Pie in the Sky: Tactical combat

[Mexie]

Disclaimer: I'm not a coder, never have been and have no idea what is viable.  That having been said, I had an idea regarding MUD combat.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a whole lot of innovation through the years, namely a combat system that is more interactive and customizable.  Basically, it's just been more of the same, MUD after MUD.  Each opponent mindlessly hits the other until one is dead, with various parrying and blocking variables factored in, as well as the occasional special attack.  The way I see it, MUD combat has the potential to be so much more involved, fun and interesting than this... a combat system more suited to a hack and slash, clickfest mmorpg.

In real life, hand to hand combat basically consists of a complex process of feints, direct attacks, blocked strikes and the struggle to conquer your opponent's armor (if he has any).  The system that I dreamed up (remember I'm not a coder, so don't go postal on me if it's not viable.) would require an attack to be initiated through an attack command, though combat wouldn't begin immediately following the input of that command as it does in many muds. it would merely cause initiative to be 'rolled' and (just as it does now) prevent either combatant from simply walking away.  Initiative would be a function of a few things: Range, weapon speed, and overall encumbrance.  Once these are all tallied the initiative would be determined between the two combatants, and the first attack turn would be given to the winner, obviously.  Also, magic and ranged combat would be nigh impossible at this point... I hope that makes sense to you all, because it does to me, though I'm having trouble articulating just why it makes sense.  Well, maybe magic should be possible, but it still takes quite a lot of concentration and would provoke the opportunistic to attack.

Alright, at this point, the attacker (let's call him Joe) would be given the opportunity to act... and he in turn would most likely use that turn to attack (although he could also flee).  It'll be easier to describe the ensuing sequence in an example:

As the attacker, as far as melee goes, Joe has two choices.  He can make a direct attack to a general body location [high (eyes, neck, cranium), low (thigh, shin, knee, foot) or middle (heart, kidney, wrists arms, shoulders)], which does slightly more damage than a feint but has a greater chance of being blocked (unless the defender misconstrues it as a feint, and blocks high, low, or middle in an attempt to guess the real trajectory of the attack.)  Or he can feint one way and strike another (high to low, for example).  While this does less damage, it has a good chance of fooling opponents that have significantly lower skill level.  Actual skill checks made every few rounds will mix things up, so that evenly matched opponents will have a chance to succeed in a feint against an opponent.  Note:  When being attacked by a weapon of a certain type, it's your skill in that type of weapon that is checked, not your skill in the weapon you're using.

So Joe decides to Feinthighlow (feint high, and follow through with a low attack.)

The output line to the opponent (let's call her Jane) if Joe's skill check succeeded against her's would look something like this:  Joe brings his sword to bear and his swing arcs high.

The output line to Jane, if her skill check succeeded against Joe's, would look something like this:  Joe brings his sword to bear, feinting high with his swing but obviously moving to go lower (Not sure whether it should tell the player exactly where it'll hit... for now I think it should simply say whether the attack is going higher or lower than it's being feigned.)

Next, Jane has a certain amount of time to react to this before the hit lands (that timer will have to be fairly long, to cut down on the risk of lag taking you out.  To help offset this, so that combat doesn't drag out for an hour, each hit has the potential to cause very serious damage depending on the weapon used, the location hit and, to a lesser extent, the fighter's weapon skill.).  She has a few choices.  She can try casting a spell (if she's a caster) and run the risk of failing when the hit lands.  She can try dodging and direct attacking at the same time, which leaves it up to chance whether she is hit or not (this would be a function of agility and opponent's weapon skill.).  She could try parrying the attack (in the case of the above example, taking a chance on either parrying middle or low, with the possibility of completely negating the attack if she guesses right.).  Finally, if she has a shield, she can block and then attack.  Depending on it's size, the shield might be capable of blocking more than one location.  For instance, Jane could block low and also have her middle covered (though to a lesser extent, and running the possibility of being hit there, depending on her blocking skill and the opponent's weapon skill.).

I'm outta juice right now, so say what you will and please be gentle, if you can.   I realize the chance of this getting implemented is low.

[Delirium]

The more fancy stuff you add to a combat system, the more emphasis you place on the player's ability to fight, instead of the character's - which I view as bad. Yes, the combat code is simple, but it's better that way, IMHO.

The main suggestion I would make to improve combat is to slow down the actual rate of hits, but up the damage slightly (though, melee seems to be a LOT more deadly now adays than it was when I first started out). This would allow more time for customization of your combat experience via emotes. Everything else can simply be played out as the skill of your character coming into effect - more player control over combat would lead to placing more importance on the player's ability to deal with the code, and less on the character's ability to handle themselves in combat, which I don't really like.

On a vaguely related topic, a revamped healing system would be lovely, but I shudder to think of the coding effort.

[Anael]

This is exactly the reason why I disliked DIKU for years, and preferred Rapture-based games. However, what you say would be good for some hacknslash MUD, but not Arm.

