just my opinion here, so i''m sure you won''t all agree, but...
i don''t think tekken-style fighting would be appropriate for an RPG... i''m sure people will say i am wrong, but for a game to be an RPG you must be able to improve your character''s abilities (whether it be through higher "dexterity" or whatever); but with a real-time punch-kick-dodge type interface, the outcome of battles is based on the player''s reflexes and not the character you are supposed to improving on. you could throw in better "special moves" or something when the player gets to a higher level, but it still would be a great advantage for people who play mortal combat too much.
i''m sure you could do this if you wanted to, but some people (like me) would simply not play the game, no matter how much you claimed it was an RPG... if i wanted to hit buttons really fast to chop someone up with a sword i would play soul caliber instead.
--- krez (krezisback@aol.com)
21 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
RPG Battle systems
443
October 30, 2001 03:10 PM
--- krez ([email="krez_AT_optonline_DOT_net"]krez_AT_optonline_DOT_net[/email])
517
October 30, 2001 11:54 PM
The better hit point system:
Keep wounds separate ! Add the damage from all wounds to a hit point total (the character still dies when that goes bellow zero), but keep the wounds separate.
That was easy, wasn''t it?
Store for each wound a couple of attributes: wound type (cut, stab, crush, poison, freeze, etc.etc.) damaged body part, wound seriousness and so on. To calculate the effects on the player, take each wound and add it to the player performances: stab wound on right arm, decrease weapon bonuses in the right hand. Head injury: decrease dexterity and so forth. I forget: each wound will have a HP penalty - add this to the player stats as well.
Also, each wound can evolve separately in time. Parameters like HP decrease, added confusion and others will grow or decrease in time, for each wound. This allows for a pretty accurate simulation.
A poison wound will cause no damage at start and then more and more damage as time goes. A stab wound would cause some damage first hand, then bleeding damage. The bleeding damage will decrease in time, so if the wound is not very bad, it will heal. (A nice touch would be that if someone hits the character at a body part that already has a bleeding wound, that wound will bleed even more) A wound at the head will cause confusion (not only hit point damage), possibly even enough that the character faints. A punch will cause a damage penalty at start, but this penalty will drop quickly - so it becomes very hard to punch a person to death. But if punches have a large confusion penalty, it would be possible to punch a character to sleep (and rob him and all)
Keep wounds separate ! Add the damage from all wounds to a hit point total (the character still dies when that goes bellow zero), but keep the wounds separate.
That was easy, wasn''t it?
Store for each wound a couple of attributes: wound type (cut, stab, crush, poison, freeze, etc.etc.) damaged body part, wound seriousness and so on. To calculate the effects on the player, take each wound and add it to the player performances: stab wound on right arm, decrease weapon bonuses in the right hand. Head injury: decrease dexterity and so forth. I forget: each wound will have a HP penalty - add this to the player stats as well.
Also, each wound can evolve separately in time. Parameters like HP decrease, added confusion and others will grow or decrease in time, for each wound. This allows for a pretty accurate simulation.
A poison wound will cause no damage at start and then more and more damage as time goes. A stab wound would cause some damage first hand, then bleeding damage. The bleeding damage will decrease in time, so if the wound is not very bad, it will heal. (A nice touch would be that if someone hits the character at a body part that already has a bleeding wound, that wound will bleed even more) A wound at the head will cause confusion (not only hit point damage), possibly even enough that the character faints. A punch will cause a damage penalty at start, but this penalty will drop quickly - so it becomes very hard to punch a person to death. But if punches have a large confusion penalty, it would be possible to punch a character to sleep (and rob him and all)
313
October 31, 2001 01:13 AM
I''m going to argue in favor of the 1-on-1 combat system even though I agree with you guys about the difficulty of using it.
I''m going to instantly discard the minor restriction of only having one character under your control. It doesn''t matter, because presumably, if you take up a design like this, you won''t be including multiple PCs anyway. It''s just stupid to ask a player to fight four separate fights at once.
