter of targeting the raid assist target and throwing off your biggest attack. I'd rather have a total mess but a well done formation system sounds even better.

There is nothing fun about spamming your biggest attacks and just hoping you don't get called as a high priority target.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I absolutely hate games where group PVP becomes a matter of targeting the raid assist target and throwing off your biggest attack.

Does it fundamentally change things for you if those players have to manually acquire the target?

Is the problem that everyone on one side is capable of hitting the same individual on the other? Or is it simply that /assist makes it too easy?

I can think of a number of ways to solve the problem other than removing /assist. Most notably, by giving Guards the ability to provide Cover for the Character they're Guarding, as long as they remain close.

Goblin Squad Member

My worry is not with a Sneak attack, or even an attacking bonus. It's as simple as, if I'm behind them, they can't hit me (or should be able to). This is the assassins way of fighting. not going face to face with your enemy. I'm okay with a larger "swing range" then normal. Maybe allowing most small weapons to give you a little over 180 Degrees, (185, 190 maybe?) then larger weapons going even further, but auto facing just seems like a lazy way of playing a game to me and ruins the fun to me. (assuming these are all opinions and just stating how WE would like the targeting systems to be:(.

As to lag, IDK what to say about that :S. Doing most of my PvP in WoW, where there's tab targeting, but no auto facing. Even with lag I never really had a problem with it.

There are many aspects of WoW PvP that I did not enjoy, and I would not call WoW pvp perfect. I even feel bad using it as a comparison as I hope PFO has its own PvP "experience". But it was the quickest thing that popped into mind as a reference.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
It's as simple as, if I'm behind them, they can't hit me (or should be able to).

I think you'll be forced to accept that won't be the case in PFO. The auto-facing is not what enables them to hit you, it's the artistic illusion that makes it believable (when presented on-screen) that they did hit you. What enables them to hit you is the design choice not to punish folks with low ping rates by making them unable to hit folks with high ping rates who also choose to maneuver to stay behind them.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:

My worry is not with a Sneak attack, or even an attacking bonus. It's as simple as, if I'm behind them, they can't hit me (or should be able to). This is the assassins way of fighting. not going face to face with your enemy. I'm okay with a larger "swing range" then normal. Maybe allowing most small weapons to give you a little over 180 Degrees, (185, 190 maybe?) then larger weapons going even further, but auto facing just seems like a lazy way of playing a game to me and ruins the fun to me. (assuming these are all opinions and just stating how WE would like the targeting systems to be:(.

As to lag, IDK what to say about that :S. Doing most of my PvP in WoW, where there's tab targeting, but no auto facing. Even with lag I never really had a problem with it.

There are many aspects of WoW PvP that I did not enjoy, and I would not call WoW pvp perfect. I even feel bad using it as a comparison as I hope PFO has its own PvP "experience". But it was the quickest thing that popped into mind as a reference.

I think that there will be some nifty things built in for assassins. They would not be workable otherwise. It may be that those other things (disguise, observation, whatever else) will make you forget all about the facing issues. They are making you wait for the best stuff, so it had better be pretty cool. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tigari wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
I want the game to auto-face me to be swinging or shooting in the right direction, even if the foe was behind me. I do not want to worry about aim or facing direction - AT ALL.

Anything but this :(

I'm pretty open to the targeting system and have enjoyed multiple types. Had a blast playing Tera/FF14 (twitch based), and have always enjoying the Tab Targeting of WoW. But to have the game auto-face you would ruin so much for me.

As an assassin, if it comes down to a face off, or I'm in a fighting situation, I'm depending on my skills (either actual gamer skills or skills within the game) to maneuver behind my target, where assassins belong. If the game just auto faces them towards me again, my skills are wasted.

Tabletop doesn't really even have a "behind the target". The more broadly-applicable problem with not auto-facing (once I have you targeted - not before) is that people start doing that circle-strafing and jumping crap that completely ruins immersion and makes the game twitchy (this is why I consider PvP in WoW to be twitchy and broken). I have reasons at a more personal level, but those are such an edge case that I doubt anyone cares. But those personal reasons could render this game unplayable for me if they make facing important. Positioning, sure. But not facing. And I have invested far too much time and money into this game already to not fight tooth and nail over features that could render me unable to participate.

