battle system

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-04 11:40:41

Since there was talk about the battle system in the magic system thread, I started a new thread here to avoid confusion. Now, the way I see battle should be done would be so that a player would first attack a monster, after which he would repeatedly pound on it unless otherwise indicated. For each swing at the monster, appropriate skill checks would be made (for example, if the hit was succesfull to begin with, the effect of armor if so, possible damage to armor, possible special effects of the hit etc). The general approach of the character could be decided either before combat or during combat, for example one could regulate how aggressively he would fight, where to hit, and one could possibly regulate the amount of damage he wants to inflict (this could be useful if an opponent should only be hurt enough to make it run away or something). These "battle approaches" (coined a new term here) could be named. For example, "Spar" could be one (limited damage, accurate hits, good defence), "Dwarven Berserk" another (head on, no defence, no mercy!), "Merciful Defender" another (all defence, only limited damage counter attacks) etc. I'm sure someone would be able to come up with a lot of names for techniques such as this by digging up correspondencies from the cultures and divinites we have here (a nice task for a designer). This doesn't mean an elf couldn't fight in dwarf berserker mode though. This could then be intermixed with special combat techniques that could be applied at whatever given time in combat. These would always have very specific effects in both success and failure. They would be skills in the classic sense, so they could be trained etc. Different skills would be available for different weapons against different armor types, creatures and battle approaches. Examples would be "Djasimite Whirlwind Blade" (3 quick hits in the head that would inflict serious damage and attempt to stun an opponent), "Orc Cuts The Tree" (one enormous axe swing with the attempt of finding a weak spot in the opponent's armor), "Gnomish Flash" (an attempt to confuse an opponent, when done extremely well the opponent would hit himself) etc. UI-wise, these skills could be represented as icons that could be clicked on, and they would then form a queue in a combat skill spool, which would be a list of the icons selected (so there you have your macros). Clicking on the icon in the queue again would remove it from the queue. I would very much like people to comment on this and come up with even more details and features that would be contribute to the variety of combat.

From: gxest
Date: 2002-01-14 16:21:33
In-Reply-To: 101

Yorka, yes i think you're right, single approach without the possibility to tune it yourself would be the way to go when thinking of roleplaying. but let me just point out, that i corrected the % thing at a later message, i meant that the percents should be in the code, and the user would see only sliders without numbers. but i guess even that wouldn't be fitting.

From: Horza
Date: 2002-01-14 16:20:07
In-Reply-To: 101

No. But I could develop my own effective battle technique if I had diffrent kinds of opponents to fight with.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-14 16:14:21
In-Reply-To: 101

Horza, I don't agree. If I shipped you to a desert island for five years and told you to learn the mariposa, or the meia lua de compasso, would you be able to teach them to yourself?

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-14 16:13:02
In-Reply-To: 101

No, the character can't only use one predefined way of fighting, he uses a number of predefined ways of fighting. It seems I haven't been able to clarify why this is so, so I'll attempt to just that.

At first it may seem that pre-defining combat approaches would mean stripping features, but I do not see it that way. Justifications include, but are not limited to:

• A named combat approach has a story. Stories connect with other stories, and stories in general are good in a game where content is important. Content in the form of details is important, because it's the only way a player can grasp his character and the world he lives in. If a combat approach is named "dwarven berserker", then that means that dwarven berserkers must fight like the name justifies. For the enterprising berserker-wannabe, this is the only way to go. It is a certification of authenticity for the player. Even when a character is not a dwarven berserker, I'm sure a player will have an image in his head of a knee-high bearded bloke maniacally bashing away with his relatively enormous double-axe, and that will also help him understand what this means in regards to the advantages and the hindrances of his approach.
• A named combat approach is field tested. If a combat approach is called "light sparring", then that means that a character can, and SHOULD, safely assume that his practicing partner will not get accidentally cracked at the head because he turned the wrong knob in the wrong direction.
• A named battle approach hides the numbers. Let me just begin by saying that generally speaking it is a bad idea to represent things in numbers when it comes to role-playing. The only justifiable reason for it would be if an individual character's performance precedes in importance the player's sense of belonging, believability and realism received from the world. For games such as Diablo, where this is THE issue to purse, twiddling can be considered a necessity. For games such as a Majik, however, this is a hindrance. For many people, nothing is associated with numbers other than math class, and finding a proper scale in things such as this where measurement takes place is always difficult.
• A named battle approach brings closer the player and the character. Like in everything, the player and character should have a common terminology. The player is not likely to have a very captivating impression about his character if he is fighting with 20% in this and 20% in that. I doubt a fantasy role-playing game character even knows what a "percentage" is!
• A named battle approach is a single entity that can be treated as one. A simple farmer might not have the GUTS to fight in dwarven berserker mode, and even if he did, I don't really think someone not well versed in the arts of combat could successfully divide different aspects of combat with as much precision as a master swordsman. By naming them, we can isolate them.

