Just realised one of the MAJOR deficiencies and weak areas that exist in game design! Blocking, defensive gameplay, avoidance etc. are generally underdeveloped and game designers haven''t been able to work out how to implement them in a way that rivals the aggressive / attacking combat gameplay that exists. the following got me thinking

quote: By, Hase. every enemy should be able to get you... if they are more than 3 a single fighter (even if he´s VERY good) will seriously consider running away, because they can rush you, and then no amount of skill or power-sword will help.

In Thief: The Dark Project / Thief2: The Metal Age is one of the main facets of the game. The player tries to avoid combat by a variety of sneaky techniques (keeping low visibility, moving silently, timing his moves to avoid being seen by the patrolling guards). SO aside from stealth, distraction etc. I realized that there has been very little development of DEFENSIVE gameplay. Ie. Using shields, blocking, using the enemies attacks against them etc. There needs to be defensive gameplay with the same richness of gameplay that we find in other games. Ie. Determining which type of defensive move is better, evaluating different strategies etc. Different moves providing different advantages and disadvantages.

Ketchaval, with risk to be flamed by my team later for giving out a secret info, I have to tell ya, that our combat system is just the same: Attacker chooses Attack Style (5 Types, 10 subtypes, 50 total), Defender can choose Defense Style (5 Types, 10 subtypes, 50 total). Weapons have modifing bonuses for every type of attack, Skills too. It''s not just point-and-kill, you actually have to think very carefully on your strategy, the type of weapon you have, the type of weapon your oponent has, extra defensive bonuses he has... many factors have to be considered. This system was developed for pnp rpg, it''s been tested and it works perfectly. Not to say that it give very high percent realism, compared to 10-20% in the D&D system, i.e.. Also tactical formations are involved and combinations can be done with some of the partners. Some examples, and that''s all or I''m gonna loose my head .
1 on 1 combat:
P1 attacks, choses to make quick move to the left, trying to hit P2 ribs or maybe right leg with his short sword.
P2 could jump back (dodge), could parry, or counterattack. And counterattacking by making a step forward, turns right and grabbing P1 sticks his weapon in his stomach, or cutting the throat. P1 already has inertia moving fast to the left, so he couldn''t stop, but if he chose another type of attack, he would be able to counter that P2 counterattack...

3 on 1 combat:
P1 surrounded by P2, P3, P4.
P1 has option to take evasive actions, of course, but we''ll imagine he''ll stay and fight. One way to survive is using an Aikido technique, designed especially for that kind of situations: by grabbing an throwing one of the opponents, or simply by rapidly changing position, P1 forses the attackers to stay in such formation that won''t allow them to attack him more that one at a time, two at most. This is not so hard to achieve even in the real live with several months practice and we''re talking about heroic games here, so...

If you think something is wrong with that system, that''s because you don''t know all the details. The major problem we have is converting it from tabletop to desktop, from pnp to computer, but we''re doing our best.



Boby Dimitrov
boby@azholding.com

Sorry, the friggin Linux Opera faked up

Edited by - BobyDimitrov on June 5, 2001 11:45:15 AM

BobyDimitrov, that is some interesting stuff. And (probably) an advance in the direction that I am thinking of, yet it does not fully encompass the idea of a "non-violent" combat game.

I think that being able to redirect and modify the enemies attack is a cool idea [as in your Aikido examples], ie. when in the movies the enemy charges with a sword and Robin Hood (etc) redirects it so that the sword gets stuck in the wood. ====> This action is not aggressive, but has temporarily deprived the enemy of their weapon, and they will either have to abandon it or get it out of the wood.

So the player has not damaged the enemy, but has reduced its attributes and strategic tools!

Ketchaval, how can you have a combat without violence? Maybe what you''re looking for is another Far East combat technique, which is based on redirecting the attacking energy of the attacker back to himself, thus damaging him. Like he tries to punch you and you just change the direction of his strike, so it actually aims in the attacker''s stomach instead of your jaw. I''m not quite sure how to achieve that, though I know that several years of training are needed for one to learn the skill.

I''m not against aggresion/violence in the combats, but as I said, I stand for balance of the Attack-Defense cycle. Not just Attack-Attack-Attack... Though is interesing to have defensive ONLY gameplay, there are not many real life situations where this is applicable.

As an old Kenny Rodgers'' song said:
"You don''t have to fight to be man...
...sometimes you have to fight when you''re a man"

In other words, it''s quite difficult to avoid confrontation, unless you have the WHOLE game spinning around that (like Thief).


Boby Dimitrov
boby@azholding.com

quote: Original post by BobyDimitrov
Ketchaval, how can you have a combat without violence?

....
I'm not against aggresion/violence in the combats, but as I said, I stand for balance of the Attack-Defense cycle. Not just Attack-Attack-Attack... Though is interesing to have defensive ONLY gameplay, there are not many real life situations where this is applicable.

(Welcome to gamedev.net BobyDimitrov!)

Part of my approach to this topic is to consider what elements of a game would need to change and what to, to make a game which was FULLY BASED around DEFENCE. As we know how to do aggressive combat, I think it is time to consider how to make defensive combat which is as entertaining!

-> This is my approach, and more of an intellectual / theoretical game-design exercise. I agree that having a more balanced attack / defense cycle is a way in which games could be improved!
------

The thrill of defeating an enemy by aggressive means would probably be lost in a defensive game, but would be replaced by other similar feelings.. ie. outwitting the attacking force etc.

Victory Conditions
When you cannot defeat the opponent, what do you do to end combat? You could have a survival - time-limit approach.
It could be possible to limit their ATTACKs, ie. Star Trek they have 6 photon torpedoes, how do we use our shields to survive?
Maybe, outrunning the enemy would be another way. Or a point system which judges you on how well you defend against their attacking strategy?


How can you improve defensive tools to make them more interesting, we know how to make attacking weapons have interesting properties -advantages and disadvantages. But haven't done the same with defensive items.


Edited by - Ketchaval on June 5, 2001 4:35:36 PM

Edited by - Ketchaval on June 5, 2001 4:36:56 PM

Hey Ketchaval!

This is interesting indeed. If we talk about an cRPG, it was stated the killing was way too much. I guess in a street fight i.e. you could try to use different avoidance techniques, so the attackers would understand that they cannot get you and walk away, or even better get VERY furstrated and damage themselves, like in a catroon scene, where 2 villains rush from both sides to the innocent victim and it steps back in the last moment so they hit each other. The more furstrated they get, the easyed will be to be avoided.

I still can''t figure out how it''ll work with monsters but I''m thinking on it!
Off to bed now, 00:25 here, early work tomo... oops, today


Boby Dimitrov
boby@azholding.com

Hi there!

What I think is, that:
DEFENSE is very important in all games which involve combat, because combat means strategy. If you cant defend yourself, your strategical options are halved... thats BAD! Most of todays games (and thats something I cant understand) focus on the Agressive (attacking) part of combat, while levaing great holes in the defensive part.

Let us take a typical space strategy game this time (master of orion):

This is a turn based system, so defense should have an even greater importance, because you cannot alter your decision after you finished your turn, but in this game, there are no real defensive options. Yes, you can have armor! Yes, you can also have shields, BUT you can do nothing to defend yourself. You cannot evade, you cannot counter-attack, etc... thats VERY VERY BAD!

What am i talking about?

Great strategist always told us, that
"attacking is the best defense."
Yes, its sometimes true BUT in a game, the player should have the option to defend, and thats something i still miss from the new games.

BobyDimitrov:
The system you were talking about has many interresting ideas in it, just try to work them all out. Dont throw them away! Do this project have a title, or it is also a secret?

Conclusion:
Game designers out there: Try to find a balance between attacking and defending.

Thats it
Balazs

Having defense is good. It''s realistic too.

(Devil''s Advocate
But let''s look at game balance. And a few implemetation thoughts.

a) Pure defense (not getting hit, parrying) only prolongs the combat. That is, if one player does the ''pure defense move'' and is successful on turn N, then the state at turn N+1 matches the state at turn N.

This might not be a good design.

b)Defense as offense (judo and whatnot). This is ok, but only useful (IMO) if you have a fully detailed combat system likethe one BD mentions above.

If the end result is a bunch of factors including hit locaation, stance, position, further combat mods, or the chance to throw the other guy off a cliff, then go for it.

If the end result is simply ''damage to opponent'', then keep it simple. Change the graphics if it looks cool, but no need for a real change to the mechanics.


This leads to the implementation bit. In a turn based game, you need to work out rules for things like feints, and when (if) to break into the middle of an attack to allow a player to select a defense. This can get ugly.

And combat gets slow. I read a post recently about the Champions paper game where someone quoted a single combat with 6 heroes, 12 villains, and about 50 agents (cannon fodder) took 72 hours to complete. Not good unless your game is only a combat simulator.

In most games the defense is assumed to simplify gameplay. Might as well ask why bishops can only move diagonally.
(end Devil''s Advocate)

Of course, changing things to represent defense, or combination defense/attack modifiers would be interesting at least.

<OFFTOPIC>

I just had to add something that O-sensei Morihei Ueshiba has said (for you non-aikidokas out there, he is the founder of Aikido). I do not remember the exact wording (nor approximate in fact), but the essence of it was something along the lines of:

By initiating an attack you have already lost the fight, because you have disrupted the natural flow of the universe.

I would love to see more aikido-ish defense moves in games. As of today the only defensive moves are either very passive (wearing armour/shield, moving away) or counter-offensive (blocking or counter-attacking).

In aikido the main principle is to not stop the attacker, but to redirect his energy/momentum in a different direction, ultimately moving him away from you, or perhaps preferrably locking him down in some way.

(to put it philosophically:
The attacker diverts from the natural path/flow of nature by attacking you and it is your obligation to lead him back to the correct path, preferrably without harming him)

BTW
Using defense as offense; is that possible?

(FYI Judo/Jujutsu etc are not purely defensive martial arts. They contain many offensive techniques, such as kicks, punches, offensive throws, leg-sweeps etc...
The only purely defensive martial art I have ever heard of is Aikido, though I am sure there are others too)

</OFFTOPIC>