Just to address some concerns

quote:
Just making the decision who to attack and watching the characters act that out can be boring!

It can be is true, that''s why you will have the option to change their actions in mid fight, it just won''t be so much based on player skill, just ressing a different key or moving. However...

quote:
If the combat animation was a lot more realistic or Matrix/Muskateer like, players would be a lot happier just to sit back and watch the proceedings.

...This _is_ the type of detail that will be worked into the game! And the best part is the player will have the option to refine the techniques to their desires and _make_ their character as skillful in their mastery as they would expect to be, especially at higher levels of experience! Sort of a pre-programming system that has default actions tat can be altered individually by the player. For instance:

Forward -
- Attack 1 - Verticle Slash (default - lvl 1)
- Attack 2 - Horrizontal Slash 2 (default - lvl 2)
- Attack 3 - Parry (default option)
- Defend 1 - Verticle Attack - Block (default - lvl 1)
- Defend 2 - Horrizontal Attack - Block (default - lvl 1)
- Defend 3 - Parry (default option)

...Can Be...

Forward -
- Attack 1 - Dodge Left, Vertical Slash (lvl 3 Fighting Tech. + lvl 2 Defensive movement)
- Attack 2 - Double Stab 1, Elbow to Head (lvl 2 Fighting Tech. + lvl. 2 Hand to Hand Tech.)
- Attack 3 - Flipover 1 (lvl. 2 Evasion Tech.)
- Defend 1 - Steel Press vs. Vertical Slash (lvl 4 Fighting/Counter Tech.)
- Defend 2 - Jump/Dodge Horrizontal Attack (lvl 1 Defensive Movement)
- Defend 3 - Parry (default option)

This way, during a fight the character will use the chosen techniques as properly as they can, without you needing to specify it before they do it (though you can change to a different set as an option in mid-fight) and it will also be great to watch as two or more comatants test their skills against one another

This is not the finished combat set though, just an example!

- Chris

This is a very interesting topic, but I just thought of a good idea for handling combat in a 3rd person view, and since I''m at work I don''t have time to read through the whole thread.

I''m not sure if this would work for mass combat, or even more than one opponent. This is a system to improve hands-free combat (like in many MMORPGs) where the character does all the work, and all the player does is target, and handle things like retreating, healing, special attacks, etc. Basically this system is purely visual, but should hopefully go a long way to make hands-free combat look more appealing.

Combat is broken into two stages: Attack and Defend. The opposing characters'' Attack Speeds determine how often they get to attack vs. defend. When Character A attacks, Character B is defending. The animations the characters go through is choreographed (depending on the weapons used by the characters) -- in other words, if Character A is using a swords-style attack animation involving a right-to-left slice move, and his opponent successfully defends, the opponent''s animation would involve using his weapon to block the slice move. This combat style would be very dynamic and could move very fast, giving the whole fight a fluid feel.

****************************************

Brian Lacy
ForeverDream Studios

Comments? Questions? Curious?
brian@foreverdreamstudios.com

"I create. Therefore I am."

combat... Well, I''m a turn-based fan as far as RPGs go. When I''m playing an action/arcade game, then I expect to have to challenge my reflexes. In an adventure or RPG, that''s not what I want - I''m playing mostly for the story.

QFG4 (Sierra) had a handy ''Strategy Mode'' for those of us who''re fairly crap at combat to be able to set AI controls for the character and let the computer handle it. In a game that''s all about combat, this would be boring, but since this *isn''t* all about combat, making the arcade-reflexes optional is nice.

Fallout had turn-based and the fun of called shots. Nothing like getting that 99% hit-chance over a target''s eyes or genitals to make you grin - and the descriptions of the HORRIBLE PAIN you inflicted on your adversaries. So yeah, turn-based with strategic options like called shots and burst-fire made combat interesting for me.

I like the strategy of turn-based. I like being able to sit back and think over how the last round went and what I might need to do differently. I like knowing when my commands will be carried out (which Fallout was very good about!) That''s one of the problems with NWN''s combat system... a player command submitted at the wrong point in the ''round'' (and you can''t tell what the round IS) may be wiped out and ignored by the computer''s default AI - how many times have we died while frantically clicking "Drink healing potion, idiot!" over and over again and having the character ignore you?

IMO, turn-based (and party-turn-based) allows for harder and more-complicated battles because you can time and coordinate your actions more precisely. Frantic clicking doesn''t leave much room for thought. I receive a much greater feeling of accomplishment from carefully positioning my party around the dragon and coordinating our efforts of fighting and running to keep it from being able to focus too much on any one person, therefore all coming out alive... than I do from my single character clicking on the dragon until it dies.

