Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8

Author Topic: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?  (Read 16355 times)

IronyOwl

  • Bay Watcher
  • Nope~
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #75 on: February 27, 2011, 12:20:18 am »

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.
Being one hundred percent intentional every time is not a prerequisite for being interesting or functional. If a zombie's arm abruptly comes off, evidently you've severed its arm and that now has an impact on battle- the fact that you weren't necessarily trying for that or that your response to this is to continue to flail at it in hopes of finishing it off doesn't mean there's no effect, or that the effect isn't interesting. This is only more true of yourself, since the aftereffects can be relevant in more than just battle, and especially more than that one battle.

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'.
Yes, I do. Probably not every time on all enemies, but I'd consider that a good thing anyway.
Logged
Quote from: Radio Controlled (Discord)
A hand, a hand, my kingdom for a hot hand!
The kitchenette mold free, you move on to the pantry. it's nasty in there. The bacon is grazing on the lettuce. The ham is having an illicit affair with the prime rib, The potatoes see all, know all. A rat in boxer shorts smoking a foul smelling cigar is banging on a cabinet shouting about rent money.

KrunkSplein

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #76 on: February 27, 2011, 12:28:15 am »

Do you think you could choose a specific limb or body part to aim at?

Based on my experience playing Dead Space, my answer is yes.  Yes I can.

Example scenario:
"Boy, that freakishly fast bad guy is barreling towards me much too quickly for me to kill him in time.  I know!  I shall shoot his leg off, thus rendering his speed moot."

Now, if I were to actually VERBALIZE that in the midst of combat, I would die immediately.  But it is instinctual!  Once you know that you CAN do something, you're good to go.  Besides, a damage system that complex could truly reward player skill.  Give a new player a +10 sword of instagibbing and put him against a veteran with a dagger - the newbie will learn that it's hard to swing a sword without tendons.
Logged

Thexor

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2011, 01:06:09 am »

Do you think you could choose a specific limb or body part to aim at?

Based on my experience playing Dead Space, my answer is yes.  Yes I can.

Example scenario:
"Boy, that freakishly fast bad guy is barreling towards me much too quickly for me to kill him in time.  I know!  I shall shoot his leg off, thus rendering his speed moot."

Now, if I were to actually VERBALIZE that in the midst of combat, I would die immediately.  But it is instinctual!  Once you know that you CAN do something, you're good to go.  Besides, a damage system that complex could truly reward player skill.  Give a new player a +10 sword of instagibbing and put him against a veteran with a dagger - the newbie will learn that it's hard to swing a sword without tendons.

True, true. But that's with a ranged weapon, and a highly-accurate hitscan weapon. Trying to strike a body part while it's flailing around a half-foot away from your face is completely different from leveling a plasma cutter at a Necromorph's leg from the far side of the room.  :P

(And arrows, given that they have both travel time and projectile arcing, aren't exactly a great alternative.)

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.
Being one hundred percent intentional every time is not a prerequisite for being interesting or functional. If a zombie's arm abruptly comes off, evidently you've severed its arm and that now has an impact on battle- the fact that you weren't necessarily trying for that or that your response to this is to continue to flail at it in hopes of finishing it off doesn't mean there's no effect, or that the effect isn't interesting. This is only more true of yourself, since the aftereffects can be relevant in more than just battle, and especially more than that one battle.

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!


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'.
Yes, I do. Probably not every time on all enemies, but I'd consider that a good thing anyway.

Hehe, that'll teach me to ask rhetorical questions. I've never fought a battle in Minecraft that didn't come down to "OSHI OSHI KILL IT KILL IT!!!", followed by considerable random flailing.

I'll admit, though, that a slower-paced combat system might allow for specific targeting. Likewise, while I've been assuming that the combat would be similar to Minecraft, FantasyScape is obviously its own game and it's not entirely reasonable to assume their combat will be as similar as the rest of the game seems to be. I'm just not convinced that anything beyond the simplest "damage to limbs" systems would be of any benefit in a non-turn-based game.
Logged

Micro102

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2011, 01:26:37 am »

the Minecraft map size is around 8 times the surface area of the earth.

This is just a lie. Just because someone defines a block as having a certain value doesn't mean that it actually has that value.

You can walk from one edge of the minecraft world to the other in a fraction of the time it would take to walk around the actual world.

1 block == 1 metre is the commonly-accepted metric. I'm fairly certain that Notch has, in fact, confirmed that value - and even if he hasn't, it's certainly very much in the reasonable range of values. A player is 2 blocks high, while average human height is ~1.7 m. Assuming 1 block == 1m3 is simultaneously logical and reasonable, even if it's not technically official.

