quote: Original post by PouyaCat
First of all: the 4-levels-difference-at-high-level-and-he-still-kills-me.

It was mentioned that a learning curve is exponential, thus one should gain less at higher levels. However, this is not true. Levelling from level 39 to level 40, might mean getting 10,000 XP, and that might mean killing one dragon. Going from 40 to 41 most likely will cost a lot more, 15,000 or 20,000. So the step from 40 to 41 is a lot harder then from 39 to 40. Voila, here is your learning curve The curve is the XP list, the level list is the XP curve on logaritmic paper :D

True. However, in real life, for example, a person whose 15 years of experience working in game industry compared to another person whose 20 years of experience working in game industry. There are very few differences between them, not a lot.

I don't blame the xp. You are right. To level up from 39 to 40 requires less xp than from 40 to 41. However, this should be balanced out in the character's skills/stats. A level40 should do slightly better than a level35. A level37 should do slightly (a little bit more) better than a level32. But, a level10 should do somewhat a lot more better than a level5.

while it completely doesn't make sense why 10vs5 is better than 40vs35, I think this will encourage players to level up at the beginning because he "feels" that his character is getting stronger at a fast rate.

He plays more, and once he reaches lvl40, he got killed by a lvl37. Then he started to question "why was I killed by a lvl37? it took me 3 days to lvlup from 37 to 40. that is not fair."
At this time, a player has learnt much about the game. The deadly skill combos, how to dodge, when to attack. At higher levels, player's (not character's) skill matters a lot. Level just increases a character's strength slightly, but not a lot. This encourages a lvl37 to lvl up or play more because he knows he could kill a lvl40 if he plays it well. Bad dudes can't kill everyone else just because they are lvl50. A lvl45 can kill lvl50, with right combos, skill, and strategies.

[edited by - alnite on June 5, 2003 3:41:22 PM]

Well, I see 2 problems arrising, both which require you to think realistically...

1. So HP doesn''t increase... but everyones ability to attack well does. You eventually get to the point where whenever anyone hits, its a death blow.

2. So HP doesn''t increase but agility/skill does. You eventually get games where it''s "miss miss miss... hit... miss miss miss miss etc..."

I think HP may be partially used as a symbol to provide an element of ''progress'' in your battles without instant deaths. Anyway, I totally agree, and if I were to take on an RPG it most definately would be a more subjective system than "numbers".

Ok, I''ve been playing a text mud for the last 3 years so I don''t have much clue what actually goes on in these graphical games, but here''s my 2 cents worth anyway.

To me it just seems silly that people even WANT to PK each other for no reason other than to see if they can do it. This is because the mud I''m used to is firmly rooted in RP (you don''t kill *anyone* without reason), and because it has permadeath. Permadeath IMO is a pretty good inhibitor of random killing, at least if it has RP thrown into the mix too.

Also, this mud has no numerical report of HP. Your health is divided into health of specific limbs and your overall health, which factors the health of your limbs and body in, and these are displayed in terms such as "very healthy". It''s impossible for ANYONE to gain more HP (we also don''t have levels), although a big ogre will have more HP than a tiny gnome. However, considering this isn''t something like EQ where killing is the main object, I''m not sure how much relevance any of this has because the stuff that''s commonly killed is actually just wild animals and the occasional armored orc in a quest.

Anyway the general idea still holds true. As you progress, you should be harder to kill because you''re more highly skilled, not because you have 9999HP. (HP can be fun, but it isn''t terribly realistic.)

If a squirrel is chasing you, drop your nuts and run.

What about Localised Wound system ?

Damage is more detailed, penalties may be applied where needed, you don''t die immediatly except with severe chest or head injury.

The only point I can see about increasing HP, is to measure how ''softened'' a blow is by your skills. Somewhat an automatic skill which raise your hp to avoid being rolled everytime, still goind from 10 to 200 is VERY exagereted IMO.

To keep HP at the same level, maybe you can do something like:

Attack - dodge = result.
If result <= 0 : no damage.
If result > 0 : result is used to cap maximum damage.
Damage pseudo code:
Damage = min( Damage, result )

Damage counted in points is then applied on the member hit, different members having different Wounds depending on the Damage points.

Head : 1=soft wound, 2:wound, 3:severe wound, 4:blown
Body : 1= soft woound, 2=softWound, 3:wound, 4:wound, ...

You get the idea, 1 and 2 only produc a softwound, 3-4 a wound... and so on

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

In connection with that, I have a friend trying to make a mud where the main cause of death (barring severe hits to head/vital organs) would actually be blood loss.

Ok, so if we want realism, what we do is this. Take your system for determining damage, and then give each type of wound a certain amount (or maybe time/rate) of blood loss. (You''d hafta factor in different damage types too, since some types of wounds may automatically cauterize and result in less blood loss than it seems like they would.) Then, providing a vital area hadn''t been hit in the process, the target would experience various effects according to the amount of blood loss it suffered. The target may become disoriented, some of his stats would lower, and so on and so forth until the point of death if his wounds aren''t healed in some way.

Of course if you''re gonna do this you may as well go all out and include broken bones, twisted ankles, perhaps even a minor slash in your forehead causing you to be blinded from blood running into your eyes. (And getting into alien physiology could be REALLY interesting. Just TRY to shoot that Gylmorg in the chest, you''re just gonna puncture a sac of poison which splatters all over you, because his heart is actually in what amounts to his buttocks. But you get the drift. )

Speaking of which, if you had a system of bodypart damage, you''d need a means of aiming at specific areas of the body, which could get tough if your hand-eye coordination sucks as much as mine heh. (This is why I don''t play bang bang shoot ''em up games. I''m just trying to figure out how the heck you''d do this in an RPG. ) And of course that''s totally apart from the decision of whether to leave in all the attendant gore (which would probably satisfy a lot of 15 year old boys) or figure out some way to not gross people out, heh.

I agree with onyxflame about player killing in that traditional (PPRPG) games forbade this sort of thing simply because it introduces a wrong kind of mentality. I guess somewhere someone down the line thought this would be a great concept as it would introduce a competitive aspect to RPG''ing. But RPG''ing by its very essence isn''t about competing against other players, its about competing against the story and world itself. Computer RPG''ing (other than MUD''s which have remained more faithful to PPRPG''s) has fallen way off the track, and I don''t even consider it role playing anymore, but a hack and slash fest like Gauntlet or it''s descendants like Diablo. Even MMORPG''s fail to really deliver the story-based aspect of playing a role.

But getting back to combat, Ingenu''s idea of localised damage is precisely what old RPG game systems like the aforementioned BTRC game did, as well as other good systems (off the top of my head the excellent Phoenix Command and its derivate Living Steel, as well as most of the Games Designer Workshop games like Twillight 2000 and Traveller 2300AD). This cures the problem I mentioned about being down to 1 hit point then stubbing your toe and dying.

As for Neonfaktory''s potential criticisms, it doesn''t have to be that way. First off, there should be human limits to fighting capabilites. A human can only be so fast, so strong and so agile. Some games even had character with a starting value, and a potential value (Iron Crown''s game RoleMaster and SpaceMaster did this) such that the potential listed the maximum attribute score a player could attain (his genetic limits). So it was possible for one character to start out with an attribute with a higher rating than another character, but the 2nd character might have a better genetic potential to improve and eventually surpass the first character.

So if you do something like this, experienced characters still have their human limits meaning that it is possible to hit them. Granted, I doubt anyone on this forum would have a chance in hell of beating Bruce Lee if he were alive in martial arts, or Roy Jones Jr. in a boxing match unless we got amazingly lucky, and Bruce and Roy had incredibly bad days. It''s realistic. However, even Bruce might have trouble against 5 or 6 guys ganging up on him....so it should be realistic for 5 level 2-3 guys to take down even a level 15 character all by his lonesome. The smart player when faced with a vastly superior character will have to use his head to even the odds. Perhaps turning off the lights, running into a narrow hallway where a particular weapon type or martial style doesn''t work, or simply running away.

