Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18
241  Development / Mechanics / Re: Combat System and Mechanics on: February 15, 2009, 01:48:14 AM
6 orientations on 4-sided tiles?  You make my brain hurt.
I want 4side tiles and hex-tiles for movement.

I didn't think of opening dialog in a "Fallout" talking head way... but I guess you could do that if he agrees to a truce (quick mechanic).
I was thinking of "you pay Action Points to start a dialog (person you talk to pays nothing) and in the dialog you can try to have some effect - whether the talking starts alone can depend on factors but should not mean that the enemy already made some decision.

Well, I think KOing someone with a thrown rock to the skull is reasonable, if mostly random event.
Good idea - definitely not controlled (or extremely expensive, try to make it so you throw a rock without accidentally killing but also knocking out)..

Why would non-lethal combat be harder for PC to do?  I think if you make it significantly harder, than players will just kill.
Because it takes energy/concentration to control the force you use. It's easy to kill but it takes extra energy to make sure the enemy doesn't die from your attack. And yes, killing should be easier.

Hmm.... in FO you could make characters with 12 APs and get 2 aimed shots.  Let alone jetted or psychoed up.
Some guns were even 4/5 (or 6/7) instead of 5/6.
You get the additional APs later in the game (and a skill which reduces weapon cost by 1 AP) and it's always a great indication of progress for me that I finally can shoot two aimed shots per round.

I think this effect (you twice as good with your gun) should be preserved and having 60% AP cost for aimed shots at game start is a good way.

Wow, I think programming the AI for this would be great fun.  It might be _hard_ but it would be fun. I think cover hopping is very realistic for a firefight.
The question for me is - can you make the game play enjoyable?   Many tactical table top games have an "opportunity fire" mechanic like the following:

Both A and B are in shooting distance of each other, but in full cover.
They can sit and fire bullets (covering fire) but are not likely to hit.
If A needs to close range (maybe toss a grenade at B), he hops to cover BUT B _always_ gets a shot at him while he's running from cover to cover.  In essence, B's combat action is not "move" or "shoot" but "wait for someone to move and pop him" (aka opportunity fire).  What you cannot do is allow A to jump from cover to cover with no chance of getting shot.
Do you want PARPG to be a tactical squad game? I love Jagged Alliance 2, but it is very different from Fallout. I want simple combat in PARPG.

Yeah, "harder to hit" - like impossible.  Get a friend with a fake knife.  Take a stick or rifle length object for your self.  Let him get to knife range, and "play fight" with you trying to shoot him.   Now try to _aim_.  (Do this is slow motion, duh).  You are better off hitting him with the rifle butt and hoping to get back a few steps.
I don't care for realistic fighting in an RPG. Even in JA2 you can shoot the tiger in front of you after he made you bleed the round before (though it's more problematic than in Fallout.)

As for honor - OT for the thread but it would be fun(??) to implement a "code of honor" disadvantage - you could saddle your character with this in exchange for extra build points or something (ala GURPS, Hero system).  "Minor" complication of the engine trying to establish whether any give PC action is honorable or not, not to mention penalties... it would be cool though.
There is no place for honor in postapocalyptica. Cheat wherever possible to survive. Ram a knife up his belly and shoot him in the face if you get the chance. (etc etc)

So it seems that a decision has to be made between 'simple fighting' and 'somewhat realistic fighting'.
242  Development / Mechanics / Re: Combat System and Mechanics on: February 14, 2009, 09:39:14 PM
> Realistic fights
Sad please no, this is supposed to be an RPG, not a tactical fight simulation.

> healing = VERY BIG DEAL + not tedious
Does not compute. (Well, it seems to contradict itself. But I'm curious to hear details.)

> My idea is that combat should not be entered lightly -especially if the fight is going to be close, and you are likely to get wounded.  You survived in the post-apoc world THIS long (assuming you character is not say, 14 years old), why would you risk your life and limb without a dang good reason!
Yes, yes, yes but how?

One way I can think of would be to allow insta-heal but make healing supplies rare (and not have 2000 stimpacks in the game like F2 did) but this would make rest-healing the standard solution.

The 'problem' as I see it is that you can heal yourself while fighting but between fights I think it would be good to allow easy healing without forcing the player to rest for 20 days.
243  Development / Mechanics / Re: PERMADEATH on: February 14, 2009, 09:30:31 PM
So after saying "it is!" and "is not!" a lot on IRC, Me, Hory, Nihathrael and Lamoot kind of stopped arguing when someone said "let's allow an iron man mode where saving isn't allowed in battle" Smiley
244  Development / Mechanics / Re: Combat System and Mechanics on: February 14, 2009, 07:07:07 PM
> 6 or 8 orientations?

> Vehicle combat

> PC/NPC can surrender
Alternative suggestion: allow player to talk to enemy while fighting and then via dialog surrender or force surrender of enemy.
Enemy should be allowed to talk to player too in fighting, to beg for mercy etc.

I think this should not be something every enemy can do. Random encounter persons shall run away, talk is only for important people (else the function becomes too common and boring because it would in most cases have little impact on the game.