Character development is not even an issue, dexterity is clearly the speed with which your character performs actions, and it also dictates what combos the character is capable of. A beginning character may have only a few simple combos, and as time progresses that character can learn better and more complicated moves. Strength partially dictates damage, and also affects how strong someone''s block is. It also affects the character''s ability to do ''throws'' et al.
Multiple opponents depends on a slight broadening of the engine scale. You might want to adopt a combat system like the one in Story of Thor (I haven''t seen Legend of Thor but I''m told it''s the same). Which immediately solves the range weapon and magic problem as well. Just change weapons and hit that attack button.
So you''d want an overhead cam, and perhaps attacks come in the flavor of Wide-Slash and Lunge. So some are designed to target single targets, and others are designed for crowd control. Which also adds to character development, because you have to choose whether you''re a "massacre" character, or an "assassin" character, or somewhere in between.
Magic could also be made combo based, different buttons represent different elements and you fling ''em together sharpish.
Krez - I''m not in a position to argue your preference, but I think that this method has potential. Action/RPGs such as Diablo touch on this sort of ''getting in and getting dirty'' approach to combat, and I don''t think there''s anything wrong with it, except that as long as you''re controlling one character you can take it further. If you don''t want to control the hack and slash of your dude, I guess I can''t really argue this. Same applies if you want multiple characters.
George D. Filiotis
I''m going to instantly discard the minor restriction of only having one character under your control. It doesn''t matter, because presumably, if you take up a design like this, you won''t be including multiple PCs anyway. It''s just stupid to ask a player to fight four separate fights at once.
Character development is not even an issue, dexterity is clearly the speed with which your character performs actions, and it also dictates what combos the character is capable of. A beginning character may have only a few simple combos, and as time progresses that character can learn better and more complicated moves. Strength partially dictates damage, and also affects how strong someone''s block is. It also affects the character''s ability to do ''throws'' et al.
Multiple opponents depends on a slight broadening of the engine scale. You might want to adopt a combat system like the one in Story of Thor (I haven''t seen Legend of Thor but I''m told it''s the same). Which immediately solves the range weapon and magic problem as well. Just change weapons and hit that attack button.
So you''d want an overhead cam, and perhaps attacks come in the flavor of Wide-Slash and Lunge. So some are designed to target single targets, and others are designed for crowd control. Which also adds to character development, because you have to choose whether you''re a "massacre" character, or an "assassin" character, or somewhere in between.
Magic could also be made combo based, different buttons represent different elements and you fling ''em together sharpish.
Krez - I''m not in a position to argue your preference, but I think that this method has potential. Action/RPGs such as Diablo touch on this sort of ''getting in and getting dirty'' approach to combat, and I don''t think there''s anything wrong with it, except that as long as you''re controlling one character you can take it further. If you don''t want to control the hack and slash of your dude, I guess I can''t really argue this. Same applies if you want multiple characters.
George D. Filiotis
Geordi
George D. Filiotis
George D. Filiotis
October 31, 2001 10:12 AM
why would anyone want a button combo based magic system?
those things are hell! Even if i used hotkeys, i have over 72 spells in the game already, so that means a hell of a lot of hot keys. i dont want to have to punch in A,H,Y,F+H just so i can cast Omega enemy death nuke gun! It''d be a lot better choosing it from a list.
And yes that is an actualy spell
those things are hell! Even if i used hotkeys, i have over 72 spells in the game already, so that means a hell of a lot of hot keys. i dont want to have to punch in A,H,Y,F+H just so i can cast Omega enemy death nuke gun! It''d be a lot better choosing it from a list.
And yes that is an actualy spell
"Luck is for people without skill."- Robert (I Want My Island)"Real men eat food that felt pain before it died."- Me
313
October 31, 2001 02:14 PM
The reason it might work is that you can tune the effects of a spell to the speed with which it was executed (fewer random numbers) and thusly, a player who can get that combo in faster gets a bonus for it. It also makes frantic spellcasting a reality, if you''re in a tight spot, you might not have time to cast Omega enemy death nuke gun, because the combo is eighteen strokes. so you''ll have to settle for the six stroke Infernal Nova.
