Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vattic]

Something like IVAN would work the best IMHO.

A happy medium I can agree with. I think the pace of combat would do well to be a bit slower and more guarded. Introducing shields alone would be interesting.

[Micro102]

A skeleton actually made me fling my mouse. Even horror games don't do that.

Awesome 

[Virtz]

Detailed combat would fail in a non-turn-based environment. In DF, you can spend a few minutes analyzing every minute injury that you've suffered, because the goblins will kindly wait until your next input before resuming Operation Dismemberment. In a realtime game, you don't have that luxury. While you're wondering whether that last attack fractured your target's upper arm, your opponent will be swinging wildly and handily killing you. Imagine if DF was realtime - you'd spam the standard "bump into the target" attack, and if you were victorious, you'd then worry about the awesome damage system.

Heck, even something as abstract as registering that "your arm has been injured!" would require the ability to aim at discrete limbs. Do you think you could choose a specific limb or body part to aim at? Without precision aiming, a complex damage system is nothing more than a difficult-to-understand hit point system - if you can't aim at specific regions, then you're gaining nothing but useless 'realism'.

I thought this was a great point. Fallout 3 was a hybrid real time game that was optionally turn based if you chose to use VATS. I don't have anything like an encyclopedic knowledge of other games but I can't think of any other real time games that handle complex injuries very well at all.

VATS isn't turn-based, much like Mass Effect isn't even though you can also pause that and choose who to attack with a special power.

And here's a short list of real-time games that handle more complex damage well that come to my mind:
-Deus Ex
-Terra Nova: Strike Force Centuari
-Wurm Online
-Armed Assault series
-SWAT4
-Nearly any combat vehicle simulator in existence

Given a good HUD, you can be more aware of your state of health than an actual person would be in a fight.

[poca]

Detailed combat would fail in a non-turn-based environment. In DF, you can spend a few minutes analyzing every minute injury that you've suffered, because the goblins will kindly wait until your next input before resuming Operation Dismemberment. In a realtime game, you don't have that luxury. While you're wondering whether that last attack fractured your target's upper arm, your opponent will be swinging wildly and handily killing you. Imagine if DF was realtime - you'd spam the standard "bump into the target" attack, and if you were victorious, you'd then worry about the awesome damage system.

Heck, even something as abstract as registering that "your arm has been injured!" would require the ability to aim at discrete limbs. Do you think you could choose a specific limb or body part to aim at? Without precision aiming, a complex damage system is nothing more than a difficult-to-understand hit point system - if you can't aim at specific regions, then you're gaining nothing but useless 'realism'.

I thought this was a great point. Fallout 3 was a hybrid real time game that was optionally turn based if you chose to use VATS. I don't have anything like an encyclopedic knowledge of other games but I can't think of any other real time games that handle complex injuries very well at all.

VATS isn't turn-based, much like Mass Effect isn't even though you can also pause that and choose who to attack with a special power.

And here's a short list of real-time games that handle more complex damage well that come to my mind:
-Deus Ex
-Terra Nova: Strike Force Centuari
-Wurm Online
-Armed Assault series
-SWAT4
-Nearly any combat vehicle simulator in existence

Given a good HUD, you can be more aware of your state of health than an actual person would be in a fight.

VATS used "action points" that slowly regenerated over time; presumably also your enemies also had a limited number of action points. That seems turn based to me but I suppose I can see how you wouldn't classify it as strictly turn based.

Mass Effect is a great example! The game stops and you can command any one of your squad to perform any attakc they have on any enemy/spot.

I haven't played most of the other games in your list; with the exception of Deus Ex but that was so long ago that I don't remember the combat system but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to list the examples : )

[Virtz]

VATS used "action points" that slowly regenerated over time; presumably also your enemies also had a limited number of action points. That seems turn based to me but I suppose I can see how you wouldn't classify it as strictly turn based.

Mass Effect is a great example! The game stops and you can command any one of your squad to perform any attakc they have on any enemy/spot.

I haven't played most of the other games in your list; with the exception of Deus Ex but that was so long ago that I don't remember the combat system but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to list the examples : )

Your enemies in FO3 do not have action points. They do not send the world into slow motion, making themselves semi-invincible and making their shots more damaging. Only you can do that. VATS is essentially a special power like going into bullet time in Max Payne, and action points may as well be called mana. Also, the world continues to move during VATS command execution. Hence not only do your enemies not get their "turn", but neither do you, really.

The thing that we call games like Mass Effect is Real-Time with Pause. The game runs in real-time, but you can also pause it at any time and give orders during this pause, which will be carried out once real-time resumes. Other such examples include the Baldur's Gate series, the Neverwinter Nights series, the Icewind Dale series, Dragon Age, Darklands and the KOTOR series.

[Hugehead]

Actually, all of those games you listed except Darklands are turn based, they play in real time but they're divided into rounds.

[Virtz]

Actually, all of those games you listed except Darklands are turn based, they play in real time but they're divided into rounds.

Both sides carry out their tasks at the same time, though. Wouldn't call that taking turns. You could call it round-based, I suppose.

[Biag]

I agree that there should be more complex combat in Minecraft- right now it strikes me as RTS combat, where the units just swing at each other and unleash their DPS until someone dies. Blocking alone, or even just the ability to fully crouch (for cover against arrows), would greatly improve it. I don't think a complex damage system would need to be turn-based, though. As a practitioner of martial arts, I know that I definitely can target a specific limb in real-life combat, which is much more chaotic and complicated than any game's. And as a practitioner of FPSes, I know that I can target an area much smaller than a limb in-game; shotgun headshots, anyone?

[IronyOwl]

Now, here we've got a slight disagreement. As far as I'm concerned, if a zombie's arm suddenly comes off during combat, and you didn't intend for said arm to come off, then that's no better than random chance. It's the same as applying a "X% chance to remove a random limb on hit" ability. Which, in turn, manifests as a "25% chance to cause X effect" ability. Which certainly doesn't require some overly complex wound simulation to implement!

There's a difference between "somewhat unpredictable" or "difficult" and "completely random," however. Even if you're really not confident in your ability to hit what you were trying to hit, there's generally still options that involve trying for it, but not failing to do anything at all if you don't succeed. Intentionally aiming high on a zombie's body in hopes of getting its arms, for instance, or flailing at both its legs even though you really only need to disable one.

There does come a point where this isn't really better than chance, but that's usually because there's a "right answer," and aiming anywhere else isn't worth it.

[monk12]

Actually, all of those games you listed except Darklands are turn based, they play in real time but they're divided into rounds.

Both sides carry out their tasks at the same time, though. Wouldn't call that taking turns. You could call it round-based, I suppose.

You may have noticed that in DF, it appears that combat takes place in realtime. Really, the game is turn based- every step is a turn. Actions are broken up based on how quickly a given character can make an action. So if a character with high agility fights an opponent with low agility, then on turn 1 char A attacks, and on turn 5 char A attacks again, then on turn 7 char B attacks, and so on. They are taking turns- its just that the turns are not equal in duration nor frequency.

As regards combat complexity, yeah, if you give an untrained guy a sword he's just going to flail wildly and it is mostly up to chance if he hits an arm or leg or nothing at all. If that same guy practices with his sword, however, he's going to learn how to use it and get better. You can even see this a bit in Minecraft- when you just start out, or get surprised, you pretty much just flail as fast as you can in the general direction of the enemy and try to get your bearings. When you've got a few combats under your belt and see the zombie coming, however, you can time your attacks to hit as soon as the enemy gets in reach, and you'll rarely take any damage in those fights.

What I'd like to see is some more depth to the combat- different enemies having different timing to their attacks would be an easy way to start. You could also have puzzle enemies who are only vulnerable at certain times or after certain actions (you have to shield bash to get them to let down their guard, for example.) You could have enemies with certain fighting styles, or a simple balance mechanic tied to blocking and attacking, or combo based combat, or any number of things that would be better than the "mash the attack button" thing Minecraft has going on. The real question is picking a system that will work as well in a multiplayer format as well as a single player format.

[Fayrik]

This could be a bit easier to implement than everyone thinks.

What if it was just litterally a swing of a sword and hitboxes with healthbars?
Your head, both arms and both legs, upper body and lower body all have their own healthbars, so if someone hits you in the left leg, your leg gets damaged, and it's harder to walk. It reaches 0 and then it's impossible to walk. Same with your arms and ability to hold things... And, also, the same with your head.. Except when that reaches 0, you die.

Of course, in true DF style, you wouldn't have to bash someone's head in to kill them. Bleeding out would have to be an option.

[Virtz]

Actually, all of those games you listed except Darklands are turn based, they play in real time but they're divided into rounds.

Both sides carry out their tasks at the same time, though. Wouldn't call that taking turns. You could call it round-based, I suppose.

You may have noticed that in DF, it appears that combat takes place in realtime. Really, the game is turn based- every step is a turn. Actions are broken up based on how quickly a given character can make an action. So if a character with high agility fights an opponent with low agility, then on turn 1 char A attacks, and on turn 5 char A attacks again, then on turn 7 char B attacks, and so on. They are taking turns- its just that the turns are not equal in duration nor frequency.

I'm fairly certain that, unlike in DF, it's literally possible to have 2 archers kill each other in the same round by firing at each other simultaneously. At least in NWN2. Everyone attacks at nearly the same time at the start of a round, they don't wait around for one "turn" to stop before starting the next. Hence it's not really a turn, is it?

If you'd like to get technical, then everything on a computer is "turn-based" considering nearly everything must be done sequentially. Even if you have multicore processors, you still need to sequentially handle access to the same data. Real-time doesn't mean true real-time, but I ain't about to go calling Quake phase or turn based.

As far as combat systems go, I'd most like to see something like Die by the Sword. It practically never gets old. Only issue is that it'd require a bit more bandwidth, I think.

[de5me7]

my favourite thing about the first pst vid, is the programmers incredable enthusiam and sense of self discovery. I hope he keeps going and userps minecraft.

[monk12]

Actually, all of those games you listed except Darklands are turn based, they play in real time but they're divided into rounds.

Both sides carry out their tasks at the same time, though. Wouldn't call that taking turns. You could call it round-based, I suppose.

You may have noticed that in DF, it appears that combat takes place in realtime. Really, the game is turn based- every step is a turn. Actions are broken up based on how quickly a given character can make an action. So if a character with high agility fights an opponent with low agility, then on turn 1 char A attacks, and on turn 5 char A attacks again, then on turn 7 char B attacks, and so on. They are taking turns- its just that the turns are not equal in duration nor frequency.

I'm fairly certain that, unlike in DF, it's literally possible to have 2 archers kill each other in the same round by firing at each other simultaneously. At least in NWN2. Everyone attacks at nearly the same time at the start of a round, they don't wait around for one "turn" to stop before starting the next. Hence it's not really a turn, is it?

If you'd like to get technical, then everything on a computer is "turn-based" considering nearly everything must be done sequentially. Even if you have multicore processors, you still need to sequentially handle access to the same data. Real-time doesn't mean true real-time, but I ain't about to go calling Quake phase or turn based.

As far as combat systems go, I'd most like to see something like Die by the Sword. It practically never gets old. Only issue is that it'd require a bit more bandwidth, I think.

You are neglecting to factor in the turn or two it takes for the arrow to fly.

I'll grant you that from a practical gameplay perspective the difference is nigh unobservable.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

NWN features instant projectiles though, much like UO. Minecraft and DF are similar in that they both have projectiles that take a moment to travel. A lot of FPSs do the same thing. I'd say most, but who knows? You really only ever notice when sniping, so for games with small maps you might never notice one way or the other.