From: Horza
Date: 2002-01-14 16:06:36
In-Reply-To: 101

		I think you should be able to learn everything without a teacher but it takes a lot more of practising and field experience than learning  from a teacher so you wold most likely recieve teaching instead of learning all by yourself.
		

From: namhas
Date: 2002-01-14 15:48:31
In-Reply-To: 101

Shouldn't all be able to learn to do (quite) everything without needing a master or teacher? Thus, how could one learn named combat maneuvers without a teacher?

From: gxest
Date: 2002-01-14 15:28:53
In-Reply-To: 101

		i see your point, but it seems a bit weird idea
		that a character could only use one predefined way
		of fighting, not make up his own combination of
		twiddling with the aspects of combat.
		
		i didn't mean we should even consider the attack-defence
		thing.
		
		and now come to think of it, showing the exact percentage
		of that time-management thing to players, would suck, they
		should get the same thing in sliders.
		

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-14 15:19:46
In-Reply-To: 101

I still will not accept any type of manual twiddling in this matter. The characters choose an approach, and that's it. Otherwise this would lead to constant minmaxing and would only confuse people.

Combat approaches need to be named, designed and pre-defined so they would seem "field tested" and realistic, contribute to the role-playing (game content) aspect of the game, and some new approaches could be learned much like item blueprints.

Further, the attack-defence slider is a definite no-no, you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

From: gxest
Date: 2002-01-14 14:52:57
In-Reply-To: 101

		small idea: the "Combat Approach" variables could be
		done considering the time you use for the combat
		(as seen in Icesus and some other games)
		example:
		
		Avoid Hits 10% (max  78%)
		Reduce Damage 20% (max  50%)
		Attacking 50% (max 70%)
		Damage infliction 20% (max 30%)
		Casting spells 0% (max 5%)
		
		in here 100% is the maximum amount of time
		you can use in combat "turn" (not implying we should
		have concrete turns)
		and you can distribute those 100 points among 
		"approaches" you have learned, limited by the MAX
		points you can use to it. the max amount would increase
		through training.
		
		Yes, this is a rip-off, but the concept is so good, it's
		worth stealing ;)
		
		The alternative for this would be the above
		mentioned
		attack <-------||--> defence
		slider, which is basically a simple version of
		the time-management system.
		

From: phunky
Date: 2002-01-10 03:06:48
In-Reply-To: 101

wouldnt a more "behind the scenes" queue be just as effective? for example, instead of a physical queue on the UI, when a special ability is clicked it will execute. if the player clicks on different abilities before the first is completed, the abilities are stored outside of the UI and executed in turn.. i think we should make it a goal to make the UI as unobtrusive, simple and sleek as possible, and having a "special ability spool" in the interface doesnt seem useful enough to warrant it's being there. how would such a feild in the UI directly help the player? they know what they clicked..

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-08 10:54:55
In-Reply-To: 101

Yes, this is now decided then. Finally I'm able to put a stamp on something :)

From: darshan
Date: 2002-01-08 09:23:07
In-Reply-To: 101

That's it.

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-01-08 04:27:01
In-Reply-To: 101

you would be able to, but this way you would also be able to chain moves together. that way, as soon as one move's animation ended, you would automatically execute the next. we could even make special combinations that end up turning into a whole new move, if we wished.

