Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: PROPOSAL: Combat System  (Read 17541 times)
eleazzaar
Community member

Posts: 255


attempting lucidity


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2009, 01:35:37 AM »

Phased (variable) sounds more playable than (constant).  I don't have a lot of experience using either system, but it seems that going through 10 turns per round, even when many of them may not have anything happening would be tedious.

I don't get this critique.  The phases are all internal to the software (both versions).  Every "player" (including NPCs) just waits until their turn, then acts.  The CPU handles all the phases.  Things moving on a phase (without acting, i.e., constant velocity) just move 1 square.

What i mean is, if you have ten turns per round, and things happen uniformly in a particular turn (as character X gets to move in turn 3, 6 and 9), then you have to represent each turns passing somehow, even if no action occurs.  It may not be much time, but some time would need to be consumed on an "empty" turn otherwise you basically have the (variable) system.


The general impression is that this would produce an experience something like mechwarrior (not the video game), i.e. a single engagement between a handful of combatants could easily take a very long time... which would be OK if paRPG was entirely a combat game, but it's not.

IMHO combat should take approximately the same amount of real time that it did in FO.  By making turns so small (especially in the phased version) i think combat would tend to take many times longer than it did in FO.

The time scale has literally no effect on the RT speed of combat resolution.  What takes RT are decisions and actions by players and NPCs.  The total time of a combat is dependent only on the number of player/npc turns it takes to "resolve" (and with 1 shot - 1 "kill" that can be QUITE fast).  I would like the combat to be much FASTER than FO, which I found full of tedium fail while me and a death claw grind down each others hit points (or rather, I grind his down and he tries to critical hit me).

Well, if battle is faster than FO, i would certainly not complain.  The main thing is it should not be slower than FO  IIRC one of the major things that made it slow was that enemies moved so slowly.  But that's an easy fix, if we can do other things to make each turn more significant, then that's great.


I agree that player's decision making time is one of the major things that eats up real-world time.  But a system where you generally move one square per turn, gives you 10 times the number of chances to reconsider/change you destination than a system where you move 10 squares per turn.

Additionally there's the cognitive burden of switching your attention back and forth between different combatants to see what they are doing.  You need some time for the player to see and recognize the new current combatant at the beginning of each combatant's turn to do something.  The less a combatant can do in a turn, the more time needs to be spent by the player reorienting.

I'm not saying that 10m moves per turn is the right balance, but just pointing out that there is a cost to making each turn too small.
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2009, 08:06:10 PM »

Quote
What i mean is, if you have ten turns per round, and things happen uniformly in a particular turn (as character X gets to move in turn 3, 6 and 9), then you have to represent each turns passing somehow, even if no action occurs.  It may not be much time, but some time would need to be consumed on an "empty" turn otherwise you basically have the (variable) system.

I don't think we are disagreeing.  I think outwardly, the two systems are the same, but the internal representation (i.e. game rules) are different.

Quote
But a system where you generally move one square per turn,

But you only move this slow when you are actually trying to kill something.  If you want to actually MOVE somewhere, then you move.
The individual turns should actually be faster to think about, because you really can only move OR shoot, not some brilliant ninja-like combination there of.


I guess maybe my proposal is not clear on this...

Logged

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

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2009, 02:17:16 AM »

I have added some comments on "health states" which should maybe clear things up here:

http://wiki.parpg.net/Zenbitz:Thoughts_on_wounding#Damage_States
Logged

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

Posts: 479


The Blackest Heart


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2009, 10:09:33 AM »

Is there going to be instant healing ? Healing during combat ? How is treating named injuries um.. treated in-game ?
Logged
zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 08:46:09 PM »

Is there going to be instant healing ? Healing during combat ? How is treating named injuries um.. treated in-game ?

'No' to the first.
'Sort of' to the second.  I think if you can take a second or two behind cover you can do first aid on yourself or a buddy - which prevents you from bleeding out and such.

As to the last... I hadn't really worked it all out.   Serious injury is serious!    I guess, for each class/type/instance of injury we could specify  an "acute treatment" (i.e, band-aid, splnt, torniquet or what you need to patch up and keep searching/fighting/skiing) and a "chronic treatment' (requiring nurse or MD level skills and supplies - which is what would bring you back to full effectiveness).

In general I think we are going to push many "serious wounds" -> fatal since no one wants to RP a gimp - they will just reload (see PERMADEATH) thread.   Related to this (also in the PERMADEATH thread) was "Deus Ex Machina" which is when you get seriously f'd up in a fight, you would black out and wake up in, for instance., an ice cave with some old hermit taking care of you.  You might be minus some stuff, but there would be some good story.

Think Luke and Obi-wan in the wasteland when Luke is attacked by Sand People
Logged

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

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2009, 11:15:48 AM »

for healing, other variables can be added

a health meter (if reaches zero you die)
a pain meter, it gives you some penalties (ie. loss accuracy, fatigue lost) when receive damage, with the use of drugs or alcohol (with instant and delayed side effects) that pain can be stopped or lowered
a fatigue meter, it get lower with actions (faster with high pain), this make some actions to cost more points (and if you are badly hurt the pain will consume fatigue until you faint), can be restored with drugs or some drinks too ( like the red brahmin(tm) that gives you verti-wings )

ps: maybe is too much, maybe not. the pain and fatigue could be merged too
Logged
tZee
Community member

Posts: 190


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2009, 01:10:12 PM »

I read the wiki articles and right now I am thinking about how to design the combat system on the programming side. While doing that I had an idea on the pacing - on the interrupting others/delaying own actions:

How about there are 2 waiting possibilities when it's your turn:
1. You can concentrate on one enemy and try to interrupt his next action when it happens. That would make you distracted for actions of other combatants, because you're focused on your target.
If more than one character is focusing on the same target they would be notified at the same time. Action execution order would then be decided by the speed stat again.
2. You can decide to wait for a specific amount of time. It's like deciding when your next turn is going to happen, without doing anything in the meantime.

Btw. I like the semi-real-time combat system that pauses on a combatants turn much better than the weird 1 second 10 steps static pacing thing. Smiley
Logged

tZee
Community member

Posts: 190


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2009, 10:10:05 AM »

Another thing that came to my mind: Would it be great to have some kind of morale involved in the system? I'm thinking about something in the warhammer style.. A well trained group of ex-Soldiers is harder to come by than a loosely organized group of scavengers.
There could be different team structures, like groups with a leader, who boosts the morale as long as he lives, but as a downturn shatters the morale when he dies. Or groups without a leader, where the death of comrades doesn't bother the others.

If you destroy the enemy's morale you can make them flee and they will be easy targets (if you want to finish off the job).

You could influence the morale by inflicting fear (e.g. you could prepare an ambush and have some noise emitting devices hidden in the surrounding area, so it sounds like you are more people than you really are. Or you could decorate yourself with grim trophies (which would influence your charisma as well.. you wouldn't inflict fear to only your enemies on the battlefield.
Logged

zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2009, 01:23:46 AM »

I am not sure I like switching between "concentration" on 1 opponent vs. many.   Fighting > 1 opponent is always more difficult.  You kind of have to focus on "all threats" (as much as humanly possibly) or you will get killed.  That's why you are (generically) distracted by facing more than 1.  I don't see a need to make this more complex, or put an interface in such that you are spending 40% on guy 1, 20% on guy 2, 10% each on guys 3, 4, 5, and 6.

But maybe I misunderstood.

You are right on the morale system; this is really NPC AI rather than combat mechanics however.    I think my idea (buried somewhere) is that the NPC team would have a "method" where they would estimate their chances of sucess before every "round" (set where everyone gets a turn).    If their chances are bad (and they could have incomplete information, or they could be tricked), then they are going to think about surrendering, running, or whatever.

You know... I don't think I ever posted it ... new thread!
Logged

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

Posts: 190


View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2009, 08:53:19 AM »

I am not sure I like switching between "concentration" on 1 opponent vs. many.   Fighting > 1 opponent is always more difficult.  You kind of have to focus on "all threats" (as much as humanly possibly) or you will get killed.  That's why you are (generically) distracted by facing more than 1.  I don't see a need to make this more complex, or put an interface in such that you are spending 40% on guy 1, 20% on guy 2, 10% each on guys 3, 4, 5, and 6.

But maybe I misunderstood.

I thought there would be combats where you fight more than one opponent. But it's only possible to concentrate on one for interruption purposes. But this lowers your defense against attacks from other opponents, because you're distracted.

Does that make more sense? Or did I misunderstand you now? Cheesy
Logged

zenbitz
Moderator
Community member

Posts: 1164



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2009, 04:33:04 PM »


I thought there would be combats where you fight more than one opponent. But it's only possible to concentrate on one for interruption purposes. But this lowers your defense against attacks from other opponents, because you're distracted.

Yeah, that's already in the proposal.  Second row of the table "Modifiers to Melee combat"...
Logged

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