Maneuvering behind the target should never matter. Flanking with an ally could. Perhaps even a cooldown ability that breaks targeting and allows you to maneuver - making the user re-target you before their auto-facing kicks in. That would provide an edge, but would prevent folks from spamming it into absurdity.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Perhaps even a cooldown ability that breaks targeting and allows you to maneuver - making the user re-target you before their auto-facing kicks in.

I would be okay with this, as it still gives me an optional skill to allow what I want. Even if it has a CD (or in the form of a larger amount of Stamina needed to use.) But the breaking of targeting is the big part of this. If you give me a skill for maneuvering, without breaking the targeting, the skill is useless.

See, with talking we can find stuff that works for all :D (or so I hope)

Another question real fast, and instead of making another post:

How does running and hopping around break immersion? Just make sprinting and jumping cost a small amount of stamina, and if people chose to spend their stam that way, so be it (and I don't see why you would jump, as that does nothing for you in any game I've really played, unless your talking about Dashes, which are normally limited).

There are many "weird" fighting styles out there that may not make 100% sense to us, but they work. that's all this is, is people finding a working way of fighting. (I will agree that this is an annoyance to me in WoW, BUT I think adding a stam use to sprinting would fix this)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Is the problem that everyone on one side is capable of hitting the same individual on the other? Or is it simply that /assist makes it too easy?

Too easy. A raid assist window makes it possible for someone to pick a target from among dozens of opponents and have enough people respond quickly enough that they are almost insta-dead. Faster than they may even get a chance to use a guard ability.

The part I hate most about this all is how it's really unique to MMO combat. In an actual conflict one arrow or spear thrust can kill so focusing all your firepower on a single soldier would be idiocy.

I think target assist should never even be implemented and formations should be most effective when using formation maneuvers which should focus more group vs. group style attacks and defenses.

Goblin Squad Member

I have to argue against the "too easy" argument. One man's "Not too easy" is another's "frustratingly difficult."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually like tab-targeting! But perhaps I'm just jaded from Darkfall's cumbersome UI and/or the button mashing of Guild Wars 2.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I have to argue against the "too easy" argument. One man's "Not too easy" is another's "frustratingly difficult."

Right but the problem is it makes something undesirable that should border on impossible "too easy". Something I'd rather not seen done at all. I don't care if it's frustratingly difficult to do stuff like that.

Goblin Squad Member

The game can be one that demands planning and tactics or it can twitch or even both. I vote for the first. From my older point of view the first is better. Not good at planning, pari up with some one who is. Not good at twitch -- um, make bots!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GW is on a shoe string budget and they don't have more than a handful of developers. Whatever is the easiest to program, but still does the job, is what the targeting system will be.

I'm fairly certain that will prove to be tab targeting in its most common (simplest) form. Would I prefer something a bit more dynamic, but not fully twitch based, sure I think most of us would.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think Bludd has drawn blood on this topic. ;) (pun so bad it's good?)

Here's an idea however for argument's sake:

1. Melee Rule: Must target nearest opponent
2. Engaged Rule: If engaged must face opponent if in engagement space

3. Ranged: If on even ground and LOS cannot target those behind in a field of view within range.
4. If on "high ground" can select target within range

I think those simple rules if combined with:

5. Formations that change the rules somewhat

Could make for interesting combat in theory.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.

Goblin Squad Member

Do we really know what tab-targeting does in PFO? It might only appraise you of where the target is or provide the target's status. We know friendly fire rules will be in effect, and area attacks will happen. It may be that by keeping the target targeted the player will gain something like auto-facing, but I infer that if I have someone behind me targeted, but I am actually facing my buddy Bluddworf at close range then if I trigger a skill attack it will likely hit Bluddwolf instead of my tabbed target, even if only glancingly.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.

Yes: The "overwhelmed" rule that sits between skirmish formation (ie non-formation) and formation itself ranked.

This would be the logical leap from those simple rules above. Anyway that's the theory.

