This is a very interesting thread and I agree with most of you. There's no need to remove Combat in RPGs but rather to improve it, try harder, try to make people feel that they are actually doing something instead of sitting there hacking and slashing carelessly.

Right now im doing the design (And we're a quite big time for now with a few programmers and few artists and mappers and what not) for a big project for a Dungeon Siege 2 mod that WILL exceed most games. Currently im concentrating ALOT on the combat system.

I cannot give out ideas but I will try to give you general ideas:

First of all, we have to keep in mind that each player has the ability to carry a shield. What we do know is that what shields actually do in most RPG games is just add more to the Armor Rating or whatever. My idea is doing it on the basis of Zelda. As of, Player Skill based, have the right timing to block attacks and actually reduce damage and even block the attacks completely. So why not use the shield if you have it?

Also, why FPS are more successful than rpgs is because in FPS there is some kind of player skill while in RPGs you're limited either by moves (How many moves you can perform, I.E: Console Strategy RPGs or just the way you click for movement and how the character responds to it) or by that you can do endless sword hits and most of the time sword character can beat archers? How's that? My point is that players should feel free in the world they are in unless its a "Traditional/Console" RPG where it is turn based and even then you should have enough strategy to beat the monsters.

One game (Ys: Oath in Felghana) brings combat slightly to the next level by adding different phases the monster can go into. Such as, the monster starts at one phase with only one attack and then when its life is somewhat lower it starts trapping you and giving you hard time with other new attacks.

Thats all for now, hope I somehow contributed to the topic.

This might be slightly off the main topic, but I think the biggest problem with combat in RPGs is that there are so many random battles, that games seem to be catered more toward getting through these random battles quickly, rather than making combat fun.

Maybe lowering the amount of battles, while increasing the difficulty of each one would help.

Quote:

Original post by Jiia I'm not sure I understand your point. A lot of complex RPGs already have heavy strategy based combat. They were extremely successful.

Then name them, and you've already refuted the OP's suggestion (that RPG combat is for the most part boringly monotonous). You're also saying:

Quote:

There's not enough variation to interest smart, creative players who enjoy excitement and a bloody rough challenge in between saving the princesses.

in response to "There is plenty of variation in RPG combat."

Fallout had a more interesting combat system than most. But turn the gore off, and I'm willing to be that for most players it becomes a lot more tedious. As combat systems, both XCom and Diablo work well, for different reasons. But they are not RPGs imo - characters are expendable in XCom, and Diablo is an action game with lots of power-ups.

Regardless of how an RPG approaches things, my experience has been that one good strategy is enough to defeat around 95% of encounters. Like Wavinator mentioned, it is likely that a single resource only requires linear strategies for optimisation.

What is a RPG? A game where you (and possible your party) fight lots of enemies and then the final boss, gaining experience(stats & skills) over time? Minus the experience gaining this sounds alot like a standard game? So, IMHO this isn't really a RPG design question, it's a combat design question! (RPG games have had a lousy combat system since combat is needed, but not realy thought of since it *works*)
Great combat could simply be more varierity in the slashing(combos?) and some tactics(sneaking). Introducing sneaking allows you to avoid characters that you can't fight, which adds another element to an RPG.
Other than that using the skills that Wavinatior posted on p1 and the "system" of showing values that also Wavinator posted(p1 again but earlier) would result in a great game, I guess :)

Quote:

Original post by Argus2 Quote: Original post by Jiia I'm not sure I understand your point. A lot of complex RPGs already have heavy strategy based combat. They were extremely successful. Then name them, and you've already refuted the OP's suggestion (that RPG combat is for the most part boringly monotonous).

Maybe I'm reaching with 'a lot'. All of my favorite RPGs consisted of either real-time combat, or heavy strategy based combat. But I've never actually enjoyed endlessely swinging a sword with one click-reaction attack type or clicking an attack or spell button from a menu and watching the result. Both have about the same amount of human skill behind them. If you're not challenging the human player's skill, what point is there to the game? I won't say everyone agrees with me. There's possibly some players who just enjoy pressing buttons and watching animations over and over again.

Quote:

You're also saying: Quote: There's not enough variation to interest smart, creative players who enjoy excitement and a bloody rough challenge in between saving the princesses. in response to "There is plenty of variation in RPG combat."

It connects directly to the idea that heavy real-time combat action does not mean the game needs to be dumbed down. I'm not sure what you're pointing out? I'm saying there's no reason that excitement and strategy can't be mixed together.

Quote:

Fallout had a more interesting combat system than most. But turn the gore off, and I'm willing to be that for most players it becomes a lot more tedious.

Well, not for myself. There was only a few critical death animations for each character type. Graphics were not Fallout's strength. They were decent, but nothing special. Compared to most games, I would have to say that Fallout relies less on it's visuals than the norm. I can't deny that playing Fallout through a non-graphical text based interface would not be as fun, but I'm not sure what relevance that has. I can't say that I don't enjoy punching people more when the screen shakes, or lopping at monsters when limbs and blood flow.

Quote:

As combat systems, both XCom and Diablo work well, for different reasons. But they are not RPGs imo - characters are expendable in XCom, and Diablo is an action game with lots of power-ups.

X-Com could have easily been recognized as an RPG if Microprose wished it so. The games would have needed very small changes to feel like one. Not that the RPG sub-title really makes any difference. X-Com battles would work very well in an RPG.

Quote:

Regardless of how an RPG approaches things, my experience has been that one good strategy is enough to defeat around 95% of encounters.

I've been there and done that. It's not fun.

Someone needs to design an RPG using an FPS engine -

But design everything from camera to controls to stat display the same way as an RPG.

The probelm is that RPG's are the same as D&D. You have numerical stats that represent grossly oversimplified character attributes. You whack mobs - which is to say that you click and the computer rolls a number that determines whether or not you will do damage to the mob and how much damage you do. It's a rather complicated calculator with pretty graphics.

If someone used an FPS engine but didn't neccesarily use the FPS viewpoint, you could approximate character stats for the sake of simplicity but actually have the game determine things like the damage you do based on where you hit the opponent.

The current system is so outdated and lazy that you end up with problems like this. It is quite possible to create awesome realtime combat in any game. It's also quite easy. Which is why I find it odd that no one has done this before - doing something like using a detailed engine in an RPG that wasn't an FPS RPG. But, think about it. Most RPG's don't even use per polygon hit detection - this was considered a new feature in 1999. Get with the times? I can't believe how many RPG's are just D&D clones. There is no reason that accuracy needs to be generated by a simplistic random number. There is no reason that you can't aim your bow and still have an RPG. There is no reason that you can't have localized armor and still have an RPG. There is no reason that you can't have random, diverse quests that allow players to kill enemies permanently, or otherwise affect the world. Well, except for profit and time.

Combat just needs to be more accurate, and more player skill oriented. Your character should be very important, but should augment the skills you already posses. Ideally, the game should give you the illusion that you're doing something, even if you aren't. You should feel the satisfying crunch when you whack someone with your mace, even if you're really only winning through your character. However, sitting in World of Warcraft and hammering 22243 is not fun, and it is not satisfying. Go play Devil May Cry 3. Play it now. The combat is great and fun. If you could control your characters stats and skills a la Diablo II and you had a world the size of Azeroth, the game would be a perfect RPG. It has some semblances of character modification, but not many. In any case, that is an example of good combat. You should do things fast, and they should be fun. In WoW, you grind for 90% of the time. It gets old to cast the same spells over and over again. In Devil May Cry, you willingly kill extra enemies for no gain. Why is this? It's FUN to kill them. RPG designers seem to forget that combat isn't something to throw in to lengthen quests or extend the storyline. Combat is the entire point of leveling your character - to do cooler stuff and kill more things. When combat is used as filler, it ruins games. It's something you have to do to get a better dagger. Once you get this dagger, it makes it easier to get this vest. The vest, in turn, makes it less tedious to get boots. Combat is a means to an end in the real world - but it's more fun as an end in itself in the game world. You can have quests and storyline and a long RPG AND good combat. Just use DMC3 combat in a game, it is the perfect example.

