As of writing this, I've just started to (re)design the 3rd version of my combat system, this one more realistic and a lot more 'fair' than my old one. Why realism? Because I think it would be a lot more fun having a guy who has to climb up a giant and stab him in the neck rather than doing 999 damage to his 1000 HP-toe and killing him when his buddy does 1 damage.
Now I could make a long, long detailed list of the long, detailed formulas and stuff, but that would just bore you guys. So, I'm just gonna list the controversial issues and ask your opinion.
1. Bias towards certain stats
Now I won't hide it... Dexterity is THE most important stat in combat, followed by Strength (which does massive damage). Dexterity affects just about *everything* in combat. Which means more attack, more defense, more damage. And following my system, one can increase it as easily as other stats. I've somewhat balanced it by making it exponentially harder to increase stats, but that can be countered if the player decides to start off with a few lower stats.
Of course, all stats have their use, but the problem is if one player-killer decides lower all his other stats and focus it all in dexterity, he'll be damn tough to beat. I've also made it so that heavy armor lowers the max dexterity, but that doesn't counter the strength bonuses.
So... solutions: I can accept it and leave it as a 'rule/guideline on what to focus on', I can make it harder to increase the stat, or I could lower the bonus points from lowering everything else.
2. Simple form of damage
Damage = Momentum*sharpness
Not much of a problem, but the only drawback is that it leads to plenty of weapons doing the same amount of damage. Which somewhat counters my 'every weapon is unique' concept. Sure, they all function differently, but overall, the damage ends up the same.
3. The everyone can win concept
In this game, everything is a matter of skill and luck, kinda like real combat. It only takes one really nice hit, or a bunch of well positioned hits to take down someone. The problem is.. while a heroic human can take down a titan, a measly kobold can take down a heroic human. It's not likely, chances would be about 4% to hit the neck, 2% to bypass armor, 10% chance of striking a fatal neck blow, compared to the hero's 95% chance to hit, enough damage to kill with one blow.. but that means that the hero would die about 8 times per 10000 kobolds! Instantly.
OK, not as bad as what I first thought, but there's a base 50% chance to hit for two people of equal skill. Now let's say both of them had huge (and slow and very deadly) battleaxes, they'd have severe penalties to attack AND defense, and the slowness means they'll miss out on a lot of attacks, but it means that a hero will have about a 20% chance of taking a fatal blow when fighting someone equally heroic.
So... the question is: Would you guys mind spending days/months making an uber-powerful hero, only to have him die because the enemy uber-hero had a lucky roll of the dice? Of course, he'll be able to trash monsters and stuff, but even they have an occasional lucky roll.
Or would it be better because the players will think twice before getting a bounty on their heads? Oh, and regenerative magic also exists, so players can be resurrected and have their limbs grown back.. but that's assuming the cleric survives.
But on the positive side, it's has the bonus of what's great about real combat & sports. A person can have a million ways to plot tactics on how to get that lucky hit or at least defend himself from them. And while the slow battleaxes can cause nasty hits... they're prone to being bad on defense, especially against wrestler-type warriors.
Thanks for your time. BTW, if anyone has some idea on a combat idea that was never really implemented in a game, let me know.
Edited by the Author.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Now I could make a long, long detailed list of the long, detailed formulas and stuff, but that would just bore you guys.
Honestly I'd say that's a lost battle, guy.
1. Dexterity should go up as you level. This way the higher your level the higher the dexterity and players would have to put more focus on building up their other stats to be good. Your stats should have a strong point and a weak one unless you make all the stats even to be balanced.
3. I think if you really want to implement luck in the game. The higher the luck the better your chances of doing a critical. The critical would be based off your attack and multiplied by whatever. The chances of losing to someone a lower level should be none because that would defeat the whole purpose of leveling. Unless the players stats are an equal or greater match the other shouldnt stand a chance. Say a level 100 died from a lv1 all because they were lucky. I use to play Phanstasy Star Online 1 & 2. They later came out with a 3rd one but it was a card game. The whole game was based on the roll of a dice and luck. I was a lv10 and beat a lv300. I was happy of course but that should of never happened. It made the game bad because you could lose to noobs over luck. That's taking away the whole point of playing to get better.
Radix:
Yeah, but well, sometimes you just have to lower casualties.
Yami:
Oh, yeah, maybe I forgot to mention, but I'm trying to do away with the leveling concept. The player gets Combat XP and Non-Combat XP. Increasing a combat skill uses combat xp, etc, increasing an Attribute (dexterity, charisma, etc) uses a lot of both xps.
1. So, that dexterity going up by level doesn't really seem to be an easy option. The hard thing is that ALL the stats have a strong and weak point, dexterity basically affects everything in tiny bits, but the tiny bits can add up. Stats like say... appearance has one huge bonus, literally 'stunning beauty', but I'm kinda worried that many would opt to lose it because it *only* has one big bonus.
3. As it is, I made it so that critical hit chances already do increase naturally with skill. Hmm... but you gave me an idea. Perhaps I could make a critical fumble chance increase when someone fights someone much better, ala Fallout. A noob would be (more) reluctant to challenge a champion when the champion has a chance of breaking the noob's sword with a block.
But I guess on another note... here's a question:
Would a game be more fun if it was fair or would it be more fun if you could play it the way that suits your style?
Should I scrap the head-slicing moves and replace them with the boring hit, hit, hit, hit or go with my original plan of trying to let the player find a way to get a good slice at the head? The player could try to disarm, examine the armor for weak spots, grapple the opponent, trip him, etc, hoping to let the opponent's guard down.
It sounds fun and all, but the biggest problem would be that a smart beginner could take down a less intelligent veteran with 30+ hrs of playing time who focuses on dishing out as much damage as possible..
Edited by the Author.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
There is something that makes me wonder. You're a conceptual guy Muz, but we never really see anything that you create. You're always full of ideas and stuff, and create big forum posts telling us about these ideas, but we never see them! Sorry if it sounds like I'm being nasty, I don't mean to be, but is it really worth the hassle of us answering if in the next few weeks you decide to either restart or quit again?
Why don't you show us some screenshots of stuff you do?
No offense taken. Honestly, I've tried to patch together a demo a few days ago, but apparently my bro messed up my comp at home to the point it won't start and beating him up for an hour didn't do anything to help. I do have some stuff I did for the 1st version (char, wpn, armor editors). Also one of the 2nd version: Engine test in C++, maybe can't run because of some unclosed brackets, and I'll have to document the commands so you can use it. They're *somewhere* on my site, along with the full Version 2+ design document.
But well, I haven't bothered searching for it, posting the link, much less documenting it coz most of you would probably not bother to figure out how to download a file from Tripod. For anyone who would bother to look at it, at least show thy devotion by sending me a mail about it .
"..is it really worth the hassle of us answering if in the next few weeks you decide to either restart or quit again?"
LOL, something I've been personally wondering myself. I tend to post these things because I've looked at my problems from a dozen angles, but occasionally some of you people notice another problem from an angle I've never considered.
But most of the time, some of you find a problem that really isn't a problem at all (interface problems, gfx, etc) and I tend to work so hard trying to fix the non-problem that I just give up on the game . And worst of all, it's not the give up as in not ever working on it again, it's the "give up because everything I do makes the f***ing interface uglier" or the "I'm too lazy to comment on my physics engine thing after getting confused by the comments on the article on physics I wrote".
So, yeah, it might not really be worth the hassle of answering, but strangely enough, I tend to get a lot of good ideas trying to explain the system in itself. So... well, thanks to all! Lol.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
.
. And worst of all, it's not the give up as in not ever working on it again, it's the "give up because everything I do makes the f***ing interface uglier" or the "I'm too lazy to comment on my physics engine thing after getting confused by the comments on the article on physics I wrote".