Hopefully the categories could create a good blend between variety and specialisation, to the extent that there shouldn't be any clearly superior combinations of skills. And perhaps the RPS aspect of this could enforce it, by ensuring that any approach can be beaten by an opponent who is well enough prepared.

I wouldn't allow changing armour mid-mission, and weapon changes would be limited to whatever you can carry, but I forsee this being an enjoyable strategy choice like the load-out in games like Thief, rather than an annoying restriction. You would be able to return to base and re-equip later if necessary. It's a multiplayer game, so players can opt to cooperate in groups to ensure wider variety and cover all bases.

Having thought about it, I'm essentially hoping for something akin to the Magic: The Gathering deck selection prior to a multi-player tournament. The power of each technique would depend somewhat on the other ones you select, so that it is never simply a case of picking the 'best' 8 skills, but about picking ones that work well together. It would also depend on those picked by your opponent, which you can guess at ahead of time but not be 100% certain about.

As for the scripting, I can't see exactly how it would work. Scripting implies there are already existing attack/defence commands that you want to manipulate in a deterministic order. Such is the case with FFXII's gambits, but in my system this isn't the case, primarily because there is no real-time combat, and therefore I don't actually have anything to script. And if anybody has any examples of how such scripts would work in such a context, I'd like to see them.

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan Hopefully the categories could create a good blend between variety and specialisation, to the extent that there shouldn't be any clearly superior combinations of skills. And perhaps the RPS aspect of this could enforce it, by ensuring that any approach can be beaten by an opponent who is well enough prepared.

What mechanics are you arranging for RPS? I think that is probably of primary importance when considering whether or not it's fun.

Quote:

I wouldn't allow changing armour mid-mission, and weapon changes would be limited to whatever you can carry, but I forsee this being an enjoyable strategy choice like the load-out in games like Thief, rather than an annoying restriction. You would be able to return to base and re-equip later if necessary. It's a multiplayer game, so players can opt to cooperate in groups to ensure wider variety and cover all bases.

I wouldn't allow armor changes either, but you could forsake realism for gameplay if you really wanted to. The multiplayer aspect should help smooth out the equipment deficiencies, but what is a single player to do?

Quote:

Having thought about it, I'm essentially hoping for something akin to the Magic: The Gathering deck selection prior to a multi-player tournament. The power of each technique would depend somewhat on the other ones you select, so that it is never simply a case of picking the 'best' 8 skills, but about picking ones that work well together. It would also depend on those picked by your opponent, which you can guess at ahead of time but not be 100% certain about.

Again, what specifics do you have in mind for techniques? Considering they are to be used automatically, what criteria does the AI use for technique selection? In what way will the techniques / equipment combinations interact if the player is removed from combat?

Quote:

As for the scripting, I can't see exactly how it would work. Scripting implies there are already existing attack/defence commands that you want to manipulate in a deterministic order. Such is the case with FFXII's gambits, but in my system this isn't the case, primarily because there is no real-time combat, and therefore I don't actually have anything to script. And if anybody has any examples of how such scripts would work in such a context, I'd like to see them.

I guess it would depend on how your combat works. I was under the impression that it goes similarly to regular RPG combat, just automated. For instance, you get into a battle, and it prints out

You used 'Thrust!' on Goblin A for 20 damage.Goblin A strikes you with a club for 8 damage.You use 'Fire Storm' on Goblin A for 30 damage.Goblin A dies.

That lends itself pretty well to scripting, but I guess I misread your battle system.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf What mechanics are you arranging for RPS? I think that is probably of primary importance when considering whether or not it's fun.

Personally I don't think it's all that important. The key is simply that any unit, strategy, or skill has strengths and weaknesses, and you have to exploit your opponent's weaknesses more effectively than they exploit yours.

Quote:

I wouldn't allow armor changes either, but you could forsake realism for gameplay if you really wanted to. The multiplayer aspect should help smooth out the equipment deficiencies, but what is a single player to do?

Diversify, as the system is designed to allow, or attempt different goals. I have no interest in attempting to make everything both accessible to individuals and fun for groups.

