The post on realistic weapon stats got me thinking... I''ve never seen any game deal with the correlation between speed and strength. Most games fall back on the stereotypes of either being slow and strong, or fast and weak (relatively), but in reality that isn''t really the case. For example, take myself and Arnold S. Armed with a dagger, both of us will probably swing it at around the same speed. But give us a heavier weapon such as a mace, and while I''m slowed down a great deal, ol'' Arnold is probably swinging that sucker just as fast as he did the dagger. But if you allow stronger characters to swing heavier waepons faster, it definately unbalances combat in favour of strong characters.

Well, that''s true to an extent but it all falls back on how realistic you want the game to be. The thing here is; we''re all good at different things, so while Arnold may be able to hit like a mack truck with that mace, if you shoot him up, does it matter?

This is also a bit dependant on the genre of the game we''re talking about. RPG''s would probably have more problems with this than shooter games for example, where everyone will effectively have the same strength (the gun).

But then with shooters you get another problem; one that bugs me too. Why do people make pistols do 10X as much damage per bullet as a machine gun? They do the same per bullet, but a M. Gun shoots faster.

The final solution is up to you, and how realistic you want the game to be.

----------------------------------------------------------
You know, I might as well go ahead and say I can''t fix the problem... because that''s when I figure out how.

How does it unbalance things? Stronger people naturally have an advantage in hand to hand combat. Since they can use heavier weapons easier then a weaker person. Is it unbalanced that a faster person has an advantage in a running race?

-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

quote:

---

Armed with a dagger, both of us will probably swing it at around the same speed.

---

That''s a pretty simplistic answer; i suspect the truth is more complicated.

Are you as large as Arnold? The implication is no, so although you may jab at each other at the same relative arm speed you have to factor in each person''s natural agility, the confines of the location, and the skills each person possesses.

Arnold''s speed would likely come from brute strength; yours comes from dexterity. If he''s clumsy using a blade you have a better chance of avoiding the blow, or at least the bulk of it, whereas he can''t move aside as quickly and may take a more lethal hit. You may even have skills using that blade, allowing you to recognize his attack and sidestep it while delivering your own.

As TechnoGoth said, stronger characters SHOULD swing heavier weapons faster. That doesn''t mean they swing them *better*, or more accurately.

At the end of the day, the advantage in combat is dependent upon a number of factors. If I''m a small, quick guy with a dagger, I''m not going to pick fights with big fast guys weilding axes. That''s just stupid. But in RPGs and in fighting games and in any other video game with a main character, it has to be possible to best those guys, and so designers make them very slow, or very dumb, or give them a blind spot, or whatever.

If you want to accurately model combat, then you''ll wind up with what you get in real life. That is, a guy who''s bigger and stronger will have a distinct advantage in melee combat. A guy with a bow will trump him 98% of the time, and a guy with a rifle will mop up. The problem is that a situation like that leads to times when a player must surrender or die. A lot of conventions exist to prevent such a situation from arising. HP is one of them, and the paper-rock-scissors system is another. The point is that if stronger guys are faster and more powerful with their attacks, they''ll mop up. So you give them that little cripple to prevent it.

Don''t forget that by the end of most RPGs, your hero hits harder than a tank and does so 99% of the time, even against ninjas and birds. If any character could get maxxed out that way, then the whole "find his weakness and exploit it" theme would be eliminated.

I agree with everybody else about the balancing issues. Too often game designers feel they must balance things. But why should this be? The fact of the matter is, if you go up against someone who's as quick as you are and who's stronger, you've got to think of some way to take away his advantages.

True skill lay in understanding your weaknesses, and exploiting your opponents.

Ever watch the final fight scene in Rob Roy? Liam Neeson's character was using a large basket hilted 17th century style Claymore (not the original 2 handed version the Scots made famous). His opponents was using a fencing style long sword. Very light and very quick. Rob tried to beat aside the longsword (a valid tactic), but the opponent was too skilled to allow that to happen. So the lightning quick longsword was basically making mince meat out of poor Roy. Towards the end, the opponent was just taunting Rob. Finally though, Rob figured out what he had to do. Definitely painful, but it worked (I urge you to watch the film...while not as good as Braveheart, it's worth watching).

The issue is not so much balancing the weapons, but balancing the characters. How many people are in Arnie's league? Not many. But on the other hand, have you ever watched some Olympic fencers? Their speed is amazing (although admittedly, modern foils are incredibly light weight, but cut and thrust swords or true duelling rapiers aren't much heavier).

Herein I think is the fundamental problem with RPG's: they simply don't account for enough variables. Strength is actually a multi-faceted variable. The two major ones are Power and Force. Force is the total amount of force (in Newtons) that can be generated. Power is the amount of Force divided by Time. Take most powerlifters, they can lift tremendous amounts of weight, but are they necessarily fast? OTOH, look at gymnasts or martial artists who can generate incredible amounts of work in a short period of time, but can't generate as much raw Force as a powerlifter.

