Quote:

It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't really fit my game, again, because there are no "units." The only way to attain something like different units would be if PCs equipped themselves differently, which would require new items. This is an avenue I may consider.

Ahh, you talked about squads, and types of squads, and this made me thing that you had goups of AI characters acting on behalf of the player, as typically a single individual is not a squad.

That does change a lot and I acan see why we had that misunderstanding.

Quote:

I'm not happy with the RPS model because I feel like there's very little actual skill there. The optimal RPS strategy (from a game theory perspective) is playing randomly. I don't want a system where the best possible outcomes result from choosing a random "unit type"/"stance"/"formation"/whatever - this is not meaningful choice. This is a dice game and adds almost no depth.

I agree, a straight up RPS system is not very good, but it can be used as a start, or for an AI combat system (ie: the player does not have direct control over the combat).

Also, I don't like RPS systems that are defined by fiat. I like ones that emerge naturally out of the system and are not hard counters, especially if the player has control over the subtelties within that ststem to change the balances of that SPR outcome.

So, let me check to see if I have this right:

The combat is between characters, not groups of units, where each character involved is just 1 player.

The combats will not requier the player to be present.

The combats must favour the defender.

The players, even though not present, needs to have a decent amount of influence on the outcomes of the comabt.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Quote: It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't really fit my game, again, because there are no "units." The only way to attain something like different units would be if PCs equipped themselves differently, which would require new items. This is an avenue I may consider. Ahh, you talked about squads, and types of squads, and this made me thing that you had goups of AI characters acting on behalf of the player, as typically a single individual is not a squad. That does change a lot and I acan see why we had that misunderstanding.

Yeah, I had meant squads comprised entirely of PCs.

Quote:

I'm not happy with the RPS model because I feel like there's very little actual skill there. The optimal RPS strategy (from a game theory perspective) is playing randomly. I don't want a system where the best possible outcomes result from choosing a random "unit type"/"stance"/"formation"/whatever - this is not meaningful choice. This is a dice game and adds almost no depth.

I agree, a straight up RPS system is not very good, but it can be used as a start, or for an AI combat system (ie: the player does not have direct control over the combat).

Also, I don't like RPS systems that are defined by fiat. I like ones that emerge naturally out of the system and are not hard counters, especially if the player has control over the subtelties within that ststem to change the balances of that SPR outcome.

So, let me check to see if I have this right:

The combat is between characters, not groups of units, where each character involved is just 1 player.

The combats will not requier the player to be present.

The combats must favour the defender.

The players, even though not present, needs to have a decent amount of influence on the outcomes of the comabt.

More or less. When you're offline, your character is not present in the game, so actions cannot be taken against it. However, it is still a browser-based, client-pull game.

Example: I enter a square on the map. I see you there. You have not refreshed the page within the last three seconds, so you don't see me yet. I click a button to attack you. You haven't refreshed the page within the last 4 seconds, so you don't have an option to respond. I could set up the database to flag you so that, the next time you refresh your screen or try to do something, it tells you that you're being attacked and that you should respond, but what if you've just gone idle and won't be back for a long time? Can you defend yourself from a personal attack an hour later? I think that would be too strange.

As an alternative, you will be presented with an options page when you sign up for the game. You will be able to access this options page at any time during the game as well. You will choose for yourself your desired combat strategy from this page. When I attack you later, the game generates the outcome and tells it to both of us. One alternative idea that has come up in this thread is that, instead of setting an individual strategy, I can group up with other players and the group leader can set the group strategy.

The differences between strategies could be how offensive they are, how defensive they are, how much stamina they consume in combat, and whether they limit movement in some way (i.e., I could create a movement point system for combat stances, or assign a stamina cost to movement when in certain combat stances). I don't want a lot of variables.

Ok, with that in mind, I can see a way to modify my system to work with that.

Basically I will keep the idea of the contested advantages, but now design them for operating from a single character's perspective, rather than an armies perspective. Also, instead of having units that you attack with, each character has a set of attacks/block actions that they can take

So, here is my modified system:

Combat occurs without player intervention, only when one player attacks another, so this can be entirely handled by AI systems.

Each character, in turn, is allowed to select an advantage from an available pool up to a number of attempts determined by a stat (or lack of advantages in the pool). The player can list an order that the advantages will be attempted to be got in.

Each time a character attempts to select an advantage, the opposition gets to make a contested check against the selection. If the selecting character fails the check, then the advantage slot is wasted and neither character get the advantage, although it might go back into the advantage pool (but some might not).

This is pretty much the same as the army system, but instead of calling it a "General" that is doing the selection it is just the character AI doing it.

Once there are no more slots in both attacking and defending characters, or there are no more advantages left in the advantage pool, then the system enters the Attack Sequence phase.

In the attack sequence phase, the AIs attempt to assign a sequence of actions and counter actions to each character. This again will use a contested system to determine if an action is successful or not.

Each character will choose, from its available actions (based on the character's skills/abilities, the advantages that each character has and the environment they are in - ie: the tile).

The opponent will then attempt a contest to see if it can perform a counter action (like blocking, dodging, counter attacking or some other action).

The number of actions (both normal actions and counter actions) is determined by stats of the characters (maybe the current stamina of the characters). When a character is all out of actions, or there is no more available actions they can chose from, then they can not assign any more actions or counter actions in the combat.

Once both characters can not assign any more actions the system proceeds to the resolution phase.

In the resolution phase, the actions, in the order they were chosen, are executed. If an action is countered, then the results of that countering are played out.

If a character is killed or otherwise disabled before the end of combat, then the combat immediately ends and the remaining actions are not executed.

If all actions of both characters are executed, then the combat ends.

As far as the player is concerned, they just order their character to attack, but then depending of the various settings they have given (ie the order of advantages, and the order of actions they have listed) the AI will attempt to select the advantages and actions that full fill those settings.

The player is not directly involved in the combats and the combats are not a simple matter of defence and offence but the player still has quite a level of control over the combat.

Interesting.

I think we could imagine this like a card game. Each attack or counterattack/defense is a card. Phase I of the game is bidding on the cards. Phase II of the game is playing the cards out. Phase III of the game is resolving the effects of the cards. Is that what you meant?

Yes, that is a good analogy. Only that instead of the player doing all this, they are configuring the AI to play the card game on their part (as they can't be at the computer all the time).

If the number of "cards" a character can have is based on their stamina, this give you a way to include this concept into the system, as well as stopping players from going on rampages as if they do they will rapidly run out of stamina and become overwhelmed by the rest of the game's community. Also, if attacking took stamina and defending didn't use up stamina, then even if a players off line, they will not be punished if they are attacked, and it means that defending has an advantage over attackers (as attackers will wear themselves out - leaving themselves open for a counter attack).

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Yes, that is a good analogy. Only that instead of the player doing all this, they are configuring the AI to play the card game on their part (as they can't be at the computer all the time). If the number of "cards" a character can have is based on their stamina, this give you a way to include this concept into the system, as well as stopping players from going on rampages as if they do they will rapidly run out of stamina and become overwhelmed by the rest of the game's community. Also, if attacking took stamina and defending didn't use up stamina,

I like all of this. Thank you very much!

Quote:

then even if a players off line, they will not be punished if they are attacked, and it means that defending has an advantage over attackers (as attackers will wear themselves out - leaving themselves open for a counter attack).

This doesn't change the thrust of your idea, but offline players disappear from the map.