How about a processor for each arm or a multi-brain alien? But yes, that kind of training might be a level up option, it might even be part of a feat tree.

I think it falls down to game design philosophy here, hence why I won't enforce my view, but when faced with a choice that involves being as realistic as possible and making something fun by creating an abstract mechanic, I will usually choose the latter even though its not a natural reflex of mine. My experience is that it generally ends up making a better overall game and players tend to forgive you if it helps the product staying simple and easy to interact with.
On the other hand, I like some types of games that involve a higher level of realism and micro-management.

Yes, I guess you could say I'm coding for realism, but developing for fun. I'm starting with a set of rules which I think are realistic and then organizing them in ways that still keep the game fun. It's not easy.

I plan on making choices in the game that revolve around small details. I'm not sure how it's going to play out in the end, but that's what play-testing is for.

For example, in my game some weapons have different attack modes. A long sword can slash or pierce and a lucerne hammer can do bludgeoning or piercing damage. This means that the player selects a target and rolls his mouse over a list of attack options/ maneuvers. A tool tip or an info panel provides information and options that looks like this:


[ ] Swing: 70% chance to hit -20% damage, +10% chance to hit adjacent unit.
[ ] Thrust: 50% chance to hit, +10% damage
[ ] Bash: 60% chance to hit, +5% damage, +50% subdual damage
etc...

The player then selects the type of attack he wants to make. Of course, all of those stats are calculated by comparing weapon properties with the armor values of the target ( in addition to other modifiers - flanking, terrain, conditions, etc) .

XCOM showed you the % chance to hit someone, but that's really as far as it went. I'm taking it one step further with hopes that it won't be overwhelming to the player. Then again strategy oriented gamers don't mind complexity.

Hey, what do you guys think about allowing the player to build their own attack sequences for each character?

For example,

Lets say a character can attack with two weapons, trip, disarm, feint, etc.

The player could build an attack button that includes the following maneuvers.

1 . Disarm
2. Trip
3. Left handed weapon - slash
4. Right handed weapon - trust

Such a build might even open up combo options. For example, if the trip works attacks 3 and 4 will be more likely to hit. I could even make combo bonuses hidden secrets that players can discover on their own. Building a power that includes all slashing attacks might give you the Reaver bonus or something like that.

I could also set this up to work for magic too.

1. AOE 5 square radius
2. Lower Fire Resistance
3. Fire blast

XCOM showed you the % chance to hit someone, but that's really as far as it went. I'm taking it one step further with hopes that it won't be overwhelming to the player. Then again strategy oriented gamers don't mind complexity.

I agree with trying to be more refined than XCOM's simplicity and can fully relate to that. Leveraging the power of software to compute the weapon vs armor modifier is a must.

However, I disagree with the last statement. Strategy oriented gamers don't mind necessary complexity that enhances the product. Complexity comes with choice and matters.

If your opponent's armor is vulnerable to pierce and your attack can pierce, this isn't as much of a choice as pattern recognition, and you're basically asking the player to rollover your enemies and figure out / remember what their weaknesses are. This doesn't necessarily call for good gameplay.

While I like the rock-paper-scissor effect of slashing, piercing and bludgeoning, you have to be careful to include actual gameplay decisions in there.

Its much more interesting if a said weapon has only one such attribute as it will allow you to measure the risks.

For example, if you choose to bring a hammer in the fray, you're expecting this particular unit to take on especially well armored targets. If the opposition there is numerous weaklings or padded-armored minions, your hammer won't do you much good and you'll have to resort to your other units in order to perform efficiently, whereas, if your hammer can also somehow pierce, then, there won't be much reason to ever choose the bludgeon damage vs these targets.

Fun = options / decisions (I tend to agree with Sid Meier on this particular aspect).

0Likes1Likes
Like

Posted Today, 12:09 PM

Hey, what do you guys think about allowing the player to build their own attack sequences for each character?

I'd like to see how that's actually implemented, its very hard to comment on at this stage, I'm not sure I understand fully how it would behave. Perhaps prototype it?

XCOM showed you the % chance to hit someone, but that's really as far as it went. I'm taking it one step further with hopes that it won't be overwhelming to the player. Then again strategy oriented gamers don't mind complexity.

I agree with trying to be more refined than XCOM's simplicity and can fully relate to that. Leveraging the power of software to compute the weapon vs armor modifier is a must.

