Quote:

@swiftcoder + others: When you say that you think HP for each descriptor, are you indicating that each descriptor has a health, and when all descriptors are "dead" the character dies? Or are you meaning that when *any* descriptor dies, the character dies? Although I was generally trying to get away from the whole health concept, I kind of like the thought of having the character die if any descriptor dies.

I would just want to note that this dynamic is that of fire fighting, where there are Fuel, Heat, and Oxygen are the three necessary elements to sustain a basic fire. Removing any one of those three and the fire is out. The action depends on the situation.

Another way to think of this design is that the baseline of the fighting is delegated, as in DOTA, where the bulk of the work is done by the npcs, but hero actions are necessary to tip the balance (else the game won't end in a long time). In a system like this, the player is relieved from the grunt work and only plays the decisive actions.

Similarly, a RPG combat system could let melee fighting to be automatic, and the player only decide on specific actions. It is a balance between:

1) Having the player keep watching or waiting for an "opportunity"
2) Given the player too much control of "creating opportunity" such that the game is mechanical.

Tennis is a similar game, but in tennis, the opponent is adaptive. What about a simplier situation where the enemy is not adaptive?

One way is to make the weakpoints of the enemies a little random, make the basic fight to end fast with the player defeated, so that the difficulty is in identifying and matching the action with the assigned vulnerabilities in time. The situation is spell-chaining, where the PC has multiple fire spells but does not know which one the monster would be vulnerable to at a moment until the first spell is cast. When the first spell is cast, the graphics shows the next vulnerability of the monster momentarily, and the PC needs to cast that spell within time limit. It is easier in multiplayer combat because different character could be responsible for different spells (I am not talking about online multiplayer game where lag could be a problem, but console multiplayer game, where you starts the chain, and your partner executes the second part of the chain depending). In such a system the gameplay is reflex, preparation (and knowledge of possible combos), learning, and team organization.

Hmm,

How about having more than one type of descriptors.

1- Main descriptor(s)
2- Sub descriptor(s)

The main descriptors keeps the character alive. If you manager to break it, the character dies. The main descriptors will have a very heigh advantage for equiping it so it shoudl be fare.

The sub descriptors acts as a sheild to the main descriptors. In other words, you can't touch the main descriptor till you break the sub descriptor(s) protetcting it. The sub descriptors will have mid or low advantage, just to be fare :P Also having too much sub descriptors may take some of the good points from the main descriptors. So if a sub descriptor is removed, the main descriptors will gain back their missing points.

I never liked using HP. I really like the idea of weakening the character before you can beat it. Adds a lot strategy to the game and you can never till how long a fight can take (from 5 seconds to 20 mins ??). But as always, just in case, addint HP will also make sure that the fight doesn't take too long.

Cheers :)

You could make it into a sort of puzzle. Maybe an EMP would remove their energy shield, but would also do some harm to you, or the "Dessicate" spell would simultaneously counter their regeneration ability and convert their "Leather Skin" armor to "Hardened Hide", which is more difficult to counter. So if you wreck their shield, you've got to deal with your own being gone, and if you're going to get rid of their auto-healing, you have to be ready to contend with their superior defenses afterward. Maybe you could go after their armor first, with an organic attack that'll digest the soft leather, but that added biomass will be assimilated by their regen talent and they'll heal faster, despite having no armor left. So the best thing would be to dessicate, then cast a "crystalize" buff on their hardened armor that'll make it harder still, but more brittle, then EMP their shield, then take advantage of the opening that creates to launch a heavy kinetic attack and shatter the crystallized physical defenses.

I'm reminded of a story I once heard (sci-fi) about a group operatives during the Cold War who were issued a pill box with a dozen semi-toxic chemicals in them. If they can into contact with a poison they didn't recognize, they were to take each pill in succession. The pills were all antidotes to something, but were also poisonous in their own right, so you'd have to go through the whole stack to ensure you'd countered out the poison you encountered as well as all the poisons you had to take to be sure. WHen you took the last pill, you were sick as a dog, but could sleep it off and report for duty in a few days.

So maybe they enemy in your system would have to be transformed a half-dozen different times before he ran out of superpowers, sometimes becoming stronger, sometimes becoming weaker, and you could be adjusting your own stats at the same time to ensure that you were always strong against him.

Thanks for the replies. That cooking game is a quite interesting application of this.

I think you're closest to taking this in the right direction, Iron Chef Carnage. I see the main problem with that being the huge number of options you'd have to have in order to make that interesting or really even possible.