Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Print
Author Topic: Combat System and Mechanics  (Read 25302 times)
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« on: February 13, 2009, 08:15:44 AM »



= Generally agreed upon already =
-Turn Based (6 or 8 orientations?)
-Melee and Missile (firearms and others) combat
-Single-Player with AI controlled NPCs.
-Above all: Combat should be fun for the player - but not necessarily for the PC.

= Some of my general thoughts (currently personal opinion, up for discussion) =
   -Vehicle combat:  If we want this, we need to plan it from the start.  Otherwise it will be a horrendous programming hack.
   -Realistic and Deadly, but with "non lethal" options - either side (PC or NPC - friend or enemy) can surrender.   Foes (and friends) can fall unconscious and/or be incapacitated before death.
   -There will be no "miracle" healing (-ahem- stimpaks).  Being wounded (or sick) sucks.
   -Crippling (i.e. unhealable) injuries:  Realistic probably, but I don't see the point.  Losing anything more than an eye or a finger is going to be grounds for retirement (or more likely, reload).   Having "grevious" injuries that require substantial (game) down time and expertise (badly broken bones, concussions, internal injuries) I am OK with - even some very minor effect (walk with a limp, lower movement rate).  I don't think we can even lower stats (assuming we have them) unless they are easy to raise - see "crippling", above.
- Aimed fire should take SIGNIFICANTLY longer (game time) than "hip fire".  However, it should be much easier to hit if you actually have time to aim at something.

== Time/Space scales. ==
One of the things that bugged me about Fallout was the extreme foreshortening of outdoor spaces.  A trained rifleman WITHOUT a scope can pick off a hapless victim at 100m if he has time to prepare.  This corresponds to 100 hexes in fallout, or "way over into that other map". With a scope?  I dunno.  500-1000m, depending. 
Maybe the problem is just that the cities and towns in FO were just too "compressed".

What I am thinking is that the game scale might change (1 space/hex = 1m vs. 5m or more) depending on the "openness" of the terrain.    Inside "Bubba's Tavern and Flophouse" should fight differently than on a frozen lake.  We could define a game map as being one of:

-Extremely close (indoors, some very compact outdoor)
-Very Close (sand dunes(or "high snow banks" I guess), dense forest, rubbled city)
-Close (light forest, town, ruined suburb)
-Partial Cover (Scrub and bushes, "winter" forest)
-Open (open fields)
-Billiard Table (Frozen lake)

This would both set the distance (and possibly time) scale and give a benchmark for "cover" (i.e, things to hide behind) - benchmark could be used specifically by level designers or as a randomizer for computer generated terrain (say in wilderness encounter).

Along these linesm if some beast or man is engaging you "mano y mano" you should NOT be able to calmly reach into your giant 200 lb. backpack, pull out the sniper rifle, reload it,  take a braced firing stance,  aim right between the eyes, and blow him away. 

== Tactical Choices ==
What are the tactical  choices available to a player?  There was some discussion of "partial" control of NPCs - depending on PCs "leadership" skills/abilities/stats.  But they should not be slaves or puppets.  Unless they _are_ actually slaves or thralls or something.  Even then - you shouldn't get "instant" communication with them in combat.

1) Fight or Flight - it should be possible, even EASY to avoid most combat.  This goes hand-in-hand with it being dangerous.  Have to avoid the exploit of:
 - NPC gets pissed at you whie you are talking to him, starts combat (note point blank range!)
 - PC runs away, ends combat
 - PC moves to sniping range, starts combat, plunks NPC safely.
1a) Will you surrender or fight 'till death (I think only in ironman mode would any player surrender...  I might have to put in a big quest that you can only solve by surrendering)
2) Lethal or Non-lethal (are you trying to kill, subdue, or don't care)
3) Missile or Melee
4) (If missile) scarce (bullet) ammo, or recoverable (arrow)?... something in between (black powder gun)
(those are mostly trivial)
5) Use of terrain/cover - how can the player set an ambush, (conversely: can we get AI bad guys to not blinding charge around corners)

== Engaged status ==

If you and adversary are trying to kill each other with knives, then certain options (getting a new weapon, even using rifle) are going to be restricted or simply unavailable.  It will also be hard to hit either of you with a missile weapon without endangering the other.  This is also where grappling, wrestling, throws, disarms, etc. might come into play.





Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
egalor
Community member

Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2009, 10:02:46 AM »

Vehicle combat: yes, it should be, but to a limited extent. A list of them will need to be devised. Judging by my previous experience, a motorbike, a car and a hum-vee for surface and a helicopter for air transportation would be enough. It would be perfect if it would be possible to customize them a little (don't know whether that would be a realistic amount of additional work).

Realistic damage model is a must. A couple of shots from a 9mm clip pistol would incapacitate an unarmoured grown-up man for a very long time, at best. A burst from a machine gun would cause death in most cases. Environmental conditions (weather, visibility, etc) shall apply. The same model would concern the time/space scale.

Healing model needs more looking into. In any case we should not sacrifice the fun for realism. If we refuse to take some instant-healing devices, then we will need to come up with another model ourselves (doesn't sound too difficult though). Apart from that, I agree, that using stimpaks during combat is not an option.

Tactical choices.
1) IMHO, the PC should always have contact with his party members. I think I remember one game where you could not issue command to an ally because of the distance, and that was quite frustrating.

2) Surrender option is very attractive, but is rather difficult to implement realistically from designer's point of view in a game.
For your info: in Might & Magic 1 you had an option to Surrender before any combat, which resulted in being robbed of all equipment and money.


We might base one or more quests on surrendering, but what will happen if the PC chooses to surrender in a situation where there is no quest (majority of combat situations)?

Engaged status.

A very sound idea, and easy to implement. I suggest that during a melee,

- the PC is not allowed to access any equipment, apart from that which is not in the backpack (on a belt, in a boot, in a sleeve or something like that);
- the PC suffers penalty for aiming with a ranged weapon.
Logged
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2009, 02:35:12 PM »

Quote
-Turn Based (6 or 8 orientations?

8, I would like to use tiles, not hexes. Tiles are easier to understand and make as far as the graphics go.
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2009, 09:57:07 PM »

Quote
-Turn Based (6 or 8 orientations?

8, I would like to use tiles, not hexes. Tiles are easier to understand and make as far as the graphics go.

No problem.  I will try to at least make my language generic.  I think I like hexes because in the table top world, you don't have to worry about diagonals screwing up your range calculations.  But you know, computers are pretty good at taking square roots!  Or even storing distance tables.
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2009, 07:07:07 PM »

> 6 or 8 orientations?
6

> Vehicle combat
no

> 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
Agreed!

> 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..).
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2009, 08:49:08 PM »

Quote from: egalor
Realistic damage model is a must. A couple of shots from a 9mm clip pistol would incapacitate an unarmoured grown-up man for a very long time, at best. A burst from a machine gun would cause death in most cases. Environmental conditions (weather, visibility, etc) shall apply. The same model would concern the time/space scale.

Healing model needs more looking into. In any case we should not sacrifice the fun for realism. If we refuse to take some instant-healing devices, then we will need to come up with another model ourselves (doesn't sound too difficult though). Apart from that, I agree, that using stimpaks during combat is not an option.

Quote from: qubodup
> No instant-heal
What do you suggest instead? I don't see an obvious way around it.
First I will clarify - I am fine with healing being "instant" in a real time sense, but not trivial as in your typical healing point => boost hit points model.

There is no point in having "realistic" combat if you can just stimpak back to full strength at little cost.  I guess you could argue that early in games, "healing potions" are not cheap...

Without going into detail about wound levels , pain, shock, blood loss etc (we can do that if we want, and can make it fun - but it's a little off topic right now)

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!   Being badly wounded in a harsh, post apoc environment should be a VERY BIG DEAL.   The tricky bit is to make it a big deal, without it being tedious game play.

I am OK with putting "safety valves" in the game - to prevent a game getting ruined by a random event, dumb player choice or mis-click, but it should not be "drink a magical potion" (and FO stimpaks _are_ just magical potions).   By safety valve - I mean some kind of Deus Ex Machina to whisk you to a kindly woodsman hut where he nurses you back to health.  Like when Luke gets bashed by Sand People and Obi Wan saves his butt.