From: phunky
Date: 2002-01-08 02:24:48
In-Reply-To: 101

in other words, the battle system will be similar to runescape's in that you arent physically swinging every blow, but merely picking a strategy and having the battle governed by your choice, but with the addition of special abilities? now, so once an ability is selected and put into queue, im assuming it will be immediately executed and then the other queued abilities one after the other.. wouldnt it be more practical to simply click an ability and have it executed?

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-01-08 00:59:09
In-Reply-To: 101

I see your point. So something like "dwarven berserker" would me the all-out maniacal attack, hard hitting and non-stop. something like "cowering rabbit" would be complete defence and speed. but we would have other modes that would have a combination of defence and speed to get close (or far, as the situation dictates) and then a sudden burst of berserker-style attack

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-01-07 11:59:14
In-Reply-To: 101

I am specifically trying to AVOID the attack-defence slider bar for the simple reason that it is boring, unimaginative and not even believable. One can fight passively and hit hard at the same time; in fact it is much more practical and common than hitting hard AND actively (this can be learned from whatever real life combat sport/martial art). Usually, only beginners and maniacs hit hard and actively, because it has a tendency of wearing down the combatant before the real fight even begins. And despite what scenario we will be using, it would contribute to the role-playing aspect of the game to have named battle approaches. Raymond E. Feist is the best example I can think of whose writing style is basically just doing this in all his stuff. He isn't necessarily the most inventive or imaginative of fantasy writers, but he manages to somehow freshen up all the old fantasy cliches by solidly connecting them to his world, as well as presenting so much small details on every subject that the effect is twice as powerful.

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-01-05 22:57:07
In-Reply-To: 101

where you said "regulate the amount of damage", I like that. You could choose how hard to hit and things like recovery time would be influenced accordingly. There was another game being developed called Dawn (calcelled for now) that had something in addition to that, too. They had a setting for "lethal/non-lethal damage". It you wanted to spar with someone to train (exhibition-style) you could make it so that you can't kill them accidentally, only wound them, and then they could be easily healed. And for the different "battle approaches", how about having a slider bar to choose the level of attack/defense eg:

attack <-------||--> defence

From: beregar
Date: 2002-01-14 16:24:23
In-Reply-To: 101

First a bit about battle system:

Actually I like the idea where certain combat maneuvers are executed by combining different attack styles in a row. I think there's no reason to make bat style move skills because it soon turns out that "kick" is a skill in which you have to be trained before you can use it. This would allow as to use only general attack skills such as sword-style, axe-style which is good since it seems to be general design direction anyway with crafting skills too (only skills like metalworking, boneworking etc, no skills like create sword etc).

The best combination problem could be solved by auto counter routines. A defending player really can not react to chained attack that fast so we should allow some defensive routines which the defensive character could use automatically depending on the character's current battle style. So player using a dwarven berserker style wouldn't be able to defend himself as easily as could one using style merciful defender.

Other solution is simply to make also attack routines and choosing them like "hummingbird kisses a honey rose" and watch when characters whack eachother to pieces :). Only problem is that then there wouldn't be much for players to do in combat.

Then a bit about skill learning:

I think everyone should be able to teach themselves and up to the highest skill rank too. After all, in real life you eventually reach a level where only you can teach yourself, whether you have started learning the thing all by yourself or if someone teaches you. I agree that learning is a lot quicker when you have a teacher but eventually you are so good that your current teacher has teached everything to you and you have to either find a new teacher who knows more or start training by yourself. I recall that this has always been the case in Majik skill design or am I wrong?

I think we should be careful while implementing skills as not to implement anything unuseful or plainly stupid. Otherwise we end up having skills like "knowledge: blah" which is of no use since it is the real player's knowledge that matters; kick, does anyone really think that someone doesn't know how to kick? etc etc. It is good to remember the phrase which we use about playing in Majik: You don't play Majik, you live in there. To me this means that the character and the player are same, in mental level. Player knows what its character knows and vice versa.

Beregar