I'm hoping to get some ideas on a very specific issue which requires me to explain a good portion of the game environment the ideas would be implemented in, as well as a few examples I plan on implementing. So I need you to imagine an FPS that is sword and sorcery based, and instead of each character being identical it also has an RPG element. Characters gain experience over time and level up, which increases their basic stats. You also earn renown as you play and have a variety of achievements available to boost your renown. You use renown to purchase a variety of upgrades. One type of upgrade is a weapon rune, which can be placed in weapons and confer new abilities and a particle effect to the weapon. Another type of upgrade is an armor rune, which does the same for armor. Weapon runes increase offensive abilities, armor runes increase defensive abilities. I need each rune to be close enough in effect so that there won't necessarily be a dominant rune. So, for brainstorming purposes imagine counterstrike, with swords, arrows, and sorcery. For combat resolution think street fighter II or Tekken. For example, W,W,W, Hold down left mouse button, half circle forward will execute a particular kind of strike for a warrior. Physics are earth-like for the purposes of the game environment. The hard rules I need runes to conform to are: 1)Offensive for weapon runes. 2)Defensive for armor runes. 3)Weapon runes should be roughly equivalent in power. 4)Armor runes should be roughly equivalent in power. 5)There can be no "chance of" procs- Runes add an effect that happens 100% of the time. 6) Caster runes must be applicable to both damage dealers and healers. Here are the runes I have for melee classes. I'm having a hard time thinking of caster runes and I haven't begun armor runes for either type. Please remember that combat resolution is determined by user input, not random number rolls. Melee runes: Balanced - Increases attack speed. Brilliant - Emits light, pulses occasionally revealing hidden players. Lightened - Reduces recovery time. Firey - Causes minor fire damage. Icy - Slows movement speed temorarily. Bleeding - Causes minor damage over time for each wound. In the way of explanations: When you execute your attack input the game then executes the attack. A large swing with a two handed weapon takes longer execute than a quick thrust of a one hander. Balanced makes the attack(animation) execute faster. Brilliant serves as a light source and reveals rogues in stealth occasionaly Lightened- after executing an attack you must recover before executing another, this reduces the wait time. Firey - deals fire damage that is mitigated by armor, so it is more damaging to cloth wearers than plate wearers. Icy slows the speed the victim moves around for a few seconds Bleeding deals less damage than firey but is not mitigated by armor, so firey does more damage to cloth net while bleeding does more damage to plate net. A one handed weapon holds 1 rune, a 2 handed weapon holds three. A shield is considered armor, and thus holds defensive runes. So someone with a sword and shield would be biased to defense by runes. For casters I have a few im happy with but i need a minimum of 6. Brilliant - as above Lightened - as above Thoughtful- Increases the regeneration speed of the last level of spell cast. Potency - Increases the spell effect by 5%(when applicable) Note that the verbage of melee rune and caster rune is only for the purpose of explanation, a caster could use a melee run and visa versa. A couple of examples of defensive runes I have in mind are: Warming - reduces movement impairing effect by 50%. Hearty - Increases health by 10%. Fleet - Increases movement speed by 5%. Cauterize - Reduces the duration of bleeds by 50% For total load out a fully geared offensive player(using a 2 handed weapon) will have: 3 weapon runes(offensive) and 3 armor runes(defensive). A fully geared defensive player(using a one handed weapon and shield) will have: 1 weapon rune(offensive) and 5 armor runes(defensive). Any feedback is appreciated, to be helpful please consider the rules I outlined above and some of the examples that I gave.

How about:
-Vengeful: increases damage based on your current health (less heath = more damage)
-Vampiric: Restores your health by 5% of damage you deal

If there is a mana system:

-Absorption: restores mana equal to the cost spells cast on you by others

How about runes that aren't always active, but can be activated for some effect:

-Shielding: Perfect (Highest your game allows) armor for 5 seconds
-Cloaking: Invisible for 10 seconds

Quote:

Original post by Nich How about: -Vengeful: increases damage based on your current health (less heath = more damage) -Vampiric: Restores your health by 5% of damage you deal

Nice, I think those could both be used for weapon runes.

Quote:

If there is a mana system: -Absorption: restores mana equal to the cost spells cast on you by others How about runes that aren't always active, but can be activated for some effect: -Shielding: Perfect (Highest your game allows) armor for 5 seconds -Cloaking: Invisible for 10 seconds

No mana system, and I need the effects to be static bonuses, as the actual combat input is really intense. In my view introducing non-class based on use skills makes for balancing problems and tends to marginalize the class differences. I could be wrong but I want a warrior to have very few "use" abilities in common with a mage or priest.