I used to play certain MUD with highly advanced combat. That sort of MUD where no matter how long you play, you could be an awesome warrior. The combat there was (is) really thrilling and you had to concentrate fully on it. I liked it.

As a sidenote: After three years on said MUD, my client's script turned into something really messy and at the time I reached 500th trigger, I realized there's something wrong. I realized people around me keep talking about triggers and scripts in IC ways. That's also one of the main reasons why I enjoy Arm now so much.

To conclude my babble: I completely agree with Delirium's (delirious?  :twisted: ) points. I like the way the combat code works. It -is- simple and allows you focus on roleplaying out the fight. And that's the most important thing, I believe.

[spawnloser]

Also, to note, the more intricate the combat system, the more time it will take...and the more MUSH-like you make this MUD.

[Bestatte]

It sounds as though the idea you suggest is a dice-roll based engagement-aim system. I said when I first started playing Arm that I couldn't stand the existing combat system, coming from one game that allowed aimed attacks, another game that had a fully functional engagement system.

I wouldn't mind -at all- seeing just a bit of this added to Arm's combat system. But maybe not so D&D'ish as what you suggest. The overall concept, yes. The implementation, no, because it seems too H&S for my tastes (H&S is great - not knocking it at all, just not in Arm)

The idea I had - was allow combatants to engage. The room size would determine the distance they start with. Gith walks in where PC is and "engages" PC. He's not up close and personal yet, damnit. He JUST WALKED IN and it's a room that's a "league" long! So he's maybe at rank 5. Using a spear. He probably needs to get to rank 3 before that spearhead is gonna make a nick in PC's face. So he "advances" and the echos will show the appropriate IC situation - "A beady-eyed red gith approaches you quickly, spear held high!" "A beady-eyed red gith's spear is within striking distance!" or whatever.

During this, you have the opportunity to retreat, advance, do nothing and let the gith make his moves, or flee. Tactics can be useful here - if he's got a 4-cord long spear and you advance to rank 1, he's not going to be able to maneuver that spear at you because he's too close. But you might be able to give him a few nasty stabs with your dagger before he backs up.
It would really give people pause to think about the kinds of weapons they're carrying around and why/how they're using them.

I would also totally support aimed attacks, because I totally support injury locations so that healers have something -specific- to heal. Nothing is more frustrating than seeing your buddy passed out in the scrub, not seeing the bloodied vest (because it's hidden by his cloak) and not having the faintest idea of WHAT you're trying to RP bandaging up. You RP bandaging the slice in his leg, he wakes up and tells you a gith just stabbed his shoulder. So much for RPing being a physician who has a good understanding of anatomy, eh?

Well those are my thoughts - again, while I don't like the methodology of the idea presented in this thread, I do like the reasoning behind it and the concept in general.

[Trenidor]

I like how arm is currently, the system set up seams to work, and has worked, for our specific RP needs.

It's simply so you can toss in flavor. If there were more flashy stuff then people would have to follow the flashy stuff instead of doing what they like best.

I like this simplistic way specifically because, in reality, "the winner writes the war, the loser remembers it." If you survived and the other thing didn't, you get to tell what happened in a way that you want (make it sound more glorious, make it seam less glorious, whatever.)

[Larrath]

I am personally all for these tactics, but I have one issue with them.

If I am constantly busy doing 'advance;retreat;fake left;stance parry;lunge', how am I going to fit in a combat emote?  Or a think, or even a tell?

What I do support are general stances and aiming.  Things like "kill templar hand", or "change target templar's ass".  Stances are also good, but by this I mean the full-defense/defensive/normal/offensive/Hi-I'm-a-mul...and I do not expect people to readily change these stances (except the two extremes) during combat.

Or maybe an option to do subdual damage instead of regular, with a small penalty...

[Mexie]

Hrm... Well I guess the general idea of more involved combat isn't really suited to Arm.  That's ok. I Just wanted some opinions.  I didn't realise how important it was for players not to be able to emote and talk while they're fighting.  I guess it is meant to replicate stage-combat, and that's ok. It increases drama.

Larrath:  General stances probably would do the job of making combat more tactical, without requiring too much input from the player (leaving them free to emote or tell or whatever.).  

I don't think that the simple, incomplete system I thought up would require a whole lot of input from the player.  You would get one attack or parry per round (and perhaps one advance or retreat per round), and then be free to emote or say as much as you like.  As I mentioned, there would be pretty large pauses between hits and parries for the sake of extra lag (if there is a lot) and, as a side effect, extra time to emote or say something.   And who's to say that you couldn't add something extra to your attack?  Like advance; fakemiddlehigh(growling as he charges at ~red) for a simple example.

But, like I admitted, the whole concept prolly isn't suited to arm and it's purpose of enhancing rp.  I just thought it would be nice to have a combat system that's more fun/involved.

[Crazy Hakhim]

Even in the risk of drawing "Slowing down combat" slightly back into this thread - it seems to me people really don't want fights to have even MORE lag, so anything that'll do that in this regard of combat (Making it more tactical), Will have an impact on THAT regard of combat (Making it slower).

[Anonymous]

Skills like kick, bash, and disarm are all pretty neat and tend to make combat a little more intense, breaking the monotony of the slashing or bludgeoning endlessly.  Why not throw in some more well thought out commands like those.  We could start a thread to toss up some ideas.  It would be wise to keep everything simple, taking the advice that this thread has offered.

[Galdun]

Gah!  That was me above.

[Meatwad]

Emote, say, think all shouldn't be affected by combat lag.  In real life I sure as hell can grin while kicking you, I sure can say Die fool while knocking you down, I sure can think Oh crap, when I drop my dagger after trying to disarm you.  If that was changed so that those were not affected by combat lag, I would emote a lot more in combat.

I'd also like to mention that there aren't "rounds" in combat, how fast you attack depends on your race and stats.  An extremely slow half giant does not hit as many times as an extremely fast elf, for instance.

[wizturbo]

The only things I'd like to see added to the combat system currently, is "combat stances".

Meaning, be able to have a 'stance neutral' which is exactly how things are now.  A 'stance defensive' which lowers your attack potential but increases your defense.  And a 'stance offensive' which lowers your defenses and enhances your offense.  

With the addition of these, the code can reflect an individual character's fighting style more thoroughly.

If your playing that crazy tribal who just wants to draw blood, stance offensive is for you!  If your a guard who is just trying to keep yourself and a superior alive, stance defensive is for you!  

I think the bonuses these stances give should be SIGNIFICANT and equal in value.  What I mean by equal, is if stance offensive boosts offense by 75%, stance defensive should boost defense by 75%.



I realize, these bonuses might make characters with less combat ability more dangerous, or more difficult to kill.  GOD FORBID!  Someone with just a bit of training, able to threaten a very well trained warrior by leaping at them in a crazy frenzy?!  Someone who's trying to flee for their life...being difficult to kill?!  Why....why....that might just be realistic!  

As it stands now, a 10 day warrior has no hopes of even touching a 40 day warrior, no matter what the situation is unless one is unarmed.  Thats bull.  Combat is dangerous.  Yes, some people are significantly more dangerous then others, but even an untrained farmer could kill the most dangerous swordsman in the world by having the courage to attack them and get lucky.  I think stances would help account for that to some degree. Being able to change them in the middle of a fight would also add a bit more interaction in the combat system which I think would be a good thing.

[Agent_137]

yes and no.

I agree stances would be nice, but i'm for a more 60/40 thing. or even maybe let us adjust it ourselves...that'd be dangerous.....

but I think a lucky farm with a pitch-fork and luck could NEVER EVER kill a -prepared- professional warrior.

Anyone who's actually done hand to hand combat would support me in this, i think. Skill makes a HUGE difference, where luck only comes to play if skill levels are roughly equal.

But i still like the stance idea.

[jhunter]

I'd like the stance idea except for one thing...you learn by failing...which means you'd have people setting an offensive stance to improve their defense or vice versa.

Really unrealistic to get better defensively by focusing on your offensive or to get better offensively by focusing on your defense. I just see it opening up another avenue for twinking combat skills.

[Gilvar]

I personally would rather not see the combat 'process' that much altered as much as I'd rather see more variables that alter that process created. For example:

Stances:- Decided outside of combat, they'd effect your fighting style.
Offensive- Focused on attacking, defense penalty.
Defensive- Focused on defending, offense penalty.
Normal- Balanced.
Berserk- All out attacking, no defense.
Turtled- All defense, no attack.
Passive- No attacking or defending.

Aiming- Kinda brought up, you'd essentially just aim and stay aiming that way until you stop.
High-
Middle-
Low-
Bodypart-
(Not sure, I'll leave the effects to a weapon master, but I imagine that certain areas would be harder/easier for certain weapon sizes).

Location Effects: Like it or not no one plays out the dropping of their weapon when they receive a strong hit to the hand, or falling to their knees when they get chopped viciously on their leg. Location based penalties would be great. And you mentioned some on it that was good too. This would do nothing to really effect the current system, just make combat more interesting. For example a smart magicker might fire someone's hands so they can't wield a weapon. Effectively disarming them, but being harder to cast.

[Trenidor]

I actually posted this exact idea like a year maybe 2 ago...

I was turned down with good reasons, and because of it I'm glad now, because back then I didn't know some of the thigns I know now.

I am very opposed to this Idea. 100% opposed in fact. I can see several advantages to it, but I also see way more disadvantages.

I feel though, that I am at fault for the bringing up of this topic by my bloodloss and wound idea on a different thread. As such I would like to say: Stop, do more research, then we can figure more out. Stop.