I suppose devs have only concentrated on what is effectively skirmish (free/non-formation) to get that system going (no work on formation and how they tie up). But multiple attackers penalty would still be do-able at this stage of combat unless you can select to be a skirmish with fellows in a vicinity that modifies "surrounded".

Wonder how the devs have approach this?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Do we really know what tab-targeting does in PFO? It might only appraise you of where the target is or provide the target's status. We know friendly fire rules will be in effect, and area attacks will happen. It may be that by keeping the target targeted the player will gain something like auto-facing, but I infer that if I have someone behind me targeted, but I am actually facing my buddy Bluddworf at close range then if I trigger a skill attack it will likely hit Bluddwolf instead of my tabbed target, even if only glancingly.

No, not according to what the Devs have said previously. There are no "misses" of your intended target, only zero effect hits. The only "friendly fire" involves area effect attacks, and in those cases the fact that the friend is being hit is nit the result of a miss, it is the result of being in the area of the target radius.

I think it is a safe inference that there is auto facing, because when I brought up the issue if facing from the video, Ryan stated (paraphrased): in PFO the "facing towards a target" will be handled graphically and not mechanically. There will be the illusion of facing a target. That is at least how I understood his meaning.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.

Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.
Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

For melee attacks I could understand diminishing effective hit potential (attacks never miss, but don't always have effect), however ranged combat does not hold the same reasonable explanation.

With too many melee attackers, they could actually get in each other's way or they would have to be mindful of their swings so as not to hit each other accidentally (in theory not in game mechanics).

A target can however be hit by a dozen or more arrows, and there is no rational reason why they should not all have the same chance of hitting or each doing its maximum potential in damage.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.
Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

For melee attacks I could understand diminishing effective hit potential (attacks never miss, but don't always have effect), however ranged combat does not hold the same reasonable explanation.

With too many melee attackers, they could actually get in each other's way or they would have to be mindful of their swings so as not to hit each other accidentally (in theory not in game mechanics).

A target can however be hit by a dozen or more arrows, and there is no rational reason why they should not all have the same chance of hitting or each doing its maximum potential in damage.

I would agree, except that you have the same problem in mowing down with concentration of mundane missiles as you would with spells. If that is not a concern for the Devs, because it is a little different than AOE, I won't complain. It just seems kind of similar.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
I would agree, except that you have the same problem in mowing down with concentration of mundane missiles as you would with spells. If that is not a concern for the Devs, because it is a little different than AOE, I won't complain. It just seems kind of similar.

The trade off is usually, ranged / casters are very squishy in melee combat. If you can get under their firing arc, or wade through their direct fire in significant numbers, you will mow them down like wheat.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I would agree, except that you have the same problem in mowing down with concentration of mundane missiles as you would with spells. If that is not a concern for the Devs, because it is a little different than AOE, I won't complain. It just seems kind of similar.
The trade off is usually, ranged / casters are very squishy in melee combat. If you can get under their firing arc, or wade through their direct fire in significant numbers, you will mow them down like wheat.

Under their firing arch, how does that work with tab targeting?

The squishy problem/equalizer is well known. It may be a totally different thing if say, spells like "magic missile" don't have that damage nerf that they have indicated spells like "fire ball" will.

I am all for "bows" having some reality in the damage department to take their deserved place as dangerous weapons. Other games require so much investment in training (as does reality), but I suppose it is a balance issue.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
If you're being attacked by one or more characters in melee range, and your target is not one of those characters, I think you should take significant penalties to both your attack and your defense.
Thinking about this more, my intuition is that only two or three attackers should gain the benefits from attacking you while you're not targeting them. Any more than that and their attacks should start actually degrading. I think this should apply whether they're ranged or melee.

For melee attacks I could understand diminishing effective hit potential (attacks never miss, but don't always have effect), however ranged combat does not hold the same reasonable explanation.

With too many melee attackers, they could actually get in each other's way or they would have to be mindful of their swings so as not to hit each other accidentally (in theory not in game mechanics).

A target can however be hit by a dozen or more arrows, and there is no rational reason why they should not all have the same chance of hitting or each doing its maximum potential in damage.

