Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq 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.

Hmm... seems like you're trying to dictate what their opinions should be. If everyone really prefers action-packed rpgs but doesn't know it, then the market would have shifted towards them by now; the idea of adding more twitch to an RPG isn't particularly novel, and has been done in many games. The fact that "boring" rpgs still sell by the truckload leads me to believe that many people who claim to like them actually do like them.

Quote:

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.

But is it more fun to be frustrated by awkward controls and the need to repetitively click click click jump click click dodge jump combo combo dodge click dodge combo jump vs. choosing "Meteor" from your list and having it auto-target your enemy?

Quote:

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

There is no "better"; there are two things: which YOU like better, which is of course important for your own game design, and what the market in general and your target market in particular like better. Most signs point to RPG fans liking less twitch, and being turned off by people trying to fuse Tekken into their Final Fantasy.

Quote:

Original post by makeshiftwings Quote: Original post by Nytehauq 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. Hmm... seems like you're trying to dictate what their opinions should be. If everyone really prefers action-packed rpgs but doesn't know it, then the market would have shifted towards them by now; the idea of adding more twitch to an RPG isn't particularly novel, and has been done in many games. The fact that "boring" rpgs still sell by the truckload leads me to believe that many people who claim to like them actually do like them.

1) I said nothing of what everyone 'really' prefers. I talked about what they would like better. But you can like two things, like on better, and still use both of them. Preference seems to indicate mutual exclusivity - which is not what I'm suggesting. 2) People do like "boring" RPG's. And people will still like "fun" RPG's better. I don't see your point. Furthermore, how was I dictating what their opinions should be? Everyone doesn't prefer "Action packed RPG's" - this is true. But I'm not even advocating the 'Action packed' RPG you seem to be describing. What does that have to do with people enjoying RPG's designed in the way I described? I didn't describe the cliche twitch based RPG, nor did I describe any game currently on the market. It seems that everyone assumes that any RPG that is A) Different, and B) Related to action = the normal cliche hack 'n slash boring, mundane RPG. I think it should be obvious that that is not what I'm advocating. If you're going to argue the point, argue the point. Don't explain to me that Diablo II sucks therefore my game sucks too, or that "Action RPG's" 'are bad' therefore your idea has to suck. My idea is particularly novel, and it hasn't been done in many games. In fact, the only game that has the combat I described in the previous example was Devil May Cry - seeing as I desribed Devil May Cry's combat system. There is no other game with the same combat system, much less an RPG. And I'm quite sure that Devil May Cry does not have boring, mundane twitch combat. It's really damn hard - and many many people still play it despite this fact. It's because they find the combat really really fun.

The fact that 'boring' (Of course, I never meant to imply that they were boring - just boring relative to what I proposed) RPG's sell by the truckload is due to the fact that they are currently the best on the market - this doesn't mean that they are 'great' - it just means that most RPG's are worse, they are currently the only RPG's that offer vast online worlds, and they are currently the only RPG's that already have an established fan base. Sales figures don't neccesarily mean a good game. Actually, in most cases, it means great marketing. And, contrary to popular belief, people will buy absolute crap because they don't know any better. Now, these games aren't absolute crap, but whether or not they sell well has nothing to do with whether or not their gameplay is good.

Quote:

Quote: 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. But is it more fun to be frustrated by awkward controls and the need to repetitively click click click jump click click dodge jump combo combo dodge click dodge combo jump vs. choosing "Meteor" from your list and having it auto-target your enemy?

No, it isn't more fun to fumble over akward controls. Where did you see me say anything about controls in my piece? Where did you get the "repetitively click click click jump click click dodge jump combo" from? I think you're assuming what type of game I'm describing and arguing against that game. It's a strawman argument. I'm quite sure the game that you're depicting sucks quite much, but that isn't my game.