You can make mistakes! if you screw up and try to execute a combo that you''re incapable of doing, it might fizzle out. Or better yet, it might explode in your face.
This could be improved even more if each rune was represented by a letter, so you had to type in spells, and effectively spell them out.
You see where this is going...
I should say that you''re not argueing with me on equal terms, because I''m specifically refering to an ACTION RPG, so it''s hard to link it to classical RPG setups with spell selection and randomized effects. I like this method, it gets rid of random numbers, and replaces them with pure skill
George D. Filiotis
You can make mistakes! if you screw up and try to execute a combo that you''re incapable of doing, it might fizzle out. Or better yet, it might explode in your face.
This could be improved even more if each rune was represented by a letter, so you had to type in spells, and effectively spell them out.
You see where this is going...
I should say that you''re not argueing with me on equal terms, because I''m specifically refering to an ACTION RPG, so it''s hard to link it to classical RPG setups with spell selection and randomized effects. I like this method, it gets rid of random numbers, and replaces them with pure skill
George D. Filiotis
Geordi
George D. Filiotis
George D. Filiotis
October 31, 2001 05:45 PM
ahhhhh....
well ive never been one for action rpgs, except for the ultimas, and diablo, and maybe zelda, although i dont classify it as an rpg.
im talking traditional turn based combat. Making a party based real time combat system would end up quite hellish, and involve me changing alot of variables and code
well ive never been one for action rpgs, except for the ultimas, and diablo, and maybe zelda, although i dont classify it as an rpg.
im talking traditional turn based combat. Making a party based real time combat system would end up quite hellish, and involve me changing alot of variables and code
"Luck is for people without skill."- Robert (I Want My Island)"Real men eat food that felt pain before it died."- Me
November 10, 2001 09:32 PM
quote:
Original post by kordova
Original post by Ingenu
Why do you copy Final Fantasy ?
INNOVATE !
Do something new, combine elements of many CRPG battle systems...
To him and all the others out there who find it necessary to say this. No one said to EQ etc. "HEY!!!! That''s a rip of D&D".
Yes they did. I certainly did. In fact, I also said "Hey! That''s a rip-off of DIKU MUD" which is perhaps more true.
quote:
The sad reality is if you really want to you can draw parallels along just about anyone''s game with a couple dozen others.
Drawing parallels is fine. It''s just when people think that combat in RPGs involves taking Final Fantasy (and associated games) and tweaking it a bit, and hardly stop to consider other games, never mind other concepts, that we have a problem.
It''s like saying, "Hey, for my sci-fi movie, I need a different kind of space station... one without a trench in it... and it can''t have a large laser... maybe a missile launcher? And there needs to be some sort of magic, but not called magic... and what can the good guys rescue instead of a princess? How should the bad guy be related to the good guy: could it be his son instead of his father?"
quote:
And aside from my rambles, "combine elements of many CRPG battle systems...". Is this being innovative? I always thought it was cut and paste.
It is more innovative to fuse different parts of different systems together, than to take a whole system and change a few names around...
140
November 12, 2001 11:05 AM
Yes they did. I certainly did. In fact, I also said "Hey! That''s a rip-off of DIKU MUD" which is perhaps more true.
Drawing parallels is fine. It''s just when people think that combat in RPGs involves taking Final Fantasy (and associated games) and tweaking it a bit, and hardly stop to consider other games, never mind other concepts, that we have a problem.
It''s like saying, "Hey, for my sci-fi movie, I need a different kind of space station... one without a trench in it... and it can''t have a large laser... maybe a missile launcher? And there needs to be some sort of magic, but not called magic... and what can the good guys rescue instead of a princess? How should the bad guy be related to the good guy: could it be his son instead of his father?"
It is more innovative to fuse different parts of different systems together, than to take a whole system and change a few names around...
...But i never said "change a few names around..." once in my post...
"If you really want your "Realistic/Innovative" games why not go for degrees in biology/medicine instead of comp. science? Maybe understanding the human/elf/orc body or whatever would aid your quest to build the perfect game engine?"