Quote:

Again, what specifics do you have in mind for techniques? Considering they are to be used automatically, what criteria does the AI use for technique selection? In what way will the techniques / equipment combinations interact if the player is removed from combat?

I don't have specifics in mind; that's what this thread was about.

Quote:

I guess it would depend on how your combat works. I was under the impression that it goes similarly to regular RPG combat, just automated. For instance, you get into a battle, and it prints out You used 'Thrust!' on Goblin A for 20 damage.Goblin A strikes you with a club for 8 damage.You use 'Fire Storm' on Goblin A for 30 damage.Goblin A dies. That lends itself pretty well to scripting, but I guess I misread your battle system.

It might work like that, but it might not. There are no pre-determined 'fire storms' or 'thrust' skills as of yet. It may not work on a discrete "one technique per round" basis. Techniques may not even be directly responsible for inflicting damage, but could contribute to an overall single resolution. Different techniques on each side could cancel each other out and only the others will factor in the battle. Or the game might randomly pick a technique from each character during each round and compare them, possibly somewhat akin to Top Trumps. Or any number of things.

I'm trying to approach this from a fresh perspective, rather than just seeing how I can take the same old RPG combat and spice it up a bit.

With my suggestion of a technique base system. I was almost thinking of card based system akin to magic. You could have styles which would be the equivalent of colours in magic. This could then figure into your strategies as some styles might have advantages and disadvantages against other styles. Street fighting beats grappling but loses to military training.

You could change it to a combo/counter/attack/defence system.

Combo techniques can be openers, linkers, or finishers. Depending on when they are used. A combo starts with an opener, if that is successfully, then moves on to the next move which can be either a linker or a finisher; linkers can be followed by either linkers or finishers.

Counters are defensive moves that are also attacks and/or openers.

An attack can be also be a combo technique.

Combos are built in advance by chaining 2 or more techniques together.

By limiting the number of techniques a player can have then you can have the same strategy as you get in a game like magic.

If a level 4 character can have 7 techniques.
They could choose to build a 4 technique combo. But that would only leave 3 more techniques to choose from for both attack and defence. A good combo would be far more effective then a single attack but if your opponent can defend or counter your opener then you have effectively wasted the other technique slots as they will never be used.

Technique success could be determined by its style, combo bonus, style bonus, and how many hit dice it has.

+1 hit die if the style beats the opponent’s style.
+1 to success roll for the second card in a combo, +2 for the third, +4 for the forth, etc..
+1 hit die if the you are only using techniques of one style.
Each hit die is a d6.

The technique that is successful is the one with the highest score. Each technique has its own effect.

I can see how such a system might work, but it sounds a little complex for my needs. Also in my opinion the whole combo/attack/defence/opener/linker/finisher divides up the range of techniques into too many small categories, of which players are going to feel compelled to take some of each, leading to low diversity. I don't see how dividing skills/abilities up that way benefits the game as it directs your choices rather than leaving them free. (You'll always need an opener, you'll presumably always want a finisher, I can expect an optimal number of linkers will be found, etc.)

Additionally I think the emphasis on long combos will severely limit the diversity of strategies that players can choose - if 4-part combos exist then 8 techniques is too few to do much with; everybody will try and get one such combo, and I can only design so many.

For my purposes I'd prefer more abstract techniques that don't (generally) correspond to individual moves within combat, nor necessarily correspond to particular phases within combat, to ensure that I don't have to create a million different techniques just in order to allow diversity. I'm not worried about how to represent them to the player, just as D+D doesn't worry too much about exactly what Armor Class and Hitpoints truly represent.

The style-based system is probably closer to what I was thinking, as the styles can be entirely arbitrary for the most part. But the key still comes down to deciding how to balance them to make things interesting. That's the hard part to pin down.

Hopefully my thoughts on the subject can help you to decide on a method for this.

So, besides equipment, you have a combat strategy which is comprised of 7 (or more if you can think of any more simple combat movements) individual strategies or movements.