Hrmm... you guys should read the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion boards. One of the changes from Morrowind to Oblivion was getting rid of the "to-hit" roll and just saying that if you actually hit with your sword or bow in the game view, then you hit in the rpg system as well. Pretty simple concept in theory. But there was a huge outcry among people that this would make the game "too twitch-based", "dumbed down", "an fps rip off", "why not just play doom if combat is that stupid", etc. Many people prefer games that take no twitch reflexes, and automatically associate a lack of reflex-based gaming as "smart". So I would never say that players in general want more twitch in their RPGs. Just like I doubt you'd get many Chess players that would think chess was way better if you got to throw the pawns at the queen from ten feet away and decide whether or not you took the piece by location-based real-time damage.

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Hrmm... you guys should read the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion boards. One of the changes from Morrowind to Oblivion was getting rid of the "to-hit" roll and just saying that if you actually hit with your sword or bow in the game view, then you hit in the rpg system as well. Pretty simple concept in theory. But there was a huge outcry among people that this would make the game "too twitch-based", "dumbed down", "an fps rip off", "why not just play doom if combat is that stupid", etc. Many people prefer games that take no twitch reflexes, and automatically associate a lack of reflex-based gaming as "smart". So I would never say that players in general want more twitch in their RPGs. Just like I doubt you'd get many Chess players that would think chess was way better if you got to throw the pawns at the queen from ten feet away and decide whether or not you took the piece by location-based real-time damage.

Yes, I've heard of this. I didn't say they'd want it - I said it would be better and they would like it. Players, such as those, assume that giving player control over combat dumbs games down. That's probably because many games that give players control over combat are dumbed down in many areas. However, the two aren't neccesarily related. People seem to think that putting in different combat means two things: It's completely twitch based, and it will therefore be unfair.

Naturally, this is not the case. Combat is not completely twitch based, and twitch based combat doesn't have to be unfair. Let's say, for example, that the final decision between who attacks first in an RPG is affected greately by your character. In this case, the guy with the fast reaction time would still loose to the guy with the better character. The point of combat is not to make the game twitch based - it's only to make the game more fun. It's more fun to wail on someone and send them flying backwards into a set of enemies and call down a meteor from the heavens and watch as they are utterly obliterated by your amazing power than it is to . . . sit . . . wait . . . computer automatically rolls an attack . . . wait . . . you miss . . . you automatically hit your opponent and a feeble recoil animation plays . . . wait . . . . . . alt-F4.

I like the first one better. While players may be biased against it - their opinions don't change whether or not it's better - EDIT: And whether or not they'll like it better.

[Edited by - Nytehauq on July 26, 2005 5:43:22 PM]

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Hrmm... you guys should read the Elder Scrolls: Oblivion boards. One of the changes from Morrowind to Oblivion was getting rid of the "to-hit" roll and just saying that if you actually hit with your sword or bow in the game view, then you hit in the rpg system as well. Pretty simple concept in theory. But there was a huge outcry among people that this would make the game "too twitch-based", "dumbed down", "an fps rip off", "why not just play doom if combat is that stupid", etc. Many people prefer games that take no twitch reflexes, and automatically associate a lack of reflex-based gaming as "smart". So I would never say that players in general want more twitch in their RPGs. Just like I doubt you'd get many Chess players that would think chess was way better if you got to throw the pawns at the queen from ten feet away and decide whether or not you took the piece by location-based real-time damage.

The only problem I had was that is was a flaw in the graphical representation of the combat. If it was like Neverwinter Nights, then if your combat failed you would see your enemy block your attack, or dodge out of the way. In other RPGs, you see something like a text log that says "Attack Misses". But in Morrowind, all you see is your sword hit the graphical avatar of the enemy, but the enemy take no damage. I think a blocking animation would have solved the problem here.

They actually played an annoying little "shhffttt" sound when you missed.

I say down with misses entirely. When you're fighting with medieval weapons, how bad are you if you can't even hit a life size target that is standing right next to you? It's certainly not dodging, because I continuously miss enemies that are completely unaware of my presence.

There are many ways to represent bad skill with weapons or fighting techniques. Clumsy grip results in less damage, lack of experience gives you fewer attack options, etc. Use real life as a guide. Missing is just bothersome.