Degrading attacks for multiple attackers isn't a nod to 'realism', it's intended to make concentrating attacks on one target an interesting decision rather than a foregone conclusion.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah, but if to many group up togeather, at what point do you decide that an AOE spell starts looking good, one for the many? if allowing your one team mate to possibly die (taking a friendly fire AoE hit) but allowing multiple enemies to get hit, could turn the tide of the whole battle, and not just that one fight.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like a meaningful decision point to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Speaking of meaningful, the tab-targeting also has to be meaningful for it to work intelligently and fluidly. All these new targeting system we've seen in GW2, Neverwinter, ESO(which I haven't played) and Wildstar demand a more modern fluid targeting system for PFO. Some of the questions that come into mind are:

Smart targeting: Having the option to choose whether skills automatically target and proc a nearest valid target even if no target is selected. Some of the not so well coded smart targeting systems I have seen unfortunately consider a dead mob valid in a sense that if you have a dead mob selected and a another mob is hacking you in the head with an ax just pressing a skill button isn't enough to change the target from the dead guy to the one with the ax. Can a character even have a dead mob as a tab-target?

Line of sight: Does tab-targeting include those mobs that are in the target box but not in line of sight or if you see them and want to target them anyway do you have to use the mouse?

Target-box: This is really important. How big is it? The length of the characters farthest reaching skill? How wide? a certain shaped cone or similar? It would be cool to see an image where the target box is displayed in relation to the character to have some kind of understanding of it. Maybe in a tutorial of sorts.

Goblin Squad Member

@Aeioun,

Those are good questions, you should copy and paste them in the Q&A sticky thread for a better chance at a response. :)

Goblin Squad Member

ESO targeting isn't tabbed but directional. The player has a crosshair type reticule. Any hostile in that crosshair is outlined red within a certain range. Your hotkeys are dimmed out for skills that are out of range or inappropriate. An exception is ground targeted skills like ranged AoEs. But if you trigger a skill within proper range it will fire, and if there is a hostile target in the way closer thn the one you intended it will be hit.

There is no friendly fire.

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds like Star Trek On line's "FPS" mode.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ESO can be played in FPS mode, but doing so is unwise if the player intends to engage in PvP. Habits are hard to break.

I prefer to run in first person in PvE but I have to school myself to play in third-person just to maintain some competence aiming in third person for the sake of situational awareness.

Otherwise I will only become aware of the nightblade when both of his daggers are plunged into my back.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Since I just can not play without tab-target : Can someone confirm to me if we officialy know something about it ?

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Since I just can not play without tab-target : Can someone confirm to me if we officialy know something about it ?

I'm fairly sure it's tab-target if you watch the vid from a month or two ago. Hopefully more on alpha soon.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't sure, cause I don't see a cursor ! :)

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Since I just can not play without tab-target : Can someone confirm to me if we officialy know something about it ?

Here's what we know so far:

We are looking at being tab targeting being the primary targeting method

There's also this which seems to reference tab-targeting as a fait accompli without coming right out and saying it:

Quote:
c) Targeting. Will tab-targeting cycle through only on-screen targets, on-screen + off-screen unstealthed targets, or all targets?

Uncertain at this time. For general purposes, though, even when stealth isn't a concern, you want to cycle only targets on screen so you don't accidentally acquire someone behind you that you didn't mean to aggro with your attack, so we're shooting for that.

Quote:
d) Cover. Will it be implemented (no need to go into how)? Will characters in cover be untargetable?
We'd like to, but we're uncertain how good it will be at this time. The goal is to do real line of fire checks on most things. Going into cover probably won't detarget you, but may prevent you from being acquired in the first place (if we can do a line of fire check for acquiring targets with tab), and ideally it will prevent ranged attacks from hitting you directly.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bookmarked for inclusion in the soon to be updated EE FAQ thread; and for new people to add new insight to the topic on hand. :)

I really, really, passionately hate targeting nodes while engaged in combat. I probably would feel the same on the subject of not being able to target and heal "red" party members if I where playing a cleric... :)

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Tab-Targeting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online