1.Stance: The way the character is standing ie. offensive, defensive, casting, sneaky etc. Basically these give the character large bonuses or minuses to stats.
(an offensive stance would boost atk power and stamina but hurt defense and mag power etc.)

2.Defensive Strategy: What your character will do if given the chance to defend ie. raise shield, block with arms, dodge, roll with blow, block with weapon etc. Depending on which def. strat. is used, it will get a bonus from a different character stat and/or equipment stat.

3.Prim Attack Strategy: The attack your character prefers to use ie. Fierce slashes, Slashes, Pinpoint piercings for sword attacks. Precise fire, Rapid fire, Special fire (shot that checks against enemy mag. def.) for bow attacks. Powerful magics, Lesser magics, Physical magics for black magic attacks. Powerful heals, Lesser heals, stuff <_< >_> for heal attacks (not really "attacks" but w/e).

4.Sec Attack Strategy: Same attack move pool as above, however, these are the attacks your character tries to perform less often.

5.Prim Attack Target: Who your character's Primary Attack Strat is aimed at ie. Any Enemy, All Enemies (of course doing less dmg to each), Most threatening enemy (highest atk/mag pow), Weakest Enemy, Any Ally, All Allies (again with the penalty), Ally in Need, Strongest Ally (highest atk/mag pow).

6.Sec Attack Target: Same, but for the Secondary Attack Strat.

7.Move of Opportunity: A special move that your character might pull of in combat. Here is where buffs, stat dmg/boost moves, or just plain awesome attack is executed. ie. (far from complete list) Increase atk buff, Decrease mag def curse, War cry, running lunge, meteor storm, frost wind, headshot, poisoned arrow, pickpocket, backstab etc.


The instantanious battle will internally take place as multiple rounds until all enemies or players are dead.
Fight begins
Calc total equipment bonus of each stat for each player.
Calc stance bonus to each stat.
Round begins

1.Move of Opportunity for each participant (1 on d20 needed)- this the only place stat modifiers should be to decrease the complexity of the rest of the round. Also Moves of Opportunity (esp. really damaging ones) would drain lots of stamina/mana.

2.Calc bonus to def strat, prim atk, and sec atk based on current stats.

3.Participant attacks with leftover stamina/mana in this fashion,
currentStam/primAttackCost = number of primary attacks
Determine who the opponent(s) is/are.
If the opponent is a group, divide prim attack power by the number of opponents +1.
For each primary attack, the opponent has a chance (1 on d6 needed) to lessen the damage inflicted by primAttackPwr/DefenceStratPwr

(currentStam/3)/secAttackCost = number of secondary attacks
The same defense rules apply as above.


If the attack is a heal on allies, then dont calc resistance to being healed :P but the +1 to number of allies stays.

4. Reset Stamina but keep stats boosted from the move of opportunity (they can add up over rounds)

5. Kick dead participants from being in next round.

6. Start next round.

After some iterations, the fight will end with those surviving being victorious!
So now display the results of that semi-complicated to the players!


Hope that helps =D

Quote:

Original post by Kylotan I can see how such a system might work, but it sounds a little complex for my needs. Also in my opinion the whole combo/attack/defence/opener/linker/finisher divides up the range of techniques into too many small categories, of which players are going to feel compelled to take some of each, leading to low diversity. I don't see how dividing skills/abilities up that way benefits the game as it directs your choices rather than leaving them free. (You'll always need an opener, you'll presumably always want a finisher, I can expect an optimal number of linkers will be found, etc.) Additionally I think the emphasis on long combos will severely limit the diversity of strategies that players can choose - if 4-part combos exist then 8 techniques is too few to do much with; everybody will try and get one such combo, and I can only design so many.

Yes I can see where your comining from. The reason I suggested it was because you said you wanted a system like magic. Which has monsters, sorcerries, instants, interupts, enchantments, artifacts, and lands. Building a deck consists of balancing the choice of cards, and card types for a given strategy.

That was the sort of system I was going for, but I agree it does require a fair bit of content creation.