Walking speed is a little harder to quantify. Having performed the absolute roughest of possible tests, I've concluded that Minecraft move speed is ~5 blocks per second. The actual value may be higher or lower by a block or two, but it's acceptable for back-of-the-envelope calculations. Wikipedia gives an average walking speed of ~1.5 m/s, but marathon runners often achieve ~5 m/s over, well, marathon distances. Hence, given a 1 block == 1 m conversion rate, Minecraft walking speed is perhaps slightly higher than average, but certainly not as much as you imply.

Now, boats could conceivably decrease this time... but of course, if we add in vehicles, we've got far more real-life options that are far faster than anything in Minecraft.


In short: no, the Minecraft world is huge, and by a relative assessment it's far, far, far larger than Earth. You can argue small inaccuracies here and there in the roughness of my calculations, but we're talking tiny quibbles versus multiple orders of magnitude in difference.

Then explain to me how it takes mere hours to walk the distance of a minecraft world yet days in the real world without anything short of an airplane which goes faster then you could ever go in minecraft.
Logged

breadbocks

  • Bay Watcher
  • A manacled Mentlegen. (ಠ_ృ)
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #79 on: February 27, 2011, 01:29:07 am »

the Minecraft map size is around 8 times the surface area of the earth.

This is just a lie. Just because someone defines a block as having a certain value doesn't mean that it actually has that value.

You can walk from one edge of the minecraft world to the other in a fraction of the time it would take to walk around the actual world.

1 block == 1 metre is the commonly-accepted metric. I'm fairly certain that Notch has, in fact, confirmed that value - and even if he hasn't, it's certainly very much in the reasonable range of values. A player is 2 blocks high, while average human height is ~1.7 m. Assuming 1 block == 1m3 is simultaneously logical and reasonable, even if it's not technically official.

Walking speed is a little harder to quantify. Having performed the absolute roughest of possible tests, I've concluded that Minecraft move speed is ~5 blocks per second. The actual value may be higher or lower by a block or two, but it's acceptable for back-of-the-envelope calculations. Wikipedia gives an average walking speed of ~1.5 m/s, but marathon runners often achieve ~5 m/s over, well, marathon distances. Hence, given a 1 block == 1 m conversion rate, Minecraft walking speed is perhaps slightly higher than average, but certainly not as much as you imply.

Now, boats could conceivably decrease this time... but of course, if we add in vehicles, we've got far more real-life options that are far faster than anything in Minecraft.


In short: no, the Minecraft world is huge, and by a relative assessment it's far, far, far larger than Earth. You can argue small inaccuracies here and there in the roughness of my calculations, but we're talking tiny quibbles versus multiple orders of magnitude in difference.

Then explain to me how it takes mere hours to walk the distance of a minecraft world yet days in the real world without anything short of an airplane which goes faster then you could ever go in minecraft.
Scale time.  A minecraft day comes and goes fast in addition to you walking fast.
Logged
Clearly, cakes are the next form of human evolution.

Derekristow

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • Steam ID
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #80 on: February 27, 2011, 07:18:26 am »

the Minecraft map size is around 8 times the surface area of the earth.

This is just a lie. Just because someone defines a block as having a certain value doesn't mean that it actually has that value.

You can walk from one edge of the minecraft world to the other in a fraction of the time it would take to walk around the actual world.

1 block == 1 metre is the commonly-accepted metric. I'm fairly certain that Notch has, in fact, confirmed that value - and even if he hasn't, it's certainly very much in the reasonable range of values. A player is 2 blocks high, while average human height is ~1.7 m. Assuming 1 block == 1m3 is simultaneously logical and reasonable, even if it's not technically official.

Walking speed is a little harder to quantify. Having performed the absolute roughest of possible tests, I've concluded that Minecraft move speed is ~5 blocks per second. The actual value may be higher or lower by a block or two, but it's acceptable for back-of-the-envelope calculations. Wikipedia gives an average walking speed of ~1.5 m/s, but marathon runners often achieve ~5 m/s over, well, marathon distances. Hence, given a 1 block == 1 m conversion rate, Minecraft walking speed is perhaps slightly higher than average, but certainly not as much as you imply.

Now, boats could conceivably decrease this time... but of course, if we add in vehicles, we've got far more real-life options that are far faster than anything in Minecraft.


In short: no, the Minecraft world is huge, and by a relative assessment it's far, far, far larger than Earth. You can argue small inaccuracies here and there in the roughness of my calculations, but we're talking tiny quibbles versus multiple orders of magnitude in difference.

Then explain to me how it takes mere hours to walk the distance of a minecraft world yet days in the real world without anything short of an airplane which goes faster then you could ever go in minecraft.

How do you know it would take hours to cross a minecraft map the size of the Earth?  I'm sure that no one actually has a map that big, and based on the estimates given above it would surely take longer than that.
Logged
So my crundles are staying intact unless they're newly spawned... until they are exposed to anything that isn't at room temperature.  This mostly seems to mean blood, specifically, their own.  Then they go poof very quickly.

redacted123

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
-
« Reply #81 on: February 27, 2011, 08:34:42 am »

-
« Last Edit: January 24, 2016, 02:56:48 pm by Stany »
Logged

Simmura McCrea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
    • My Steam profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #82 on: February 27, 2011, 09:44:10 am »

The map is limited to ~8 times the size of the earth's surface, due to numbery stuff.
Logged

Deon

  • Bay Watcher
  • 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #83 on: February 27, 2011, 11:06:19 am »

Screw the water.

What makes DF cool is a great damage system, now with tissues and materials. If we get THAT in minecraft, then we may talk.

I sort of actually dislike that system...  especially with many many players.  The lack of abstraction would just be incredibly confusing.  @_@
We already have tons of shooters with HP system. I want a single complex game where you can chop off your friend's arm and blind him.

Only game I can think of that did anything serious about this that is the ancient Bushido Blade game.
Even the casual Fallout 3/NV series use bodypart damage system. It's actually pretty easy to control, and if you make it properly it becomes a very nice and great game mechanic.

Something like IVAN would work the best IMHO.
Logged
▬(ஜ۩۞۩ஜ)▬
✫ DF Wanderer ✫ - the adventure mode crafting and tweaks
✫ Cartographer's Lounge ✫ - a custom worldgen repository

poca

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #84 on: February 27, 2011, 12:15:17 pm »

In fact, this very subject was one of the biggest reasons I wanted to play around with DF but I think DF would need a really long time to figure out what happened after someone dug a hole on the bottom of the ocean.

The water starts teleporting from the surface of the ocean down to the empty space below it - it would rapidly drain into the hole, filling any empty space below the ocean until it was full. The water doesn't flow through the ocean from top to bottom and into the empty space like a real body of water would, it teleports in 7/7 blocks from the top to an available destination when there is sufficient pressure.

Thanks for that!
Logged

poca

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #85 on: February 27, 2011, 12:19:14 pm »

I wanted to answer the question about how long it would take to cross the Minecraft world. The answer is 74.07 days / 10.58 weeks / 44.44 40 hr work weeks.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged

poca

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #86 on: February 27, 2011, 12:34:16 pm »

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.
Logged

poca

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #87 on: February 27, 2011, 12:37:49 pm »

Screw the water.

What makes DF cool is a great damage system, now with tissues and materials. If we get THAT in minecraft, then we may talk.

But screw the water and magma!?
Logged

Deon

  • Bay Watcher
  • 💀 💀 💀 💀 💀
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #88 on: February 27, 2011, 12:47:09 pm »

I mean I would like to see a better damage system before more complex liquids in minecraft. They are already quite "working", while the damage is too simple to have a "survival" mode IMHO :). It's all personal priorities though, someone definitely wants a "better water" first.
Logged
▬(ஜ۩۞۩ஜ)▬
✫ DF Wanderer ✫ - the adventure mode crafting and tweaks
✫ Cartographer's Lounge ✫ - a custom worldgen repository

poca

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: FantasyScape - The new Minecraft?
« Reply #89 on: February 27, 2011, 01:17:43 pm »

I mean I would like to see a better damage system before more complex liquids in minecraft. They are already quite "working", while the damage is too simple to have a "survival" mode IMHO :). It's all personal priorities though, someone definitely wants a "better water" first.

Fair enough : )

I'm just kind of doubting enemies will ever be very challenging during beta. The minecraft AI has two steps: turn at the player, jump in that direction (so we don't have to have to worry about pathing). Fighting enemies is also an expensive hobby that you have to mine/farm/butcher to support because putting one arrow into a skeleton and having only 1-2 fall out just isn't balanced at all. I was also convinced by Thexor that you'd need something like VATS to turn combat into a turn based system for more complex damage to various body parts to have any real meaning.

I'm OK with stupid enemies long as I can control fluids with redstone so I can burn my enemies with magma noaw :D
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8