However, I disagree with the last statement. Strategy oriented gamers don't mind necessary complexity that enhances the product. Complexity comes with choice and matters.

If your opponent's armor is vulnerable to pierce and your attack can pierce, this isn't as much of a choice as pattern recognition, and you're basically asking the player to rollover your enemies and figure out / remember what their weaknesses are. This doesn't necessarily call for good gameplay.

While I like the rock-paper-scissor effect of slashing, piercing and bludgeoning, you have to be careful to include actual gameplay decisions in there.

Its much more interesting if a said weapon has only one such attribute as it will allow you to measure the risks.

For example, if you choose to bring a hammer in the fray, you're expecting this particular unit to take on especially well armored targets. If the opposition there is numerous weaklings or padded-armored minions, your hammer won't do you much good and you'll have to resort to your other units in order to perform efficiently, whereas, if your hammer can also somehow pierce, then, there won't be much reason to ever choose the bludgeon damage vs these targets.

Fun = options / decisions (I tend to agree with Sid Meier on this particular aspect).

>
0Likes1Likes
Like

Posted Today, 12:09 PM

Hey, what do you guys think about allowing the player to build their own attack sequences for each character?

I'd like to see how that's actually implemented, its very hard to comment on at this stage, I'm not sure I understand fully how it would behave. Perhaps prototype it?

In an attempt to make the weapon type vs armor type a meaningful choice, I realized that I had to provide choices that have both advantages and disadvantages. For example, a piercing attack might do less damage but hit more often. In lieu of presenting these options as a choice, the game would simply automate the task of selecting the best attack option vs any particular unit/suit of armor.

Having versatility on the battlefield is ideal IMO. It's the reason why some weapons were invented. In the case of the halberd, the hook could dismount a rider, the axe could cut the horses legs, and the spear end could be used to find an opening in the riders armor. IMO, versatility should be a build option and weapons should be provided to support it.

As for the customization features I was talking about, yes I still need to prototype it, but they are basically just attack macros.

Having versatility on the battlefield is ideal IMO. It's the reason why some weapons were invented. In the case of the halberd, the hook could dismount a rider, the axe could cut the horses legs, and the spear end could be used to find an opening in the riders armor. IMO, versatility should be a build option and weapons should be provided to support it.

Yes, units should be able to be versatile (potentially at the cost of speed and weight) but the actual player options need to be meaningful. Its fine for your infantry to have both a sword and spear, so they can counter cavalry and infantry, but micro-managing sword vs infantry and spear vs cavalry is a bit dumb and dull.

I don't think it would be dull or boring if the game does most of the work. Having an interface that's clean and non-tedious is key.

Lets say I have an insect Android character with 6 arms and a nasty bite attack. That's up to 7 attacks without considering movement and special maneuvers. Obviously having to make 7 individual attacks and selecting options can get very tedious and dull.

Here is one solution that might solve this problem.

A turn would look like this.

1. Select Target

2. Clicks on the Feint Maneuver (adds to queue)

3. Clicks on Trip Maneuver (adds to queue)

4. Clicks on weapon attack #2 - slashing (adds to queue)

5. Clicks on weapon attack #4 - bashing (adds to queue)

6. Player presses the attack button and watches the animation sequence above unfold against the target selected.

7. Player moves the unit 2 squares and selects another target

8. Clicks on bite attack (adds to queue)

9. Clicks on weapon attack #5 - bashing (adds to queue)

10. Player presses the attack button and watches the animation sequence above unfold against the second target selected. .

11. With all AP's spent the player clicks on end turn.

On the next turn the player can simply press one button to perform the same sequence of attacks. These sequences could even be created during non-combat game play.

As for the hidden combo options I was talking about previously.

If you selected the Trip and Shield Bash maneuvers ( in that order) it might give you a chance to also push target back one square. In that case, floating text would appear over the creature saying "Slamming Knockdown!" Like wise, a jump maneuver and a weapon attack would give you a "Rising strike" bonus.

Anyway, I need to think about this more and then prototype an interface for it.

I guess the key element that was missing is that you cannot use the same weapon twice in the same turn. Now that's a lot more interesting from a decision standpoint.

I guess the key element that was missing is that you cannot use the same weapon twice in the same turn. Now that's a lot more interesting from a decision standpoint.

Yes, each action has a MaxUsePerRound limit. Attacks have a value of 1 and get grayed out after use, but movement is unlimited. A talent might increase that value.