Quote:

For my purposes I'd prefer more abstract techniques that don't (generally) correspond to individual moves within combat, nor necessarily correspond to particular phases within combat, to ensure that I don't have to create a million different techniques just in order to allow diversity. I'm not worried about how to represent them to the player, just as D+D doesn't worry too much about exactly what Armor Class and Hitpoints truly represent. The style-based system is probably closer to what I was thinking, as the styles can be entirely arbitrary for the most part. But the key still comes down to deciding how to balance them to make things interesting. That's the hard part to pin down.

Maybe you could have simple style based system. Come up with say 12 styles each with a terrian affinity, evirnoment modifers, and a set of bonus it applies to the user and/or imperiments it applies to opponent. You could then "level up" the bonuses in the game and still keep everything simple and abstact. Buy a few pints for the old drunk the bar and he shows you a few dirty trick that gives you an additonal -1 to your oppents success rolls when street fighting.

Street fighting would give a bonus when fighting in the dark and/or confined areas, while say grappling suffers in those situations.

Any more ideas on this? It seems like most people I talk to seem happy to stay in the "generate a 'to-hit' score from various skills and modifiers, then test a random number against it" method. Surely there have to be more interesting methods out there? Ones which make a player's choices really matter?

Well, how do I, as a player, know which skills it would be tactically wise to bring to the fight? Since I can't actually influence the fight once it's started, do I just pick random skills because it's rock/paper/scissors and all tactics are basically equal? Do I pick the same killer-combo over and over because I know it gives me the best odds?

I need a way to gain some information from my opponent, so I can tailor my tactics to his weaknesses. Otherwise you might as well just use a random number to determine the outcome (even numbers: You win. Odd: You lose)
If there isn't some kind of feedback I can react to, I can't really use skill or tactics.

Maybe an idea would be to reuse the 'phases' idea from earlier. Divide the combat up into two or three phases, but allow user input in between them. So the first phase(s) can be used mostly to test your opponent, figure out which tactics you should use, and then in the last phase(s), you can unleash your specially composed skills and tactics.

It's not 100% instant resolution then, of course, but might still be acceptable. At least it would solve the problem of giving the player some kind of feedback to act on.

There is a pairing between defense parameters and attack params.
If the enemy has only hps and armor then thats basically says attacks have only to-hit-% and damage (and armor effecting spells). We need to think of more parameters to have more clever attacks. Having acid/lightning/fire/ice types is just a small addition. Having kick/punch/bash is another small addition. I am afraid something totally new means something more complex - for example -

If you have 2d grid of locations that becomes instantly a much more strategy oriented game - like chess (or better example, check www.digisonline.com tactics arena). I guess that doesn't fit into the text rpg. This 2d grid fits better with the fine grain strategy gaming, but can also fit with the "initialize and watch the battle" style. With parameters such as "attack closest" or "attack unit with least hps" or "run when injured" etc... this basically is a contest of AI, with Very unique gameplay but again, very very complex.

If you have multi-char group fights that opens up more possibilities also. Should you have 2 warriors & cleric or warrior & 2 clerics? should you attack the low-hps-mage first or the cleric first or maybe use a strategy that spreads damage on all enemies (in turn dealing more damage). This again opens more complex game but I think it can fit in a rpg text (like most MUDs).

Another idea -
You can use elements of other games, maybe search games in game-theory math - but its going to be hard/impossible to connect them to rpg. For example - each round is like a game of blackjack - the winner deals damage to the opponent, the lower the cards the higher the damage. Or each round is like a game of biding (where each bid costs). The two opponent mages bid different energy levels (up to a certain maximum?) the winner deals damage to the other as the round and the looser looses half the energy he bid (well something of this sort). You can go crazy with the rules and dump every illogical rule on the "magic logic", but I personally prefer the 2d grid multi char groups games [smile] .


I don't like the "set ahead and watch the battle play itself" idea. I very much prefer interactive battles. Either turn based or realtime (or something in between such as slow-realtime turns that pass by themselves with default action after 5 seconds idle).


Iftah

[Edited by - Iftah on April 10, 2007 7:20:29 AM]