quote:Original post by Kylotan
However, one thing came to mind; the generic system as described so far is really biased towards swords and sword-like weapons. How do people fighting with axes execute a parry-riposte, for example? Even a simple block may be difficult depending on the strength of the haft. And how do we handle more exotic weapons such as flails, whips, etc? They may not have been amazingly practical in history, but many gamers demand a variety of weapon types.

I never biassed it towards swords, atleast while I was thinking about it. The system that I was contemplating woulda worked for unarmed, sword, axe, taser, shotgun, or phaser. You can parry (more like block) with the metal chunk of an axe. (Unless it's a hachet, in which case you're probably not the best of fighters anyway.) Flails have the advantage when they block/parry they have a chance of disarming. Unfortunately, I guess I was saying "parry/riposte" and "block/counter" more than I should've... So revised should be:

--Very Protective: Never makes an unprovoked attack of its own, and rarely makes a counter-attack after a defensive move, and ONLY when it's SURE it will be safe. Usefull for when you're waiting for help, or just tanking damage.
--Defensive: Seldom makes an unprovoked attack, waits for the opponent to attack, makes a defensive move (Such as parry, block, or dodge) and may make a counter attack.
--Neutral/Guarded: Normal attacks, also utilizing parry/riposte and block or dodge/counter-attack combos, and will not break from the guarded position. This is the default agression, and works in most situations.
--Offensive: Makes more attacks, often ignoring more complex maneuvers such as parry/ripostes. Doesn't worry about staying in a guarded position, though still makes defensive moves when attacked.
--Very Agressive: Makes big-time charging attacks, usually ignoring defensive maneuvers. This is useful for getting combat over with quickly against a foe you know you will trounce, or when you don't care about your own health (Such as wanting to cause the most possible damage in a melee, or when you have a kick-ass magical barrier that will prevent most damage.)

quote:Well, on a naive level, you could argue that 1 style vs 1 style gives you 1 possible combination of animations, whereas 10 styles vs 10 styles gives you 100 possible combinations. To get all these combinations to act believably may be tough. After all, as soon as you set off on the road of "making combat look better" people will have higher expectations.

Oh nononono, I was never suggesting such a thing where it's scripted to that point... You can reduce attacks to one of.. maybe 10 locations: Overhead, head thrust, head/shoulders left, head/shoulders right, torso thrust, torso left, torso right, groin, leg left, leg right. Then the block/parry/dodge or whatever just has to "target" that location. A lot of the animations can be very generic, and duplicated... Especially with the skeletal animation that many games are using these days, it makes it very easy, say for instance, blocking with a tower shield: An attack to the blocker's left torso, torso thrust, groin, or left leg wouldn't require any movement of the shield; an attack to the overhead, head thrust, or left head/shoulders would all have the same animation-- the shield being raised up a foot; right torso and right leg have the same animation; while right head/shoulders requires its own. Shields with less coverage would require more movement, but some of the skeletal animations from the tower shield could be carried over.

In other words, for any type of attack, for any weapon, the defender has the same animation for attempting to block a head attack. It may not be 100% realistically correct, and it certain situations you might be left saying "how did his arm get up there?" or "how did that block THAT?", but it sure would be a big improvement over current implementations. And if the action were fast-paced enough (i.e. the blocks are immediately followed by either a counter, or the next attack) you'd never notice those problems.

quote:Now with a first person interface where you might move with the keys, you're probably in a situation where the average player doesn't want their character moving of their own volition, whether it is a dodge motion or not. This is another issue, however.

First of all, as I said earlier, I think first-person combat is a bad idea... It'd make it really hard to point-and-click a position for your character. Also I don't like the idea of giving the player the ability to move around the character during combat with keys. This may lead to the uncomfortable situation where a player in a multiplayer game might quickly hit "ADADADADADADADADADADADADADAD" just to make it that much harder for other players to target. This also lets the players do "unfair" stick-and-move tactics. But if you must have 1st person combat, I'd say implement a "combat mode", which pressing a movement key will DEFEAT. (For a player to attempt to defensively flee or run after a fleeing opponent, they must be in combat mode and use the commands meant for that.)

quote:I'm not sure how many people would be modelling battles of that size, and to be honest, I think a lot of gamers would prefer the skirmish model over the formation one, realism be damned.

Heh.. yeah I tend to agree. These models are not meant for RPGs, and are better suited for RTS where the player controls many forces. It'd be very cool to have one or two missions in an RPG where the player must be part of a huge formation battle like that, but not for the whole game. But even in just a three-on-three, it's often better to stay a team rather than break up into many one-on-ones.. (Actually, it's usually in the best interest of only one of the two teams to stay teamed, while the other is going to try to force them to split up.) So part of this positioning system will need to include sticking close to your friends.

So here'd be my proposal. It'd be wayyy to complex to implement correctly-- as in properly both relating your character to the other combatants, and to the floor positions. Therefore I propose a much simpler interface: Use the circular interface like Neverwinter... Click on any person to relate to them, then drag in a direction. Dragging to the left or right of a friend makes the character side-up to the friend. Dragging in the direction that character is facing means "protect them", while dragging towards their backs makes your character get behind them. Dragging to the left or right of an enemy causes the character to try to flank that character. Dragging in the direction away from your character will try to push the enemy, while dragging towards your character will try to lure the enemy towards the player's character. (Clicking on an enemy without dragging to a direction will make your character attack them normally. Clicking on a friend without dragging will simply highlight them, for spell casting or just to see their health, but will continue to attack the previous target.)

Clicking on an area on the ground will give you a few different options such as simply "Take Position" which will make the character attempt to get to that position (depending on the level of aggression) and can continue to move around once there. (i.e. this command is temporary, and is no longer retained once the character reaches the destination. If no other command is issued, the character AI is free to choose its action-- as if combat mode were turned on with no other command being issued: an agressive character will seek out enemies, while a defensive character will hold until an enemy gets close.) "Guard Position" attempts to move the character to that position (depending on the level of aggression) and will not leave the spot once there. Depending on aggression, the character will try to stop enemies from taking or passing that position. "Guard Area" works something like Guard Position, but the character is willing to leave the precise position specified. The level of aggression defines the radius of the area-- more aggressive is a bigger area. If an enemy comes into that area, the player's character will move to attack. The character will always move back to the position specified when done. (These Guard commands stay in effect until another command is issued.) "Flee" will make the character try to get away from the combat in the direction of the position clicked. Unless agression is maxed out, fleeing is NOT turning your back to the opponents and walking away. Once successfully fleed, the player has total control (i.e. not in combat mode any more)

I believe the above system has merrits. It allows players who don't want a lot of interaction to simply switch into combat mode, which will attack the nearest enemy and respond when attacked. Slightly more interactive, they can pick and choose which enemy to attack. (Though it must be pointed out that just because I focus on one enemy, it doesn't mean I will completely ignore incoming attacks from other enemies!) If a player desires a lot of interactivity (i.e. pure fighters, no magic) they can take advantage of this positioning system without giving them "total control" like in action/adventure games. But it must be implemented right, so while doing all the positiong stuff is a definate advantage, not doing it shouldn't be a horrible disadvantage. (i.e. you should still be able to win the game without doing all that stuff.)

quote:such as many European generals considering hiding to be dishonourable, and perhaps the effect on morale of hiding (eg. admitting you're in danger) vs. marching side by side (eg. being brave and standing together).

European generals were stupid.

-Desco-



[edited by - Desco on June 16, 2003 11:21:18 AM]