Quote:

Quote: I like the first one better. While players may be biased against it - their opinions don't change whether or not it's better. There is no "better"; there are two things: which YOU like better, which is of course important for your own game design, and what the market in general and your target market in particular like better. Most signs point to RPG fans liking less twitch, and being turned off by people trying to fuse Tekken into their Final Fantasy.

Well, the first part is wordplay - I depicted two starkly contrasting points and threw in "I like the first one better" to emphasize how silly the second point sounded - not to say that the first one was better in my opinion, but to say that the first one is better, period, my opinion notwithstanding. RPG fans don't like current twitch RPG's. Did I describe a 'current' twitch RPG? Most times, the combat isn't even the problem anyway. Most 'twitch' RPG's lack other aspects that define the RPG genre. The combat is better than the average RPG - but that's a given. Instead of wait wait wait it's click click click. The problem arises when all there is is click click click. No real social interaction, no interesting RPG world - they slack off on a whole bunch of non-combat related stuff.

Now, if you had an RPG that had action-oriented fair combat (I described 'twitch based' combat that relied on the character moreso than the player already) and the rest of the good things in RPG's, would you have a problem with the combat? Or is it the stigma attached to most RPG's of the twitch based genre that has you irritated?

[Edited by - Nytehauq on July 26, 2005 6:45:14 PM]

Twitch gaming does not equal button pounding.

I'm not sure why die-hard RPG fans always seem to picture it this way. Final Fight is a button pounder. Street Fighter is not. Both are twitch, and they have very little in common. Masterful fighting engines are extreme mind games. No different than playing chess, other than the fact that you have to think on your toes. If you've ever pictured an elite fighting game as a button smasher, then you must be one of those players who rely on instruction booklets to tutorial your way into a game and explain everything little action you can perform. Sure, they may be using a different section of your brain, but it's still your brain. It's not testing your finger reflexes. Only you can choose to play it that way.

I've never played an RPG that had a complex real-time combat system. That's a pretty simple statement. I've played Final-Fight-like punch and kick games (Zelda). I have to admit, even though their combat is lacking, the game doesn't suffer because of it. Most likely because enemies are grounded in a few strikes. A hell of a lot better than being transported to a different universe, selecting attack, getting whacked, selecting attack, counting loot and experience for five seconds, then transporting back, all to kill a rat. I'm not an MMORPG fan, so there may be some decent real-time systems out there. But negative assumptions have been noted.

Hello, I have a small help request, And I do not want to create a different thread (Even though I did a search on google gamedev.net and didnt find much, or perhaps I just dont like using this method of searching, and the search does not allow website searching). Well there it goes:

As we know in many games, the combat system is mostly repetitive and boring and mostly automated, this does not only apply action rpgs but also traditional console-style rpgs. Well, I have this little problem I need a solution, since most of us know that at least in Action RPGs it happens most of the time, well, what im saying is that the Hit and Miss rate are very unbalanced, you see more Hits than misses, Even when you're a level 1 fighting against level 5 monster. This does not make much sense however. I almost all the time see something along the lines of:
Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Miss Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Miss.

Ok, So I would like to change it, I would like to know a good and sophisticated formula which will allow me to develop my character and not have to worry about always hitting, or even sometimes always missing. I would like a balanced gameplay and yet challenging. So that I could build up my characters while taking in account that if I dont increase some statistic (Can Include Character Level, Skill Level, Agility, Dexterity for example) which increase the chances to Hit while still while being a newbie, not always hitting but most of the times missing. Well, Perhaps this is an easy case... But Can anyone help me out with a good Formula to calculate the Hit and Miss Ratios ?

Thank you.

P.S: This should be a formula suitable for an ACTION MMORPG.