In short, there is a muscle mass component of strength, and there is also a neuromuscular component to strength. Muscle fibers are neat in that they are an all-or-nothing tissue. You vary how much force is applied by firing more or less fibers. But when a fiber is contracted, it always contracts at 100% intensity. So Force is a measure of how many muscle fibers you have, times the percentage you can fire at once times the contractile capability of the muscle (each person's muscle fiber is different in regards to how much contractile force it can generate). Power is a measure of how quickly you can generate the nerve impulses, and what percentage you can recruit.

There's also the issue of Aerobic and Anaerobic energy systems. Generally, powerlifters are the anabolic equivalent of marathon runners. They have trained their musclesto be able to generate maximum power without oxygen. This means that although they can generate great force, they can't keep it up. Marathoners on the other hand have trained their slow-twitch white muscle fibers. These fibers are good at tolerating lactic acid and have good acid buffers. The problem with these fibers is that they aren't as responsive to neuromuscular control. They are relentless machines that keep doing a repetitive motion over and over and over. And here's the kicker....it's physiologically impossible to be a world class aerobic and anaerobic system athlete. Essentially your body forces you to split your capacities one way or the other. If you want to excel in one, you have to give up some of your ability in the other. This is why you don't see bulking marathoners, or powerlifters that routinely jog more than 5 miles at a time.

Another factor that is overlooked in RPG games is the affect of height and weight (really one's density) on agility. Ever notice that no 6'4" 300lb linebacker is also a gymnast (even if he had 4% bodyfat and was strong as an ox)? Being able to be very acrobatic requires the ability to rapidly change the displacement or position of your body's mass. The bigger you are, the less your strength to body weight ratio becomes. This is why gymnasts are rarely over 6', and 180lbs, and shorter people tend to be better gymnasts/acrobats. It's not impossible for a big guy to be gymnastic, but he has to have a high Power component to his strength.

[edited by - dauntless on April 28, 2004 6:22:09 PM]

Thanks for all the great replies. It looks like there is literally no end to the complexity of a "simple" melee combat. With physics engines showing up in more and more games, I wonder if we''ll see physics based combat soon? I''d bet it shows up first in a fighting game, then if it''s successful, makes a leap to RPGs.

quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
There''s also the issue of Aerobic and Anaerobic energy systems. Generally, powerlifters are the anabolic equivalent of marathon runners. They have trained their musclesto be able to generate maximum power without oxygen. This means that although they can generate great force, they can''t keep it up. Marathoners on the other hand have trained their slow-twitch white muscle fibers. These fibers are good at tolerating lactic acid and have good acid buffers. The problem with these fibers is that they aren''t as responsive to neuromuscular control. They are relentless machines that keep doing a repetitive motion over and over and over. And here''s the kicker....it''s physiologically impossible to be a world class aerobic and anaerobic system athlete. Essentially your body forces you to split your capacities one way or the other. If you want to excel in one, you have to give up some of your ability in the other. This is why you don''t see bulking marathoners, or powerlifters that routinely jog more than 5 miles at a time.

---

I like to think of this concept as muscle strength and muscle endurance. Strength being how MUCH muscle you''ve got to work with (bulk) and endurance being how long you can apply that strength.

What I don''t understand is why you cannot have equal amounts of both. I question your statement that you have to split your capacities. If I bulk up to the level of Arnold, you''re saying I cannot then begin to train as a long distance marathoner? My body is somehow going to deplete my bulk as my muscular endurance/overall stamina increases?

Or more specifically perhaps, if I''ve trained by bulking up using high weight/low reps, if I then switch to low weight/high reps I''m going to lose my bulk as fast as I gain muscular stamina? I can imagine a SLIGHT decrease over time but I just can''t see it being a 50/50 thing, where the more I rep the less I bulk.

Just a thought, if sligtly off topic.

Take care.

Here''s a realistic breakdown of strength:
-Maximum Strength
-Relative Strength (basically max str. / body weight)
-Speed-Strength (low resistance speed)
-Strength-Speed (high resistance speed)
-Explosive Strength (max force / time)
-Starting Strength (force at beginning of a movement)
-Acceleration Strength (similar to explosive)
-Strength-Endurance (endurance under high resistance)
-Reactive Strength (force added from a stretched position)

But do you want all that work? There are more you can add as well.

BTW, the only reason Arnold would be slow is due to lack of specific training, not size. However it is true that a larger person would find it more difficult than a smaller person to do bodyweight exercises, long distance running, because they are doing more work. Finally, running doesn''t make you smaller.

Here''s what''s really interesting:

Force = Mass x Velocity

So the faster you swing a weapon the more force it has.

Lighter weaponse move faster because they require less force to get moving fast.

Velocity = Force / Mass

Heavier weapons may exert more force because there is less air resistance to contend with. This is because air resistance is a function of velocity.

Force = Initial Force - Air Resistance

By moving slower heavier weapons conserve energy that would otherwise be lost to air resistance.

So it is true that lighter weapons are faster and heavier weapons exert more force. However, for weapons of equal mass speed = power!