Thanks

Quote:

I need each rune to be close enough in effect so that there won't necessarily be a dominant rune.

Just having the runes close to each other in effect will not necessarily create a balanced game, and it will probably not crate an interesting combat system.

The reason for this is that if they are similar enough to each other to not effect the balance, then the only thing that separates them is their visual representation. This makes the choice of rune purely aesthetic and have no gameplay influence.

Now, there are other ways to achieve balance between components (runes in this case) that don't rely on them being similar in effect.

Firstly, there is Attribute balance. In this, each component has bonuses, but are compensated by penalties. So if you have a rune that does fire damage, then there is something else that will stop fire damage.

This is usually pretty easy to design as a simple system, however, as you make the system more complicated (eg: more and rune types), then you start to run into a combinatorial explosion and you can't check every possible combination of runes. this opens the door to a "set" of runes developing a dominant strategy (ie: it will be the best combination of runes and no other combination will be worth while taking). The reason a dominant strategy is bad is because it removes the fun from the players and wastes your development time.

There is other ways of designing systems to avoid dominant strategies and to create interesting combat systems.

One of these is the Rock/Paper/Scissors game (also known as intransitive relationships). In this there is a cycle of who is better than who so that no one choice is ever better than another.

A good thing about this you don't have to stick with just 3 components, but can have pretty much any number greater than 3 (but odd numbers work better and are easier to design to). Also, it doesn't have to be a symmetrical layout.

For example, you could have a 5 way relationship like this:
A beats B and C
B beast C and D
C beats D and E
D beats E and A
E beats A and B

In this every choices beats two other choices and is beaten by two other choices. This is a symmetrical system as all choices have the same number of relationships.

However, you could make one like this:

A beats B and D
B beats C and D
C beats A and D
D beats E
E beats A, B and C

In this, Everything but E beats D, but nothing but D beats E, and A, B and C form their own sub intransitive system.

So this system can become quite flexible and easy to design. The downside is that it can be restrictive and when players learn the system they can know exactly what they have to do to beat their opponent.

In all of these, however, the powers and even the strengths of the "Runes" would not ahve to be similar, just designed in a way to allow different situations to make it a good choice and to make it a bad choice and to allow the players the ability to have some degree of control over initiating these situations.

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Just having the runes close to each other in effect will not necessarily create a balanced game, and it will probably not crate an interesting combat system. The reason for this is that if they are similar enough to each other to not effect the balance, then the only thing that separates them is their visual representation. This makes the choice of rune purely aesthetic and have no gameplay influence.

I disagree. If every rune were +X damage then I would agree, you'd be choosing which particle effect you wanted on your weapon or armor but that's not the case.


Compare three different possible load outs for a warrior type. For simplicty's sake im going to assign a base health of 1000 for the target, and a base damage of 200 for the two hander.

*****************************************************************


Two handed weapon unruned:



Minimum number of attacks to kill a target: 5
Minimum time to kill(unarmored target): 15 seconds.


*****************************************************************
Option 1
*****************************************************************
Two handed weapon runed:

Runes selected:

Firey X 3 = +10% +10% +10% = 260 damage per attack.


Attack speed: 3.0 seconds

Minimum number of attacks to kill a target: 3.85
Minimum time to kill(unarmored target): 12 seconds because dealing damage is a discrete function.

*****************************************************************
Option 2
*****************************************************************
Two handed weapon runed(different set up):

Runes selected:

Balanced, Icy, Icy: +5% attack speed, reduces movement speed 5% X 2.


Attack speed: 2.85 seconds

Minimum number of attacks to kill a target: 5
Minimum time to kill(unarmored target): 14.25 (since the attack is hasted 14.25 becomes the final discrete step that gets the killing blow)

*****************************************************************
Option 3
*****************************************************************
Two handed weapon runed(different set up):

Runes selected:

Balanced, Balanced, Balanced: +5% attack speed X 3.


Attack speed: 2.55 seconds

Minimum number of attacks to kill a target: 5
Minimum time to kill(unarmored target): 12.75 (since the attack is hasted 12.75 becomes the final discrete step that gets the killing blow)



So each load out is obviously superior to no load out. Let's compare Option 1 to 2 to 3 as far as how they play.


Option 1 deals the most discrete per application damage, and has the best time to kill. It is also the most difficult damage to apply because it has the slowest attack speed. It also has no helper abilities to keep you on your target.

Option 2 deals the least damage and has the highest time to kill. However, it changes your movement rate relative to your targets by 10%, and thus improves your ability to sty on your target. It also has an increased attack speed which improves your chances of successfully dealing damage.

Option 3 deals good damage, only mildly inferior to option 1, it also has a great haste rating which increases your chances of delivering the damage.


Depending on your target and the situation each could be considered a superior load out.

Option 1 excels where the target is stationary and you attack from behind, you have the best time to kill and deal the most discrete damage.

Option 2 excels when you're attacking a target that is trying to evade you and offers more control. It also allows you to aid other allies by "peeling" people off of them, you change the attackers movement rate, thus enabling a squishier target to successfully evade this attacker.

Option 3 excels when you're fighting an opponent that isn't trying to run from you but is very agile, or has abilities that allow them to avoid your attacks.

Real game application the time to killis going to depend on several factors. Not only the damage you deal per attack, but your ability to land attacks, and your ability to maintain the neccessary range to deliver damage.

More complex scenarios involve your abilty to deal damage quickly and retreat, your ability to keep supporting players alive, and your ability to punch through heavily armored opponents that are being healed.

In a one on one situation each of the 3 options outlined are near enough to not have one loadout be blatantly superior to the other(I believe), but each will play quite differently, which I feel makes them a signifigant choice that the player must make.

Paper, Rock, Scissors means the outcome of the battle is determined when you select your load out for X versus Y player.


Thanks for the feedback. Feel free to rebut :)

As an example of a few builds i envision thus far:


An archer with a longbow(contains 3 slots for runes and has 3 slots for armor runes)
Archer:
Icy X 3 in bow, Fleet X 3 in armor. His goal is to kite people to death, but he'll be weak against a melee class once they close.

Mage: Staff(contains 3 slots for runes and has 3 slots for armor runes)

Icy X 1, Firey X 1, Thoughful X 1. For armor Fleet X 1, Hearty X 1, Warming X 1. This guy would have a decent chance to kite with Icy, do better than average damage because of firey, and have better sustainability due to thoughtful. Defensively he'd be a bit faster than base speed to help with kiting due to fleet, be less likely to get smoked by ranged and melee damage because of hearty, and have a better chance of getting away from someone using icy because of warming.

Take the same mage set up for a team scenario. If he has good healer support and good tank support, he may slot Icy x 3 for maximum control, or he may slot Firey X 3 for maximum devastation. For armor he may equip warming X 2 to be immune to Icy effects and fill the last with hearty for a better health buffer.

A "tank" set up might use Icy X 1 (he'd only have one offensive slot) and for armor slot, Warming X 2 for Icy immunity, Hearty X 1 for health, and Fleet X 2 for movement rate. Or he could do Bleeding X 1 to help damage other tanks, and Hearty X 5 for maximum health pool. The second tank would be extremly tough to kill when receiving heals but would be easy to kite and control.



Sorry for the long examples. I appreciate the feedback. As you can tell the concept is evolving as I think it through. I've discarded the idea of caster runes versus melee runes and am now trying to make sure that each rune has an application for either style. I've changed Thoughtful, to "last level of ability used" and have a better selection for both melee and caster now :)

Why not go for game changing runes, but only allow the player to use and hold one at a time?

So instead of Ice and Fire runes, stuff like Gravity runes and Incorporeality runes, that allow you to fly or move through walls instead?

Also, the reason most FPSs have a good balance is because they leave out the RPG stat element in exchange for the RPG character class element.

Although personally, dumping the lot of that in exchange for a well balanced FPS would be better.
All things considered, twitch based games with motion controls don't go all that well and really, how would you combat the lag?

Also, the first person element in this style of game might actually be counter-intuitive. How would you know if you're doing an attack properly if all you can see is a floating sword covering half your screen?

I'd say competitively your game would fall victim to the nerf bug, that and your failure to reveal any 'rock, paper, scissors' element to runes might just make the game relatively inconsistent in terms of combat. Although as a single player/co-op game, the system doesn't seem compelling enough by itself to promote any real lasting effect on players.

So, really, your combat system needs a lot of reworking.
But the rune system seems interesting enough.

Quote:

Compare three different possible load outs for a warrior type. For simplicty's sake im going to assign a base health of 1000 for the target, and a base damage of 200 for the two hander.

However, those 3 "runes" were not "nearly the same". They had 3 different functions. One increased damage, the other decreased their movement (and increases yours) and the third increases your rate of attack.

These are 3 different abilities, exactly what I was saying.

Quote:

Paper, Rock, Scissors means the outcome of the battle is determined when you select your load out for X versus Y player.

Notice I used the word choices. The choices a player makes is not just limited to what weapon to load out their character with. IF you ahve the ability to switch weapons (like most FPS) then the "Choice" would be the weapon the player is using at any particular point. As this can change throughout a typical FPS game at the players will, then load out is not all that critical a choice.

If, however, the player has only one chance for their load out, then making such a critical decision at the start of the game would be a poor application of these ideas.

Instead, the "choice" in this case (with the single choice of weapon at the start of the game) should allow multiple uses of that weapon, and that these uses form the S/P/R relationship.

In this case, you might give the player a fast attack, a powerful attack and a defensive action.

The defensive action reduces the amount of damage each hit, the fast attack does little damage each hit but does lots of hits and the powerful attack does a lot of damage but is slow.

This way a defensive action will be good against the quick attack. The Quick attack will be good against the powerful attack and the powerful attack would be good against the defensive action.

Some weapons might be slightly better at doing a certain type of attack (like a two handed sword might be better at the powerful attack, where as a short sword might be better at fast attacks), and the Runes might even further enhance these functions, or even add in whole new ones (like in the asymmetric 5 way S/P/R system I outlined, they could be the D and E options), or even have their own S/P/R diagram to themselves (depending on how complex you want it).

You could then add in some Signalling and Bluffing into the mix (ie Signalling is a short lead up to the actual attack, this is typically found in Street Fighter type games - and bluffing is where you can fake a signal - at a cost - but could be used to trick your opponent into making the wrong counter move). These could be show by how the character hold their weapon.

Another option for the different weapon types is that characters with different stats get bonuses or penalties depending on their stats and the weapon.

For instance: A character with a high dexterity (or equivalent) stat would not get as big a bonus from a Two-handed sword as would a character with a high strength, however, they might get a better bonus from a short sword than the high strength (and low dexterity) character.

"Signaling and Bluffing", I have included this in my game concept. The "attack speed" is essentially the amount of time you signal your attack. The ability to feint was my version of bluffing.

As far as weapon load out. I envisioned it as follows.

You buy a variety of armor sets using renown. You can own up to 5 armor sets per player.(That is 5 weapons 5 2 handers 5 one handers et cetra. These armor sets serve two purposes. They each have a unique model, which allows for a variety of visual representations, and for each set you have you can have a different rune load out. The names of the weapons and armor will use a simple concatination method so a sword with a brilliant, firey, and bleeding rune would be called. "Brilliant firey longsword of bleeding", stacking similar runes would add adjectives so firey X 3 would be "exceptional firey longsword" and icy X 2 balanced X 1 would be "potent icy balanced longsword"

Rune load out can be changed while you wait to respawn or while your avatar is near an equipment rack, which will generally be placed at spawn points. You'll be able to load some pre-set combinations of weapon/helm/chest/boots, and choose them with a button press while you wait to respawn or you can manually grab them while you wait, depending on which load out you're trying.

This follows a standard tradition of some first person shooters where you have a choice of weapons at spawn and live that life with the selected weapons. It also realize an advantage as higher level players have more load outs readily available. It also allows capture points to have an additional tactical advantage, by adding equipment racks once the point is captured. Note that the level curve would be short.(If you've played the call of duty series they use a somewhat similar mixture of experience and achievements to unlock a variety of weapons)


Something in your comments makes me think I should point a design issue out.

Combat resolution is based on user input entirely. Damage is base per weapon, with some modifiers depending on which hit box is struck and what runes are equipped.



edit**

I understand now where you're coming from. You're discussing the meta game of the actual weapon swings. My thought was that you'd use gestures to accomplish the panoply of swings one might make in real life, as well as some keyboard input mixed in to accomplish a wide variety of attacks.

I'm going to spell out a couple of move and counter move ideas, as well as some pre-implmentation idea of the user input that makes it happen to see if it makes sense to you.


As always thanks for the input. Sometimes a simple debate helps to polish the ideas a lot faster than code iteration later in the cycle. :)

So, lets assume a warrior versus a warrior for the moment. One is a sword and shield warrior the other a two hander.

I'm going to use the standard W,A,S,D as movement in this example but keys would obviously be mappable.

For both warriors W moves forward, while pressing W,W(stays pressed) rapidly "jogs" forward. W,W,W(stays pressed) each does a different move depending on what mouse button you press after and what you have equipped.

On the shield warrior, W,W,W(pressed rapidly)and left mouse button(left mouse is by default your left hand, which in this case holds a shield)executes a shield charge. Where the avatar charges forward very quickly for a short distance and then bashes with his shield. If it hits the opponent he is knocked down and basically helpless while he gets back up. It also deals some minimal damage. In the case of the two handed warrior the same input would cause him to charge forward and do a broad slash that knocks down an opponent..