"build"....as in create from scratch.
The argument that I am making about "parallels" is that with the number of games floating about in the market just about every idea you have that may be original to you can be seen by some moron who finds it necessary to post that "hey that system is in FF," or EQ or Diablo.
I don''t think we have any arguments..just misunderstandings with this cumbersome tool that is language. Many thanks.
Drawing parallels is fine. It''s just when people think that combat in RPGs involves taking Final Fantasy (and associated games) and tweaking it a bit, and hardly stop to consider other games, never mind other concepts, that we have a problem.
It''s like saying, "Hey, for my sci-fi movie, I need a different kind of space station... one without a trench in it... and it can''t have a large laser... maybe a missile launcher? And there needs to be some sort of magic, but not called magic... and what can the good guys rescue instead of a princess? How should the bad guy be related to the good guy: could it be his son instead of his father?"
quote:
And aside from my rambles, "combine elements of many CRPG battle systems...". Is this being innovative? I always thought it was cut and paste.
It is more innovative to fuse different parts of different systems together, than to take a whole system and change a few names around...
...But i never said "change a few names around..." once in my post...
"If you really want your "Realistic/Innovative" games why not go for degrees in biology/medicine instead of comp. science? Maybe understanding the human/elf/orc body or whatever would aid your quest to build the perfect game engine?"
"build"....as in create from scratch.
The argument that I am making about "parallels" is that with the number of games floating about in the market just about every idea you have that may be original to you can be seen by some moron who finds it necessary to post that "hey that system is in FF," or EQ or Diablo.
I don''t think we have any arguments..just misunderstandings with this cumbersome tool that is language. Many thanks.
November 12, 2001 09:11 PM
kordova, I know you didn''t say anything about changing names around, but that is essentially what a lot of this comes down to. If you base your new systems too directly on a single previous system, then you''re pretty much limited to just changing the cosmetics of it. The poster who originally mentioned using innovation (Ingenu) was referring to the fact that black_mage_s seemed to be thinking only in terms of the Final Fantasy style games. In black_mage_s''s defence, I think he was actually trying to point out that a lot of these games are too similar, but then there are many systems that are quite different. There''s a large case of Finalfantasyitis in the RPG world where everything is measured against or compared to Final Fantasy in some form or other. Which is a shame, because other games have a lot to offer too.
Why do you equate innovation with realism? And why do you equate realism with needing to study to degree level? A little searching on the web, a night''s reading, and a few posts to relevant newsgroups can get you a surprising level of knowledge in no time, if you''re interested. That should be part of any designer''s skillset, anyway: the desire and ability to research and learn about new fields to apply to their game. Either way, you can do things differently just by looking at more than 1 system before choosing how to do a new one.
You also imply that there''s something wrong with building from scratch. I''ve built combat systems, among other things, from scratch several times. Not just for computer games: for tabletop wargames, and for pen/paper roleplaying games. It''s not that difficult.
Of course, very little you create is going to be 100% different from whatever is already out there. But it''s going to be more interesting than just taking a standard system and changing a few bits, which is what you get if you don''t do much research into alternatives. Which is what I think the whole ''innovate!'' comment was about.
Why do you equate innovation with realism? And why do you equate realism with needing to study to degree level? A little searching on the web, a night''s reading, and a few posts to relevant newsgroups can get you a surprising level of knowledge in no time, if you''re interested. That should be part of any designer''s skillset, anyway: the desire and ability to research and learn about new fields to apply to their game. Either way, you can do things differently just by looking at more than 1 system before choosing how to do a new one.
You also imply that there''s something wrong with building from scratch. I''ve built combat systems, among other things, from scratch several times. Not just for computer games: for tabletop wargames, and for pen/paper roleplaying games. It''s not that difficult.
Of course, very little you create is going to be 100% different from whatever is already out there. But it''s going to be more interesting than just taking a standard system and changing a few bits, which is what you get if you don''t do much research into alternatives. Which is what I think the whole ''innovate!'' comment was about.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement