quote:Original post by Trigomaq .......I prefer turn-base. You''re right. The more complex the better, but I don''t see anything complex about a real-time battle system. You just run across and field, take out your sword and repeatedly press A to get pass the skeletons(example taken from Zelda: OoT).
Yes, that happens a lot in many real-time based combat systems. But, it can become a real-time combat system which takes more than just that. Diablo 2 for example (I know it wasn''t an RPG, but it''s a good example of a complex real-time battle).
quote:Original post by Trigomaq Turn-base requires more thinking, more strategizing. The kids in our world are getting dumber and dumber by the minute. We designers need to construct games that require a great deal of thinking. Mindless fun is in the past man. Time is passing and we need for our games to be more complex. Trust me, its better for the world.
I agree.
Civilization 3 just came to my mind.
quote:Original post by Village Specialton I prefer real-time. And the complex the beter. For example, I hate turn-based. Errors happen. Turns get skipped and doubled. I know this from Pokemon. Real time is the norm. I feel also that the more complex, the better. For example, some people hate rules like ''If an archer is on ground that is higher than the opponent, he gains an attack bonus and takes reduced damage from ranged units below him'' and so on. But I think this makes it better.
I don''t know where to start...
"Turns get skipped and doubled." - I''m sure the designers intended that to attempt to encorporate some strategy elements into the game. "I know this from Pokemon" - So that means that every turn-based battle system is like that? ............
- Rob Loach Current Project: Go Through Object-Oriented Programming in C++ by Robert Lafore
It''s hard to know what to pick in games. When you go with a strict realtime system, you''re often reduced to who can mash the attack and potion buttons the fastest, such as Baldur''s Gate: Dark Alliance. With tactical turn based games, you''re often reduced to the big gun effect. This means that you have found a combination of tactics either by tutor, by luck or chance, or by a burst of skill, that is either a 90:10 chance for win:defeat or 100:0. An example of this is Ogre Battle 64. My lead team had a gladiator and a knight with two sorceresses that had morale so high they cast plasma ball every time. Rarely did it take more than one hit to defeat a "boss" character and his entire group. It really ruins a game when you find a combination like this, because it forces the player to make a choice between guarenteed winning and the meat of your game. Trust me when I say that many gamers are vegetarians.** Back to realtime, many maneuvers and tactics are considered cheap. Using a battle engine like this allows a person to time their hits so exactly that they''re never touched by the enemy, or they level one ability to the point where using it ends the skirmish. The point of all that, in case you''re a speed reader or just don''t like me, is that both of the engines have advantages but they also have huge disadvantages that destroy a game.
What should be done is for the creator to analyze a fight. Watch real people fighting, with wrestling (pro OR col), ultimate fighting, movies, television.. and really discover what it takes for a fight to be a FIGHT. Then take this knowledge and incorporate it in an engine that forces a player to learn to fight in your world, knowing full well that cheap tricks and twinky moves won''t save him forever. Give the sense that your character is always an inch from death, that no matter how strong you get there''s something stronger waiting to snatch you up and pop you like a pimple. In the same breath, it must be mentioned that there also needs to be a sense of development. What use is leveling up a character, if the only result is that enemies level accordingly? The player would never fully get to enjoy their newfound strength. An approach to this problem would be skills and items that add new elements to the battle, that can be useful when mastered. The ninja rope in Worms games is a perfect example of a tool that r0x0r5 73h b0x0r5 4nd j00r 50x0r5 when mastered. You CAN win battles by not using it, but more often than not you will be destroyed for not using it. Then, when you master it through practice, you become a ninja kung fu master worm capable of delivering the explosive ninjitsu beatdown with a zero delay holy hand grenade, because you can escape it with the rope. It''s an abstract method of getting to my point, but I think it works. Sort of. Anyway, include things that the player will absolutely enjoy when earned and mastered. Such as, a shuriken that does absolutely no damage when used head on, but drains an opponent''s power as it scathes by. It also sticks into the wall to deliver this effect to whoever comes near it. Or an explosive that works mildly well when hurled at your opponent, but is better used to collapse that teetering rock surface onto his cranium. It might require more work on your part, but it''ll be better for the game.
If you skipped this whole post, essentially I said that think about what fighting is, incorporate it into a game, and give the sense that you''re fighting for survival instead of experience points.
quote:Original post by Anonymous Poster Then, when you master it through practice, you become a ninja kung fu master worm capable of delivering the explosive ninjitsu beatdown with a zero delay holy hand grenade, because you can escape it with the rope.
::drool::
man i love the ninja-rope zero-delay-HHG beatdown move.... that was a GREAT game
......I don''t know man. I''d rather have turn-base in my games. I seriously oppose realtime. Sorry, I just do.
Here are some of the things in the game I''m designing:
TG(Time Guage): I think this idea was taken from Crono Trigger(I''m not sure, one of those legendary RPG games have this). Where you''re presented with a color bar(which I labeled as TG) and you do as many attacks as possible until the bar(TG) expires.
TG Mode: This mode gets initiated during combat when the player chooses "attack"(working label).
Climatic Combos: Of course during your attack time in TG mode you can connect single/simple attacks to form "combos"(nothing new). Climatic Combos are a little different though. The longer your combo, the more damage you do. For example, lets say your character throws two punches one after the other. The second punch will do more damage than the first punch(forget total damage of the combined two punches). Why add this in the game? Gives an advantage to those characters with a high TG level(TG level governs how long the actual TG will be).
Character Mergers/Transformations: I don''t understand why more RPGs don''t have this. It''s a cool feature to me. Being able to transform into a hyper-andriod-like beast during combat is awesome. Also merging with characters to double stats. This is my favorite idea for some reason(merger idea taken from Crono Trigger and transform idea sorta taken from Xeno Saga/Gears).
"....If heaven was around the way.......a fiend who wants to get high, would he stop smoking? Knowing on his own two feet we could just stroll in......and escape from craziness and I bet you theres a heaven for an atheist." - Nasir *NaZ* Jones(courtesy of "God''s Son")
http://www.zoonation.cjb.netZ-Unit- A online game development organization lead by me. Our first project has yet been determined and we're currently looking for programmers and artist.
My text RPG is turn-based. However, the intervals of turns depend on the agility stat of the character and the enemy. A secondary battle-interval stat is derrived from agility. A counted loop goes through numbers, and whenever a number that is a multiple of your battle interval comes up, you attack.
Hard to Say, as i think any mention of combat system requires a mention of the interface and camera control... For example i love the bushido blade-ish combat system. If it were fleshed out with special moves gained through a diablo like tree it would be great. However to implement that a keyboard cannot be used, and how many players want to play on a gamepad? The camera required would have to be very smart as more than one opponent would be on screen. The interface holds me back but thats my ideal combat system in a few sentences.
The issue with any turnbased "rpg" style combat system is that for the most part, they''re annoying because the developer has no concept of the interval at which battles should be played. Just because you worked hard, and are in the mindset that your battle engine is great fun and every gamer will love it does not mean it''s fun fifty battles (which amounts to approximately two steps in some games, augh) later. Add to the annoyance formula with boring repetitive action because you''ll never have to change your strategy (seeing as clicking that attack button with the occasional spell [read: those elements of strategy you tried so hard to implement] always works), and suddenly what could''ve been a great component to your game has become a tragic flaw. I''m sorry, but I''ve never played any turn based game save maybe FFT that required me to even consider changing my play style. It basically amounts to the same problems MMO''s have with user created content being the gold of the game: most people don''t want to have to make your game fun. You should''ve done that for them.
On the other side of this coin however, I must also say that turn based systems aren''t innately evil because of the flaws every single game made with a similar system has, but I do need to point out that most of your ideas of what a "good" turn based system are need to be destroyed, drug out in the road and shot, or what have you and then be rebuilt. You can''t just get by on copying what Square has done, anymore.
Some suggestions:
* Terrain considerations. Not only should certain attacks be particularly USELESS in some conditions (Ever try hitting something with a great war-axe in the forest?) but they should also prove to be fatal decisions in many cases. Not to say you should end the game on the arrival of the axe-wielding maniac, but it should be taken into account that any swinging motions or marksmanship attempts are either hindered by trees or crap visibility. Along with this, some techniques should get terrain bonuses. For example, in an area with little room for movement, stabbing weapons should be more effective. The enemy wouldn''t normally be able to guard himself as well, so it makes sense that a quick jab to an unguarded area would do extra damage. You could also go the elemental root and have certain spells become more effective etc.
* Enemy considerations. If you hit a rock shelled enemy with your mighty bastard sword of doom death and destruction.. you''ll probably break it. Go outside, get a stick, and whack a rock with it if you want a demonstration of this. Metal can and WILL break just as easily, in a real combat situation. So we return to the point of how to destroy our rockbound foe. Sledgehammer sense is tingling! Over the summer I had to extend an opening to the basement of a neighbor''s house so we could fit a wheelbarrow under there. What did we use to take out the brick? A 20 pound hammer! So what should you use to crack open an insolent rockshelled fiend? A BIG hammer, that''s what! And next, do you REALLY think you''re going to hurt that dragon with your measly dagger? Uh, no, you''ll barbecue. So you need something that you can run up and ram through that sucker''s chest, and put him in his bed for good. And if it''s a flying dragon, how effective is anything melee based going to be? Unless you set up a system that makes it so the dragon lands every few turns, your big nasty battle axe is going to need to sprout some wings, because I darn well know *I''M* not going to jump fifteen feet into the air with a 30 pound axe.