On the receiving end. If the opponent presses A,A(rapidly), he'll jump left if he presses A,A rapidly and holds down right mouse button(or left or right mouse button if a 2 hander) and drags the mouse down and then half circle left, then releases the right mouse button, his avatar while jump left and then do a 360 degree clockwise slash that should connect with the back of the charging opponents head.

All of this synchs up via the physics engine(using Newton in this case). The charge doesn't necessarily hit the opponent unless it's lined up properly. The counter doesn't necessarily hit the charger unless the jump and spinning slash lines up with the chargers head.

In this way you have quick attacks like a forward slash or thrust and slow attacks like the spinning back slash. This also allows each class to play very differently as a rogue class would react very differently. Take the same charging shield warrior. A rogue might press S,S,S(rapidly) to do a backwards somersault to be further away and dodge the attack entirely, or he may do Space(for jump in this case) W,W,W(rapidly) left and right mouse button for a forward somersault while stabbing the warrior in the back. While S,S,S(rapidly) on a warrior executes the "anchor" ability, which freezes the warrior in place for a few seconds, reducing movement to 0 temporarily but making him immune to knockdowns.

The combination of classes and key based moves should add a lot of depth to the game, if I can actually implement it. Of everything in the game design the combat system is by far the most ambitious.

[Edited by - Dreddnafious Maelstrom on March 12, 2009 11:46:56 AM]

Quote:

The combination of classes and key based moves should add a lot of depth to the game,

Breadth and Depth get mixed up a lot when talking about games. Adding in different key combos for each class adds Breadth to the game as there is more things the player has to learn. Depth is where the player has to learn way they can apply their current knowledge and skills in interesting ways.

Adding Breadth can something add depth, but this is not always a given (and if pushed I could probably find examples where adding breadth decreases depth).

Quote:

Of everything in the game design the combat system is by far the most ambitious.

As you are talking about an FPS, then the combat system should be the main focus. if you remove the combat system from any FPS, then all you are left with is a physics simulations with pretty graphics. The combat system is by far the main focus of any FPS game.

What you are doing is attempting to create a Unique Selling Point by having a more complicated and complex combat system to try and increase the fun that can be had.

As this is the ambition of the game, it is natural to be the most ambitious with it.

Quote:

As always thanks for the input. Sometimes a simple debate helps to polish the ideas a lot faster than code iteration later in the cycle. :)

I agree, and I also believe that in these situations, someone who will disagree with you is the most valuable person you can know.

Quote:

I understand now where you're coming from. You're discussing the meta game of the actual weapon swings. My thought was that you'd use gestures to accomplish the panoply of swings one might make in real life, as well as some keyboard input mixed in to accomplish a wide variety of attacks. I'm going to spell out a couple of move and counter move ideas, as well as some pre-implmentation idea of the user input that makes it happen to see if it makes sense to you.

As far as I can see, your idea is to match up an FPS with a Street Fighter like game, where each player moves around like in an FPS, but the attack moves are like Street Fighter.

You are going to have to deal with problems form both types of games but the reward is that you might be able to get the best form both types, and then have something completely unique. You will also have to deal with problems unique to this new type of game.

At the moment, I think you can leave out interface ideas (what button presses or mouse gestures are needed, etc) and focus on how to make the combat fun. The best interface in the world will not help a game that is not fun to play (however a bad interface can ruin what otherwise would be a good game).

As you are going to have a Beat-em-up style combat system, even if it is only a simplified version of them, then you will want to have a very well designed system.

I think you should look at the core of the system you want and abstract it as much as you can.

In stead of thinking in terms of what key presses you want the player to do, of the particular animation of a character of a certain class will perform, just stick with the basic action.

For instance, in your example you used in your last post:

Quote:

On the shield warrior, W,W,W(pressed rapidly)and left mouse button(left mouse is by default your left hand, which in this case holds a shield)executes a shield charge. Where the avatar charges forward very quickly for a short distance and then bashes with his shield. If it hits the opponent he is knocked down and basically helpless while he gets back up. It also deals some minimal damage. In the case of the two handed warrior the same input would cause him to charge forward and do a broad slash that knocks down an opponent..

Both characters are making a knock down action. Later on in the design, you can say that you want a separation between a shield knock down and a two-handed sword knock down (with the two handed sword doing more damage but may be less time the opponent is helpless).

So start with the basic actions and get the relationship between these actions solidly designed. Once these are designed well, you will know the bound that you can modify them for the specific instances of them (eg: Shield knock down values as compared to two-handed sword knock down values).

It is the design equivalent of what you said: "Sometimes a simple debate helps to polish the ideas a lot faster than code iteration later in the cycle."

Sometimes a well designed core system will save many design iterations later in the cycle.