> Unconsciouses
Close combat attacks only. Trying to knock out without killing should be more expensive than regular attacks.

> No instant-heal
What do you suggest instead? I don't see an obvious way around it.

> Crippling
No, I would just reload because a randomly generated permanent (and even long-lasting) handicap is not something a player should have to accept.

> Aimed fire much more expensive than normal
In F1/2, aiming would mean to use 6 instead of 5 action points. This means the number of maximal attacks was reduced from 2 to 1. I think this is a significant change. In PARPG it all depends on how the fighting system will work. If it will be Fallout-like, I would suggest to keep it the way it was (6 AP instead of 5 AP of total available 10 AP)

> Long-range sniping
I think the main reason for sniping not to be super-easy in F1/2 is the bad AI quality. Enemies would always run straight in your direction.

If snipers were all-powerful, the first one to stand outside of cover at end of round, would die. Alternatively it would mean that level design would have to be built around the fact that player and enemies should be able to take cover. This would mean that the sniping becomes useless, as all fights would be at close range when the characters finished cover-hopping towards each other. Programming the AI for this wouldn't be fun either. F1/2's system is a good compromise.

> More realistic area dimensions (distances etc)
Realism in urban area design means that a lot of 'white space' (space where no relevant objects and characters are) exists. This means that the white space does nothing but being boring while you run from interesting person to interesting object.

> No sniping at close range
Making it more expensive (in terms of AP or hit-%) to use a sniper rifle at close range seems like a good idea.

> Conflicts don't have to be solved with violence

> Knife fight excludes other weapons
Do you mean contest situations? (Where there are rules set by characters inside PARPG?) Or are you talking about any fight where both use knifes? If you mean the latter, there should be no enforcing of weapon. There is no place for honor in Postapocalyptica and also no need. Plus cheating is fun.

If you're talking about fighting contests, cheating should still be possible (iron piece in boxing glove..).
245  Development / Mechanics / Re: Equipment and Stuff on: February 14, 2009, 06:32:16 PM
Can someone name a game which had item 'durabilities' as a feature and where this aspect is fun?

I'll name the games known to me which have this feature and where that feature is not fun.

  • Diablo 2
  • Jagged Alliance 2
  • TES: Morrowind
  • System Shock 2
246  Development / Mechanics / Re: PERMADEATH on: February 14, 2009, 05:54:21 PM
Why not in combat? if the sucker wants to re-load 100 times to kill that powerarmor guy at lvl1, let him  Undecided
247  Development / Mechanics / Re: Equipment and Stuff on: February 13, 2009, 09:38:08 PM
I suggest that all items shall be indestructible always.

I have not yet encountered a game which features destroyable items, where this part of the game was not annoying.

PS: The equipment system should be as simple as possible, Armor and two hands should be best.
248  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Name of game on: February 13, 2009, 09:15:04 PM
I suggest to use parpg as long as there is no 1.0 release Smiley
249  General Category / Website / Re: Forum skin on: February 13, 2009, 01:58:18 PM
You left out the file icon, but perhaps that's even a good idea Smiley (the blue one looks pretty good)

I created some replacement for the "forum contains (no) non-read threads" icons

As always: public domain/do what you want etc etc Smiley
250  Development / Mechanics / Re: PERMADEATH on: February 11, 2009, 10:48:14 PM
Humor me for a moment... what if it was really, really hard to die.  Like you basically had to commit suicide.
This aspect is super cool about Planescape: Torment. Smiley
251  Development / Mechanics / Re: PERMADEATH on: February 11, 2009, 09:20:59 PM
My opinion on this: permanent death (as in: when you die, you have to start over again and can't reload) is for Nethack players and other masochists. And I am no masochist.
252  General Category / Website / Re: Forum skin on: February 11, 2009, 08:05:35 PM
I'm trapped in the trap of look-tuning :|

I desaturated some gif images used on the forum, thinking it might look better. Not sure though. Maybe at least some of them are ok.

253  General Category / Website / Re: PARPG Logo on: January 31, 2009, 04:12:38 AM
mvBarracude, I think something is wrong with the logos. Make sure you don't "index" the color space or save as gif-files (unless there is a filled background behind the logo), because this way the semi-transparent pixels will loose their opacity value (and become 1 or 0)

I also don't like the logo being differently-colored for the different sites. I would prefer black everywhere. Matter of taste and getting used to though. No pressure here. Yes I know it kind of was my idea. ^^
254  General Category / Website / Re: PARPG Logo on: January 30, 2009, 07:54:55 PM
For documentation:

Tranberry modified the logo to this awesomeness (click the SVG link to see/dl) and is now working on a favicon (for the browser, left of the URL/web address)

Also please note that in case you have problems with 'I release this to the public domain' note that the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication is kind of a license, which is very similar to public domain status. Read it, it should calm you down. (In case you're not calm anyways ^^)
255  General Category / Website / Re: Forum skin on: January 30, 2009, 04:39:36 PM
This time the navigation jumps should be fixed: http://qubodup.googlepages.com/izlerlght_q0.3.7z
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18