Frankly, I hate the idea of levels. It can be a quick judge of the power of a character, but basing a character''s abilities off a level system is too abstracted. Fighting skills are very much seperate not to mention non-combat skills. It''s possible that a character might have level 10 combat skills, but only level 5 survival or equestrian skills. Also level systems usually imply class systems which are also far too abstract. Pidgeonholing characters'' abilities by saying they have these skills at these proficiencies because you''re this class is extremely stereotypical. It''s like saying all computer programmers are fat, have beards, and wear tie-dye shirts with flip-flops. If you don''t like that assesment of programmers, why should you put up with it for class systems in games?

I know I say this alot, but to anyone who''s never played a traditional PPRPG game...only computer RPG''s, go to your hobby store and browse through the games there. Get some ideas maybe even join a group that plays games for a genre that you like. Trust me...the difference is tremendous. In some ways, I think its sad that computer RPG''s have stolen a lot of the market away from PPRPG''s simply because I''ve yet to play a computer RPG that was anywhere near as fun as a good PPRPG session with a couple of friends.

I think that to create a balanced play system that could eliminate a level system would be to tie experience to skills and attributes.

Rather than having a character gain experience for each kill build a level system for each attribute; the more you use skills related to base attributes the more attribute specific experience you get, and as the attribute grows each skill associated with it gains as well.

This has a lot of broad applications in a MMORPG because this allows other features like time decay of unused attributes. If a fighter spends all of his time fighting and bashing his general physical attributes will improve, but if he doesn't take time to study and learn things his mental attributes can come to suffer. An extension of this is Paladins who don't maintain their pious ways can be punished over time, or thieves who wander around hidden in shadows/sneaking all the time would lose charism/personality related points.

This encourages players to develop a more well rounded character, and by making the costs to increase insane the higher you go you can balance things; if someone spends all his time pushing around a heavy barrel to improve his strength he will eventually end up having a brute who has neither the intellectual capacity or dexterity to use a weapon other than a thrown rock or a club.

By including this with levelable skills you can have characters who can sit there, take a pounding and then get healed and over time their hitpoints will gradual increase (under the idea that whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger).

When designing gaming systems I think it would be better to reward/develop players based on their actions; seeing a character bash 50 goblins with a club, get a skill point and stick it in his Magic skill seems silly to me.

[edited by - ChaoticCanuck on June 5, 2003 6:37:22 PM]

quote: Original post by neonfaktory
Well, I see 2 problems arrising, both which require you to think realistically...

1. So HP doesn''t increase... but everyones ability to attack well does. You eventually get to the point where whenever anyone hits, its a death blow.

2. So HP doesn''t increase but agility/skill does. You eventually get games where it''s "miss miss miss... hit... miss miss miss miss etc..."

I think HP may be partially used as a symbol to provide an element of ''progress'' in your battles without instant deaths. Anyway, I totally agree, and if I were to take on an RPG it most definately would be a more subjective system than "numbers".

Dauntless covered one argument against this criticism (there are simply human limitations, in Shadowrun, for example, humans have to pay double to raise an ability score above 6, cannot raise an ability score above 9, and cannot raise a skill above its associated ability score).

Another problem is that not all games use the AC all-or-nothing system. In Shadowrun (and I think Vampire''s system is very similar) you rarely miss. You usually get at least one success, which means you hit. Of course, the force of your blow (whether from a gun or sword) is weakened by your opponent''s armor, which makes it easier for him to get successes. ((your successes) - (opponent''s successes))/2 = (change in damage). With this, the better you are, the more damage you do, but the better he is, the less damage you do. Fighting your equal, this "cancels out" (meaning your hit will probably do damage equal to your weapon''s rating). Fighting your superior, you''ll do less damage (he''s tougher and has better armor). Fighting your inferior, you''ll do more (he''s not as tough, has worse armor, your skill allows you to aim at more vital areas).