This ties in to permadeath thread as well...  but at this stage I guess we should just keep things a little flexible.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #6 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.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2009, 10:09:35 PM by qubodup » Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2009, 09:50:27 PM »

> 6 or 8 orientations?
6
even on 4-sided tiles?  You make my brain hurt.
Quote

> 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 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).  My thoughts on this for the combat GUI.  I will wiki them this weekend.
Player stats and reputation (maybe skills) should play into this too.  I was thinking of a "Ultimatum (Bluff)" option - where you can demand surrender.   Need some CPU way to determine "battle odds" quickly, but if you are "likely to win" then it's a real ultimatum - if you are actually weaker - then you are bluffing the other guy!  Would depend on NPC stats too...

Quote
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.

Dialog certainly - "extras" or whatever will probably just auto-surrender if you ask, unless they have some psycho trait, or PC has "take no prisoners" flag... just brainstorming here, FWIW.

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

Well, I think KOing someone with a thrown rock to the skull is reasonable, if mostly random event.
I think if you shoot someone in the leg they are likely to fall down and give up... whether or not they are strictly "conscious" is just flavor.  Why would non-lethal combat be harder for PC to do?  I think if you make it significantly harder, than players will just kill.

Quote
> 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)

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.    I guess the general principal is that you can expend extra moves (be they APs or what-have-you) to aim.  My big objection to FO aiming was that you could do it even when a Deathclaw was knocking you about...

Quote
> 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.

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.

One tricky bit here is the "impasse" whomever moves first is worse off.  Which begs the question of who is "attacking" vs. "defending" in a strategic sense.   There should be an advantage for defending a strong point, right.

I think before we get too bogged down we need to define the types of combats that could occur - how frequent they are, etc.

Quote
> 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.

Yeah, this is critical to good game play.  Even waltzing through a multi-map town like Vault City or the Hub can get tedious, and there are only 3-4 locations!  
But that actually was my point - to handle this you use different time/space scales for different things.  Fallout has 2 scales - world map & "town" map (although there were wilderness locations as well).  My point is that we might even want to go to more than 2 scales, if we can conquer it technically.

Quote
> 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.

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.

Quote
> 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.

No, not what I meant.  There is a saying "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".  The converse is also true to the extent of you do not have freedom of action when you are being grappled or engaged at close range.

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.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2009, 09:52:17 PM »

Quote
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 like this idea.

Quote
Unconsciousness - Close combat attacks only. Trying to knock out without killing should be more expensive than regular attacks.

But we should then figure out what the reward for "only" knocking out an opponent would be. (get extra slots to save during combat? Wink)

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

This was meant for no instant-heal during the combat.

If a character gets wounded he could heal himself the following ways:
  • natural healing - takes a few days of rest to regain all hp, healing rate is increased by more favourable conditions (warm bed, food etc.)
  • medical skill - after it's applied it rather increases HP recovery, but is not insta-heal.
  • without food (if we implement food) you cannot really heal

I will post more later, since I totally forgot I was writing this and you posted many things in between.
Logged
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #9 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'.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 11:51:12 AM by qubodup » Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2009, 09:03:59 AM »

> Realistic fights
Quote
Sad please no, this is supposed to be an RPG, not a tactical fight simulation.

cRPGs _are_ tactical fight simulations, they are just bad ones.  I understand you wanting to keep it simple though.
I don't mind it being simple, but it shouldn't be stupid.   GURPS combat is actually very tactical - as well as other table top RPGs.  And a game like FO with with variable action points (as opposed to IGO-YUGO), splitting a turn over move and fight actions, cover and darkness that effects chance-to-hit, knockback, up to 3 different attacks per weapon (unaim, aim, burst),  8 hit locations, unconciousness, crippling, and multiple levels of critical hits IS A PRETTY COMPLICATED SYSTEM.  Didn't facing matter too?  Like it was worse to be hit from behind?  Hell, it even had friendly fire!

Which would you prefer:
FO:  start behind wall.  Move 2 APs around corner.  Fire 6 AP aimed shot at bogey. Move 2 APs back into "perfect" cover.
"Tactical" - You are behind partial cover.  You brace (1 action), aim (1 action), fire at bogey (1 action). You miss.  Bogey hits the dirt (now harder to hit), fires back at you without aiming (he just dropped to the ground).  He misses, but being shot at lowers (slightly) your chance to hit back, but since you are braced, you don't have to do this again until you move or get hit.

I have not specified a "cost" for the above actions - they could be all equal or worth some amount of APs.  You might even get potshotted at while you are in the middle of the 3 action sequence above.

Note that if weapons actually do reasonable, incapacitating damage with 1-2 hits, then the combats will move pretty fast - we should have some room to explore different tactical choices.   