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
combat... Well, I''m a turn-based fan as far as RPGs go. When I''m playing an action/arcade game, then I expect to have to challenge my reflexes. In an adventure or RPG, that''s not what I want - I''m playing mostly for the story.
...
IMO, turn-based (and party-turn-based) allows for harder and more-complicated battles because you can time and coordinate your actions more precisely. Frantic clicking doesn''t leave much room for thought. I receive a much greater feeling of accomplishment from carefully positioning my party around the dragon and coordinating our efforts of fighting and running to keep it from being able to focus too much on any one person, therefore all coming out alive... than I do from my single character clicking on the dragon until it dies.

Agreed, that''s why I shown the Grandia 2 battle system, an improvement over turn based is that it''s realtime, with freezing when you have to select a character action.
That allows you more subtle speed improvement of the character (don''t step from one to two actions a ''round'')

Since you can place the characters (unlike FF) around the dragon, you get additional bonus and avoid everyone being caught in area of effect spells/effets (fire breath...)

I don''t like either the idea on relying on player skills to win, well you already rely on its understanding of the story, involvement in the game to understand game mechanics, and other abilities, no need to require even more skills.


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

Ingenu--

quote:
Now that you said all that was wrong, what about designing something that would be good ?

I''ve ideas, and basic system designs on paper. But that''s another thread... Besides, I started this thread not to complain about the rules and the systems of mathimatically/systematically figuring out combat, but rather to tell future developers to make combat atleast LOOK good. A lot of the systems in use today are good representations/simulations of combat, but they still look like Rock-''em-Sock-''em Robots.

I''ll work on a brief design document for a combat system that *I* think accurately represents real combat. I don''t want to get too detailed, however, because any time I do I get too bogged down with the numbers and give up. :-)


Right, and I completely agree with making basic dodge instincts more efficient through training.. When I''m fencing, I can dodge by taking a very small leap backwards so the tip of my opponents blade misses by just a couple inches. Whereas the untrained individual would jump back as far as possible. The reason? It puts me in a much better (closer) position to make a counter. My point is *NO* living creature when threatened will stand there and just allow their attacker to hit them without trying to dodge.

Yeah, the entire FF series was the same way as you described Grandia as working. It just has to do with the genre. They follow more of an Anime style, rather than an RPG style. Misses and dodges actually rarely happen, and in the beginning the numbers are low, but the appeal is in later is these hugely powerful creatures and these insanely powerful attacks. That''s why we see numbers in the tens-of-thousands appearing above the opponent''s head, and he still doesn''t go down.



irbrian--

I hate to rip into your design, but while this is a tried-and-true formula for RPGs, it''s completely misrepresentative of ther way actual combat works. Now, what you''re talking about is puting well-choreographed animations to the proven formula "under the hood", and that''s essentially what I was asking for from the beginning of the thread.

Here''s the thing-- while training newbies, once we have them comfortable with weapons, armor, getting hit, and striking properly, the next step is the most difficult. We have to get this "attack mode" vs "defend mode" idea OUT OF THEIR HEADS! They should be in COMBAT MODE all the time, meaning at any time they''re ready to defend, attack, or both. In sword-and-shield combat, you defend with the shield (left hand), and attack with the sword (right hand), SIMULTANEOUSLY. The two arms work INDEPENDANTLY too.

The next problem I have is this concept that a character''s speed determines how often they can attack. While that may be true, it''s horribly exaggerated, and leads to the absolutely deplorable situation where a (less experienced) character stands "stuck to the ground" for 5-10 seconds before making an attack. But... Like I''ve said, this is a formula that (while not realistic) is easily understood, easily programmed, is a decent simulation, and makes sense to most gamer types.



Anonymous-- "Drink healing potion, idiot!"

heheh yeah, the problem with a queuing system... However... picture me kicking your ass up and down the block. (I''m a big guy too) There''s a band-aid and a Vicodin in your pocket. Do you really think you''re going to be able to get them out of your pocket, remove the band-aid from the paper and peel off the things from the sticky part, and then be able to open the child-proof cap (that I can''t even do in my kitchen) while I''m slashing at your arms with my sword and kicking you in the face? It''s a drastic example, but yeah, getting your ass kicked makes it difficult to do certain activities.



Ingenu (again)-- There''s no such thing as realtime combat... atleast there never has been in a computer RPG. If you want realtime combat in an RPG, the computer simulation has to move and treat the characters as if they were Street Fighter or other action/adventure characters, know their movement speeds, and figure out the details for every kick, stab, slash, etc., counting on body positions to see if the target is in a good position to defend.


-Desco-

Forgot I had something else to add to the conversation...

I was playing Morrowind again last night and ran into this STOOPID situation: I was being a good Imperial lackey, and roughing up citizens for tax money. (Actually I was going after the guy who killed the tax collector in Seyda Neen) I''m wearing a full set of armour, and have a broadsword. He''s wearing clothes, and puts up his dukes. While I''m continually hitting him with a sword, he''s punching me, and when he lands a good punch, my character falls to the floor and takes his sweet time getting up. Come on-- even to a non-combat experienced person this doesn''t make sense, yet we see situations like this in EVERY game.

First, one or two good stab or chops with a sword should''ve crippled him to the point of not being able to hit me with a lot of strength, ESPECIALLY since he''s not wearing armour. Second, I don''t understand how his punches can knock me down THROUGH MY ARMOUR, but me hitting him with a BROADSWORD keeps him upright. I mean, it sounds like a good idea-- unarmed combat has the advantage of being able to knock down an opponent... but in the end, if getting hit by a heavy sword isn''t afforded the same opportunity, it makes even less sense.

This brings me to another point about SOME games-- the whole fighting rats and bats and snakes as a newb. (Yes, I''m looking at YOU, Morrowin, Everquest, et al!) Even my mom, who''s never used a sword in her life, could chop a rat in two with it without ever having to worry about it biting her. This is something I really liked about Neverwinter-- it doesn''t disrespect you by making you kill the birds and other defenseless little creates in the beginning of the game.

-Desco-

Fallout had turn-based and the fun of called shots. Nothing like getting that 99% hit-chance over a target''s eyes or genitals to make you grin - and the descriptions of the HORRIBLE PAIN you inflicted on your adversaries.

Oh yes. the satisfaction of shattering Frank Horrigan''s both bionic eyes and then the controls of both his arms with just four consecutive shots from a Gauss pistol across the hall, in a single round. ::grin::

"Do you really think you''re going to be able to get them out of your pocket, remove the band-aid from the paper and peel off the things from the sticky part, and then be able to open the child-proof cap (that I can''t even do in my kitchen) while I''m slashing at your arms with my sword and kicking you in the face? It''s a drastic example, but yeah, getting your ass kicked makes it difficult to do certain activities."

Well, that''s the thing. In NWN I can be blocked from drinking the potion because the computer has decided that my character will continue attacking instead... and quite possibly land several blows before dying from the opponent''s attacks, rather than do what I told it to do.

If I were too busy getting my head beat in to do *anything*, and the drink action remained at the top of the queue for when my head stopped ringing, it wouldn''t suck so much. The NWN ai has been known to *delete* things from your queue and do what it feels like doing instead. That''s lame.

Combat knockback or reflexive dodge slowing down your intended actions is acceptable in the sort of more-detailed-and-nicer-looking-combat system that I think you''re promoting. If I''m clonked in the head, it may take me an extra second to retaliate or do whatever else I was planning to do. (If I''m *seriously* clonked on the head, that could be a Stun that could last a round, but I''m talking about just a grazing brush - it might still slow you down a little.) Similarly, being attacked while you''re trying to do something else could trigger a Flinch / Reflexive Dodge on your part and screw up whatever it was you were working on - unless you had a special combat training skill that allowed you to ignore pain and focus on what you were doing.

Anonymous Poster---

Nonono, read the first sentance of my response to you-- I was agreeing with your problems with the NWN queueing system. It''s not the greatest. If someone wants to implement a queueing system, they NEED to allow the player to quickly interrupt the queue for emergency actions. I personally don''t agree with the idea of a queueing system anyway... but that''s a different conversation too.

As for combat-knockback, I honestly can''t tell you how that would effect combat, aside from common sense and intuition. In SCA combat, we "die" upon getting hit the first time. In reality, a person could get hit a few times (assuming they''re not critical hits) before they''d be unable to continue fighting. But since the SCA doesn''t want to get into that argument, the rules state that a strike that lands anywhere (above the knees for safety reasons), lands square, and wasn''t blocked is a killing blow. We are considered to be wearing a helmet and armor, so blows that "glance off" of the target or are partially blocked by a shield is not counted.

What I *CAN* tell you is blocking a strike with your shield does NOT cause you to reel back, and most of the time when I get hit by a sword it does not cause me to get knocked back. Spears are a different story-- if they land square and have a good force behind them, they can push you back quite a bit. However, if they REALLY were spears, I''d be impailed on it and wouldn''t have to worry about being knocked back :-)

-d-

quote: Original post by Desco
I was playing Morrowind again last night and ran into this STOOPID situation

I don''t comment about Morrowind since I only like the art of it, nothing else was worth it IMO.

quote:
This brings me to another point about SOME games-- the whole fighting rats and bats and snakes as a newb.

That''s indeed the lamest tutorial you can make ever...
Bioware games really sucks in many aspects.
(I only play NWN and only online, and spend half my time €3^ù$^ about it. So I can''t play it long.)

I have to disagree with you on the FF and Grandia 2 thing, they are VERY different, I don''t like FF battles AT ALL, while I like Grandia 2 battle system A LOT. So there are many different things between the too. (otherwise I would like them a much, which is not the case.)

But I get that you want something even more dynamic, my take is that when Grandia 2 battle system will be standard it would be a good step forward.

Not much to add about the subject, except many games are rather bad gameplay wise, and it doesn''t only affect the battle system.

mmhh...
What about Zelda (3D) battle system ?

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-