* Weaponry considerations. Sure, it might be fine and dandy to use the character as PART of what decides how often he attacks, but shouldn''t you also take into account what he''s using? For an example of this, go outside and get a stick. Whack something five times as fast as you can. (Yes, most of my demonstrations will include hitting things, get used to it >:D ) Then rest, and a few minutes later get a heavy rock and try to bash something five timse at the same speed. Unless you cheated and got a very light rock (IE, same or almost the same weight as the stick), you were definately slowed down. I know that I can''t hit something with a sledgehammer nearly as fast I can with a bamboo pole, and this sort of weapon delay should be taken into account in your battle engine. Somebody using an insanely large weapon won''t have the detail of control that a dagger wielding stabbity guy will, no matter how inhuman they may be.
* Consider strength and endurance. Have you ever worn anything close to a suit of plate mail? I don''t care HOW conditioned your warrior is, he''s going to get TIRED. On top of that, moving around constricted by conjoined metal slabs (probably feels like a coffin in some cases) is going to be tough. Dodging might consist of just falling over, in fact! Have you ever wondered why knights preferred horseback? I''ll tell you now: it wasn''t because they thought it was cool. Then on top of dodging enemy attacks and/or absorbing them like an idiot, your great and powerful warrior has to fight back. Unless he intends to bludgeon the poor son of a gun by falling over on him, he''s going to be swinging or shooting something. A sword is about 5-8 kilos (~10 to ~17 pounds american), a hammer something more (that 20lb sledgehammer I <3 <3 <3 is ~9 kilos) and your man is going to get tired using them. An implementation of this could be that his attacks get fewer and/or weaker as the battle rages on, putting a greater emphasis on turns that accomplish something.
These are just a few suggestions off of the top of my head, but many more things could be taken into consideration to add to the game. And I don''t mean do these "with typical moderation," I mean have the player crap his pants trying to figure out how to win battles because many of them are hard. I must also say this justifies extreme, unwieldly learning curves and insta deaths among other things. There should be a set of enemies designed to give the player a breather, and there should be a set of enemies designed to STOP that breathing. I could get into magic and how it should probably work, but that''d be another ten pages and I get the feeling you guys are tired of me by now anyway.
-Bajiroshi (I posted that previous long post under anonymous, because I wasn''t registered at the time)
Bajiroshi, I agree with a lot of what you''re saying. I think terrain and weapon considerations can add a great bit of strategy and not really slow down the game. Thats why I think characters should be able to carry multiple weapon types, and be able to change during battle. There could be weight limits and proficiency with different types as well.
I also like the idea of using the weapon to determine how often a person attacks. That''s kind of what I was getting at with my described system of each action taking time to execute and recover from. It was also meant to include magic as well.
Adding more strategy would be a great way to improve current RPGs. I''m sick of mashing the attack button in every game just to get through the fight and continue with the story.
Bajiroshi and cgoat, i agree that the terrain bonuses/penalties and weapon considerations greatly add to strategy. The only new thing that i am really interested in is mainly the terrain thing, as the rest is pretty implemented to death. What is more important though is that Bajiroshi, you brough up an important point. Battle frequency with any system can make it boring. The way to get around this isnt too simple. You cant stop a player from hunting one type of monster, but you can try... Like what i expect diablo to do with patch 1.10 and somewhat how hell is right now. If you rely on one skill in some parts of the game you cant kill things because of physical and elemental immunities. Though rather than make the game fun and combat different the effect was just to anger the player. Actually, i havent said much, just rambling... thinking....
If I was designing a real-time combat system, I would keep it real simple, but at the same time try and bring it closer to what realistic combat is like. I'm not saying that it has to be real, but atleast give it more depth than, *attack* *attack* *attack* *enemy dies* *collect phat lewt*.
On the other hand if it were a turn-based combat system, I would focus on making the UI as stream lined as possible, and make the system very detailed. That way, for people who want to dive into the system they have the option, but on the surface it's still simple and fast enough for the average player.
Things to consider from Real Life: -Movement, positioning, evasion: these are extremely important in combat. If you fight like Diablo, or in any of the MMOGs then don't expect to live past your first fight. It looks stupid, and gets exeedingly boring.
-Life, HPs, ect: this depends on your style. IF you want comic/wrestling/anime style fights then go for huge HP. You'll gain a lot of younger fans. The low HP + high evasion games are rare probably because nobody can make them fun enough for the public. Action Quake tried this, and most people haven't heard of the game, but it was great fun.
-Techniques: in real life there are a lot of different techniques, not an infinite number, but a hell of a lot. In real-time you cannot have that many unless you make the controls like a fighting game, while in turn-based you can have em all but it is going to slow down the combat.
-Combos: these things take a little while to learn, and you can't just throw all your techniques out and hope for the best. You have to train these things. Most combos are about setting up your opponent for that final blow, not stringing damage like in Killer Instinct.