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

Tedium is not linked strongly to importance, I don't think.   In fact, they are opposites - if it's IMPORTANT that your character do something, and the game play is not repetitive - then it's usually kind of interesting no.

Well, I think rest-healing is a reasonable solution.... however, that implies that time (to rest) is a resource the player cares about.  I suppose theoretically in FO, stimpaks cost money and money was a resource... so maybe my reservations here are just tied to the unbalanced midgame in terms of Ph4t l00t, which can be traded for LOTS of zero-weight stim paks.

Quote
> 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?

Yeah, tricky huh?  But we've only just started.
I am not married to the "ultra realistic" idea.  What I think would be awesome would be to have fights play out like a movie or book.  If that means our hero has to take a few bullets and walk away.  I am OK with that.  But not a full submachine gun burst, or 2 barrels point blank with a sawed off shotgun. 

One thing I am struggling with is that people are going to want to make a guy who is good at combat skills, and run around and pick fights with polar bears, local thugs, and anyone who looks at them cross-eyed and hope to come away unscathed.   if damage is realistic, then those guys are going to die, before they get to do anything.  So do we cater to them, and make "slayer" a defacto character class... or make them go play diablo?  And for the rest of people who don't mind a good scrap, but want to run around and chit-chat and solve quests and change the world... how do you keep them ALIVE without making the game just another dungeon crawl?

BUT luckily we have an out!  If we build in difficulty scaling - so that we can make the combat tougher or easier (for example, just scale the weapon damage and healing rates) - then we can tune the combat to fit our game balance best.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 09:17:12 AM by zenbitz » Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
qubodup
Admin
Community member

Posts: 261



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2009, 05:18:17 PM »

And a game like FO with with variable action points (as opposed to IGO-YUGO), splitting a turn over move and fight actions, cover and darkness that effects chance-to-hit, knockback, up to 3 different attacks per weapon (unaim, aim, burst),  8 hit locations, unconciousness, crippling, and multiple levels of critical hits IS A PRETTY COMPLICATED SYSTEM.  Didn't facing matter too?  Like it was worse to be hit from behind?  Hell, it even had friendly fire!
It is not about the internal complexity, it is about what the player has to do. [EDIT: In Fallout] the player doesn't have to aim and shoot separately, the player doesn't have to think about how he ends his turn (shooting or running) to make sure the next round starts optimal for him/her. All the player can do is move and shoot (in different ways).

Which would you prefer:
FO:  start behind wall.  Move 2 APs around corner.  Fire 6 AP aimed shot at bogey. Move 2 APs back into "perfect" cover.
"Tactical" - You are behind partial cover.  You brace (1 action), aim (1 action), fire at bogey (1 action). You miss.  Bogey hits the dirt (now harder to hit), fires back at you without aiming (he just dropped to the ground).  He misses, but being shot at lowers (slightly) your chance to hit back, but since you are braced, you don't have to do this again until you move or get hit.
For an RPG inspired by Fallout, I want simple fights. I love Jagged Alliance 2 too, but advanced tactics (I realize that what you're proposing isn't even all that advanced) isn't something I would like in a role-playing game, where fighting is not the main part, but equal to using scientific or people or sneaking skills. In a Jagged Alliance 2 inspired game I would want all the complexity of a turn-based tactics squad game.

BUT luckily we have an out!  If we build in difficulty scaling - so that we can make the combat tougher or easier (for example, just scale the weapon damage and healing rates) - then we can tune the combat to fit our game balance best.
Agreed, but the fight mechanics will be the same (I'm against developing of two systems) so we need to settle if these will be simple and stupid or complex.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 03:28:40 AM by qubodup » Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2009, 10:22:03 PM »

I am not necessarily proposing that you MUST take an aim action and shoot action.  You can shoot without aiming - but to me it's a significant action difference, not just an extra action point.

Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Lamoot
Community member

Posts: 161


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2009, 11:06:40 PM »

Quote
You can shoot without aiming - but to me it's a significant action difference, not just an extra action point.

I fail to see what exactly the difference is, could you elaborate a bit more on this?
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2009, 11:11:48 PM »

the difference would be precisely that you could get shot between aiming and shooting
Logged

We are not denying them an ending...
We are denying them a DISNEY ending - Icelus
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Print
Jump to: