Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 23 Aug 2001
Offline Last Active Today, 10:52 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: optional perma-death mode?

15 June 2016 - 03:42 PM

as Nanoha, I don't mind games that have permadeath but whenever there's the option to have it or not, I never turn it on

In Topic: witcher 3 combat

01 June 2016 - 11:38 AM

but that's not how it works in real life.


in real life, up to certain point in an attack, say half way between attack start and weapon impact, you can "change your mind" and react to what the opponent is doing. your "new move" won't be as effective as if it was your original move, cause you don't have time to fully execute it, just sort of.  you would not have enough time to react twice, but you would be able to react once if done quickly enough. speed or dex checks might come into play here as well. if you tried a second move after the time window had passed, it would be ignored, and you would simply continue the original move.

yes, but only so much. in real life you have to "commit" otherwise you end up with a very bland move that isn't as effective as it could be.

unless you rely on being a 'feinty' type, someone that tries to wear down the opponent with lots of small hits rather than a few powerful and effective hits.

in either case IRL there's often situations where you end up in a bad place where you cannot recover from. I do my share of sword sparring with a friend and it's the case :)

bottom line: for me "changing your mind" is a perfectly valid choice to give to players, just not in a way they can abuse. M&B handles this with feints (which I do in my game as well)



moves should never be queued, only polled at high frequency. queued moves prevent you from changing your mind when you should still be able to. "oh, look, my pea shooter won't go though this guys armor! ok, i'll switch to my bmf gun. oh wait, i clicked fire a bunch of times, and this POS queued them up. now i sit here for a couple seconds watching myself shoot and reload to no effect before i can change weapons. oh  wait, i'm dead! thanks a lot - GD queued input! who the h--l wrote this s--t? oh yeah, bethesda - shoulda known".  i experienced this as recently as last night playing fallout new vegas. that's a definite "bad designer - no twinkie".  i don't think that's the kind of gaming experience anyone wants to deliver to their users. yet companies do it all the time. i guess they just do think about the ramifications of their design choices enough - (or at all?).

I only queue moves when they are performed almost at the end of the current move.

this came from player feedback that it was hard to time a subsequent attack efficiently because in an animation-based combat system (with your standard animation blending system) it's really hard to know exactly when the attack finished. when I didn't have any queuing at all, on a playsession I could see the player effectively spamming the attack button for the next attack (which I wanted to avoid)



>> the veteran hero or the shaolin master can still fail due to different factors (multi-enemy fights, fatigue, etc). yes they will prevail most times but if it's like Assassin's Creed then it already feels wrong


all i'm saying is more experienced combatants would be better at "counter-moves" or "reaction moves". obviously, you can only dodge so many bullets at once or some finite number of bullets before fatigue overcomes you.

all good there. it's all a matter of, if this is part of the player skill or the character skill.

and no I don't mean button mashing skill. I mean skill through the game mechanics, like a veteran player from shooters of the 2000's (like Quake3) would completely destroy an average player by his player skill - not only aiming and shooting but moving, positioning, situational weapon selecting, jumping, bunnyhopping, etc




the reference to assassin's creed is lost on me. i don't play games that aren't first person view - unrealistic - too arcade-ish - too easy - a crutch for those who can't mentally track a target outside their field of view - and thus would suck at combat in real life. sad but true. not everyone is a natural born fighter pilot.

in asssassin's creed enemies take turns to hit you :D



right now i use direction of attack (direction vector from target center to attacker center) to determine which "side" is hit (front, back, left, right, top, bottom), and then use a hit location table and die roll to determine the area hit. the next step is to use the impact point of the weapon at the time of attack resolution (time of weapon impact) to determine which area on the appropriate table is hit, instead of using a die roll. if the attack is from the front against a bipedal target, if the impact point is high and center its a head hit, mid and center is body, mid left and right are arms, and low left and right are legs. this way the player could go for head, body, sword arm, etc. odds are i'll be adding this to caveman at some point. along with the "counter move" mechanic.

sounds good.

if/when you add this, you're likely to encounter that between the aiming, positioning of the enemy and the "delayed" nature of the hits of an anim-based melee combat (vs. the instant hits from a gun in a shooter) locational damage becomes much less predictable than what you'd first imagine (predictability and precision expectation are more accurate in proportion to the speed of your combat)

In Topic: witcher 3 combat

26 May 2016 - 03:12 PM

well my game was less than 200mb back then. if that's a full month of bandwidth's worth then I feel for you :D




you're introducing a concept that goes very opposite into mine (as well as the games I mentioned)...


Norman Barrows, on 24 May 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:


from thinking about it a bit, it would seem that you want to have moves that take time, and therefore give the opponent a small window to start a counter move. but for real time combat, you should be able to start any move at any time.  and if you start a move while still doing another move, the result is sort of a combo of the two. so if you start an overhand slash, and you opponent then starts a gut thrust attack, you can then counter with something like a parry low move. but since you were on an overhand slash, a parry low won't be very effective. you have to move the sword from over your head to deflect a weapon that's coming at your gut. so the parry effectiveness or chance might be reduced 50%.  i think something like this would probably lead to the most varied and realistic melee combat possible.  OTOH, if you think about it, many medieval melees on foot with armor are simply slug fests, with the lucky blow or loss of stamina determining the victor. so maybe we're trying to make combat something it simply isn't.

for me if you start a move while still doing another move, it should either ignore it or try to queue it, but [unless it's a move-cancelling move] should not disrupt the current move.

this can sound a little punishing, but what effectively produces is that the player needs to mind more their actions instead of being careless.

if you're doing a move, you're putting a lot of the weight of your body in order to maximize the impact, committing to a point of no return of sorts (from which you recover when the move is done). if on the other hand you can mix or alter the action in the middle of it, it tells me the character isn't going all the way with it.

from a gameplay perspective, allowing changing actions mid-action can mean that your game could become a twitchy feint click fest (which is how M&B multiplayer felt at times)

or maybe I didn't understand fully what you meant




Norman Barrows, on 24 May 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

hit location, and the ability to make counter moves? yes. these are the things that make up real melee combat. one might even say they are the prime things in melee.  do you go for shield or visor when tilting? (hit location). and we all know that the veteran hero knight can parry or block any weapon wielded by a mere human lesser than he or she is. the same way the Shao-lin master can fend off the attacks of all lesser opponents effortlessly (with a willow stick no less) , while remaining as placid and calm as the Buddha himself.

in my mind it's not quite the case. the veteran hero or the shaolin master can still fail due to different factors (multi-enemy fights, fatigue, etc). yes they will prevail most times but if it's like Assassin's Creed then it already feels wrong




Norman Barrows, on 24 May 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

such a system would combine a bit of both.  reflexes so you can counter-move in time, and target specific parts of the body.   knowledge of moves and how they combine (or don't very well) - IE player knowledge of the combat system.  then also RPG stats and dice rolls for attack resolution once its been determined that a hit has occurred (IE character experience / skill / level).

that sounds good. but how do you handle the player input for targetting specific parts of the body?

In Topic: witcher 3 combat

23 May 2016 - 12:54 PM

I like fun and challenging skill-based melee/medieval combat more than the average guy, and I'm always happy to discuss these topics so here I go.


Norman Barrows, on 03 May 2016 - 1:25 PM, said:Norman Barrows, on 03 May 2016 - 1:25 PM, said:Norman Barrows, on 03 May 2016 - 1:25 PM, said:

so does more combat moves = better combat in most peoples minds? IE like mortal combat with lots of attack and defense moves?

not necessarily, but in most cases of games I can think about, yes.

in a lot of the mainstream combat-heavy games, having more attack and defense moves usually means gimmicks that serve no other purpose than adding visual flair in an effort to make the combat feel less repetitive. most of the times it's done in a very unrealistic and cheesy way that IRL would most likely just get you killed (like every other spin attack out there)

also in most games, those additional attack moves are achieved by the player by just smashing the same attack button again, which only creates a huge discrepancy between the character's skill and the player's skill. also means it's very un-creative for the player (as opposed to, say, combining different action buttons like jump+attack, dodge+attack, etc, to produce those additional attacks)



I think the important question is, do you want to rely on player skill or not?

both with and without relying on player skill can be valid methods that result on fun gameplay (I'm personally just very biased towards the player skill approach)


some mentions of games that try to do combat with some depth:

- Mount & Blade: (1st and 3rd person, mostly played in 3rd person) offers freedom to choose 4 mouse-directional attacks and relies heavily on timing and action-reaction. it can be a bit twitchy at times (esp. in MP)

- Chivalry: (1st and 3rd person, mostly played in 1st person, 3rd person disabled server-side in a lot of servers) comes with 3 directional attacks + 3 variations (mapped to 3 mouse buttons), relies heavily on timing and action-reaction but also on aiming, positioning can play a big rold, and it's slightly slower and slightly more strategic than Mount & Blade


some other games that I didn't play for long, mostly because the combat didn't 'click' for me

- War of the Roses: (3rd person) similar style to Mount & Blade or Chivalry, but to me felt too slow and had some mechanics that I found boring (coupe de grace / reviving)

- Batman Arkham Asylum and anything after that: (topdown / 3rd perso) its combat system is praised but for me it felt too easy and "guided" (unlike the others, it's a topdown/3rdPerson and enemies show an indicator when they are about to attack you)



additionally I can recommend my own game! (which I offered you Norman, to try 2 years ago, but you didnt reply -_- )

for Elium: Prison Escape I have 4 mouse-directional attacks like Mount & Blade but I have a wider array of moves (offhand attacks, push, weapon hit, etc). relies heavily on timing and action-reaction but also aiming and positioning, stamina plays a big role which leads to a lot of attack interchanges (as opposed to attack spamming)

In Topic: Designing a good feel ARPG melee combat system

08 October 2014 - 02:47 PM

I'm not sure what to do to remedy the fact that enemies run towards you. Maybe they should get close, then do something like boxers do when they circle. Adding a random time delay to their hits might also help to make it more interesting (although some games have extremely predictable enemies yet stay quite entertaining),

I thought Skyrim is your main reference? play it again, but check out how the enemies behave. you might as well watch some (real) swordfighting videos to understand movement a little bit better, although they might be too static for your liking. circling around would be a good addition IMO.

adding a random time delay would be a good first step as well. it all depends on how deep you want to go for programming your AI, which should translate to how smart or varied you want your enemies to be.

and all of this depends on what you expect your game flow to be like. do you expect the player to kill lots of enemies with little AI (Diablo, Serious Sam, or your best known modern zombie shooter) or is it more about having fewer but more interesting and challenging encounters?



On physics and biomechanics, I didn't think about things like that because of the great Realism vs. Fun argument. I am way more into fun than realism on this project, as opposed to your game, which seems to try to accurately portray swordfighting. I will still add some more physicality though.


And yes, I am aiming more for the 'A' part of ARPG. This is more casual FPS-style.

I don't see why Realism vs. Fun should be an argument, you can have both, or none, and it's also a matter of what's fun for every person. To me it's more fun to play the more realistic combat of Chivalry vs. the less realistic combat mechanics of Minecraft. Many years ago Counterstrike came out and it attempted a more realistic approach of a shooter vs. the more arcadey shooters from back then, and it was much more fun for many people. and if my game's combat wasn't fun (for me at least) I would've changed it long ago.

you also have a different form of realism: you can die. Minecraft's combat was fun because it was realistically dangerous


realism/fun aside, the fact of the matter is that you need to define a limit for the player's actions to an extent, and you already have the most basic example: there's a (small) cooldown between the player's attacks as opposed to allowing every click as a valid attack. it's the same for the guns in a shooter (at the very least there's a minimum fire interval).

from there on you can build up on it, by designing different limitations and actions. for example crouching in an FPS makes you smaller (harder to be aimed) but it also makes you move slower.

it's up to you to design how and where you would want to limit the player's actions, and how to make these interact with eachother (rock-paper-scissors)




Also, I ask that you guys talking about Chosker's game start a new thread or PM each other.


 I agree and that's why I initially said I didn't mean to advertise. however even if mine or Thaumaturge's game aren't Skyrim, I would've thought you to be interested in knowing how they work