Quote:

Original post by XVampireX Hello, I have a small help request, And I do not want to create a different thread (Even though I did a search on google gamedev.net and didnt find much, or perhaps I just dont like using this method of searching, and the search does not allow website searching). Well there it goes: As we know in many games, the combat system is mostly repetitive and boring and mostly automated, this does not only apply action rpgs but also traditional console-style rpgs. Well, I have this little problem I need a solution, since most of us know that at least in Action RPGs it happens most of the time, well, what im saying is that the Hit and Miss rate are very unbalanced, you see more Hits than misses, Even when you're a level 1 fighting against level 5 monster. This does not make much sense however. I almost all the time see something along the lines of: Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Miss Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Hit Miss. Ok, So I would like to change it, I would like to know a good and sophisticated formula which will allow me to develop my character and not have to worry about always hitting, or even sometimes always missing. I would like a balanced gameplay and yet challenging. So that I could build up my characters while taking in account that if I dont increase some statistic (Can Include Character Level, Skill Level, Agility, Dexterity for example) which increase the chances to Hit while still while being a newbie, not always hitting but most of the times missing. Well, Perhaps this is an easy case... But Can anyone help me out with a good Formula to calculate the Hit and Miss Ratios ? Thank you. P.S: This should be a formula suitable for an ACTION MMORPG.

Well, one rule of thumb:

1) You want fairness and plausibility.

People find games fun (Especially competetive online games) when they feel that the result is fair. There are those gamers who will never tolerate loosing - but most people won't argue when they feel that they've lost fairly. The key to building a combat system that is fun is often maintaining this fairness. People like to know what is going to happen during a battle, and they like to be confident in their abilities. A level 60 warrior would be very irritated if they continually missed a much weaker character, and any player would hate it if they suddenly encountered an overpowered enemy without warning. Avoid the implausible, as well. Many players are irritated by effects like imobilization - your character cannot move for reasons independent of your skills while playing the game. Of course, "fairness and plausibility" is very broad and subjective, but it comes down to knowing what you want.

As far as developing the actual formulas, you have to test out combat and let it tell you what the formulas should read. It's dependent on how long you want a fight to last and what kinds of battles you want to have between different types of players.

My two cents, at the very least. I'd suggest abandoning having chance to hit calculated by a random number, as it breaks the above concepts. Newbies are likely to loose to a powerful warrior not because they roll a random number, but because they don't hit as hard, and can't maneuver as well. Telling the player that they missed is irritating - telling a weak player that they do five damage to their amazing powerful opponent or showing them that their player controlled oponent actually does have better reactions than them and that they lost due to skill and character quality is much more acceptable.

Something to consider, perhaps...

a common complaint when it comes to RPG combat seems to be "it's just mashing the same button, it's boring" ... but then you start thinking about the supposedly non-boring FPS combat and you can come to conclusion the basic mechanics is identical here -- you mash the fire button and hopefully the enemy dies before you do. So, might be worth to try to take a closer look at the factors which set the RPG combat apart from FPS combat, in this search for "fun"..? (closer look as in, beyond the simple "well one is twitch and the other is not")

factors i'd think of:

* speed -- combat in RPG is (relatively to FPS) very slow. In the same time it takes in RPG to kill a single regular enemy, you can probably drop a whole room of GTA denizens with well-placed headshots (and 3-4 'regular' hits tops are lethal as well) Similar rule affects the player's character, they can rarely survive more than couple second of focused fire. This imo to large extent affects the "it's all about pressing the same button" sensation one gets from RPG combat... in FPS game you'd only press that proverbial button few times before the fight is over, one way or the other.

(a slightly different aspect of speed -- due to characters being more vulnerable in FPS, the game requires faster decision making... again, leaving the player no time to ponder how repetitive it all really is. :s

* environment being part of combat -- boils down to being able to shield oneself from damage by hiding behind parts of environment, and to affect enemies/cause damage to them indirectly, by both utilizing and damaging the environment. Removes tedium out of combat when rather than kill the enemy with the gun the plater can for a change blow up a crate of explosives situated close to group of enemies, ride them over with a car, use automated heavy door to squish them, etc.

* positioning -- being able to catch the enemy unaware by approaching from direction they cannot see; being able to avoid damage by placing oneself out of the line of fire. Some RPG try to utilize it, but it hardly goes past the "is the target within weapon reach" check... enemy will block and dodge just as well with the player behind their back rather than in front of them, and will hit anything within their weapon range with no delay, no matter where the target actually is.

I've been thinking alot about RPG combat systems lately , trying to come up with my own ideas of how I'll one day do it...

First I'll list some "good points" that I've noticed from a few styles..

FF7 (and 8 etc) - Had a real "epic struggle" feel when fighting bosses

Fallout - Tactical, you had to use your brain

Actually, both of these styles require you to use your brain to develop strategies.
One bad thing about both of these is that they do not "flow" - combat is separated from the rest of the world (ie there is a "combat mode" and a "restofgame-mode"), but the main problem (IMO) is the control over your characters.

I feel that the problem lies in the actions you are limited in performing, and that ultimately these actions are based upon some arbitrary number, and partially because they are not run in realtime (i dont have a problem with turnbased fighting, but ideally a combat system will be more fluid..)

I think the only thing holding back RPGs from creating a realtime system of combat, is that the sheer complexity of a control system that would allow you to be moving, ducking, dodging, parrying, swinging a weapon/firing a bow, jumping, running, accessing your inventory to drink a potion (which would in a true RP sense not be possible during combat), casting a spell, etc etc..

Although this seems to be a mostly player skill-oriented rather than numerical "skill level" based system there are plenty of ways to incorporate skills & levels, attributes. etc

So RPG designers have taken one of two approaches to deal with the complexity of combat:

-simplify it (point&click (eg diablo), or things such as secret of mana, where attacks are linked to buttons)
-slow it down (turn-based, eg final fantasy/console-style combat)

All in all I think combat can only be as good/fun as its control system, and more work needs to be done on innovative controls that allow more complex things to be done.

Im currently sort of toying with ideas in my head about all this at the moment and have the basis of a combat system starting to emerge. . . reading this thread has been really helpful too!

-gav

err sorry for the previous terribly disjointed post.. It made sense to me

*goes to bed*

Quote:

Original post by gav86 I think the only thing holding back RPGs from creating a realtime system of combat, is that the sheer complexity of a control system that would allow you to be moving, ducking, dodging, parrying, swinging a weapon/firing a bow, jumping, running, accessing your inventory to drink a potion (which would in a true RP sense not be possible during combat), casting a spell, etc etc..

My project does this by giving characters a combat mode. They press a certain button to draw weapons or prepare to fight. After the button is pressed, they can't execute normal actions. All of their controls turn into combat controls, except that button. They press it again to stow their gear into holsters.

It gets a little hairy in some situations. Such as picking up and dropping weapons, which is allowed in both modes. A lot of non-combat game routines need to be concerned with which mode is active as well. And I have to deal with what should happen when relaxed charaters are attacked and/or killed. The worst of it is just the number of extra animations.

Hmmm.

It's not so complex. Let's say, for example, you had a standard 13 button controller - let's use the Xbox controller as a base.

The left thumbstick is used for movement. Pressing it in allows you to duck. Moving left or right while holding the thumbstick causes you to roll. The right thumbstick can be used to aim and place ranged spells/attacks/stuff, or for a variety of actions if an automatic targeting system is used. The A button is used for jumping and dodging (Dodging is essentially jumping out of the way, in this context). Right trigger is attack, left trigger is parry/block (Depending on your equipment). X can be the 'interact button', B an Y can be assigned to do something automatically from the inventory (Potions, for instance).

Or, you could use the Devil May Cry 3 controls with a PS2 controller, assigning simple button presses to different skills.

Or, on a PC keyboard, you could use WASD for movement, the mouse for aiming, left click for attack, right click for block/parry/secondary attack etc, the scroll wheel scrolls through spells, spacebar is for jump, shift is duck, and hotkeys can be used for potions etc. Essentially, it's Diablo II modified with a few more options.

It's never been done, but it's not that hard.