Basically, HP is a hack to make the all-or-nothing damage system work.

quote: 1. So HP doesn''t increase... but everyones ability to attack well does. You eventually get to the point where whenever anyone hits, its a death blow.

2. So HP doesn''t increase but agility/skill does. You eventually get games where it''s "miss miss miss... hit... miss miss miss miss etc..."

well, if you are doing miss miss miss, probably your enemy is doing hit hit hit, and you should be running away instead ... since he is a higher level, if you keep thinking on that miss miss miss thing for another couple of seconds you would get yourself killed (but you might have been lucky and actually landed some nice hits ..., who knows, lucks rules) ...

by the way, the amount chars should increase their damage would be REALLY REALLY REALLY little, what you get to increase more is your chance to hit, thus being able to take down higher level enemies easiers, and hiving you an advantage over lower level ones ...

About my critical hit, I wouldnt be so conservative like many games out there, I want combat to be less predictable! (which at the same time closes the gap), if you face tons of low level creatures no matter how good you are, you shouldnt stand there like if no enemies where attacking you, yes most of the times you would do hit hit hit, but if you keep doing that critical hits will surely kill you.

Lets say you are at the highest level and you fight 8 lvl 1, that get to you at the same time, ... well, you better run, but no, you were pride and stand right in the center, and you let them come from all directions:
- you: hit (got one of them to a third, or even half of his life, since you are really the top of the top, and you really now how to cut meat ...)
- enemies: miss miss miss miss (critical hit!) miss miss miss (they got you to 1/5th of your health, come on they are level one, and I didnt say no increase at all, but not those ridiculous increases, altough it was thas much because critical hit also means more than normal damage)
- you: critical hit (omg!!, lucky you, you took down the one with the third of life with a single blow!)
- enemies: (critical hit!) miss miss miss (critical hit!) miss miss (ouchhhhhhhh, you are now at 3/5th, runnnnnnnn)
- you: hit (a third to the life of one of those guys)
- enemies: miss miss miss (critical hit!) miss miss (critical hit!) (geez, you would say: "that sux" ... I told you, run)

well, you can scale that, you may want to make it 1/10th, and you leaving them on 1/6th.

of course you would almost surely take down a level 1 on a one vs one in that type of fight, but you might actually get some good amount of damage (which in the other schema you didnt ...). That is also leaving out tons of factors: positional damage (chances from hitting someone from being should be higher), in the combat above you could have used skills meant to be fighting against crowds, hmm, really rare skills you wouldnt want to use a lot (lets say using it one time would leave you without using it again for a whole day ...), when facing a lvl 1 you will probably say: no, I shouldnt use this here, I need to reserver this for that strong beast that is around the corner, but ... the lvl 1 wont hesitate, come on you are a lot stronger ...

What I say, is this give games more risks, of course your game have to be designed completely following that way of thinking/combat style ...

I might have written a lot of non sense, but I surely left a message in all that stuff I wrote, if you want break it to pieces ... (I would like to hear comments about it)

Has anyone ever considered using a universal hitpoint rule? Say for instance every character/object/etc. is healthy at 0% Damage (Or 100 HP). The determining factors then all relate more to actual skill rather than chopping down trees. Younger, less experienced fighters have a lesser chance to hit hard and are limited to their unsharpened skills, meanwhile the more experienced have manueverability and fighting skills to justify more devistating attack force and effects. Both sides can then take item (armor) use into effect to decrease the possible blows they could take (allowing a miss effect if the armor isn''t penetrated) or (weapons) effect their ability to cause more harm. Again this is just the basics of this idea with plenty of room for extra effects. The great thing about this is that all players will then be equal in their mortality in-game which would make for an equal battle any way you think about it... also any effects and abilities would be reasonable for all players and monsters.

This is a style of system I will be trying to flesh out for my own design.

My two cents

- Christopher Dapo