quote:
The trick is, based on a bunch of factors you have a randomly limited set of maneuvers (attacks/defence) at any given time. they are expended with use and you need to Recover to replenish them.

Anyways, currently the attack and defence moves are provided at an roughly equal frequency, and if two players are balanced the attacks and defense usually end up cancelling each other out.

Well if the current problem, what your trying to solve, is preventing someone from continually attacking and someone else always blocking, and if blocking doesn't cause any damage or so low of a dmg that it will take minutes to battle..

Let me get something straight first you said all actions will cost, drain from your action points. And after you use them you have to use the recover option (takes a turn) to recover your points.

Well then I say you make defending cost more points than attacking. Though you may have different types of attacks/moves available, make defending cost alot, so its in there best strategy not to continue wasting action points. Plus if recover takes up a turn - then they aren't blocking which gives a chance for the other player to get in a good attack.


::EDIT::
I was thinking though, whats the real point to blocking if you do this though? Cause if you are low on health, and you block, ok thats cool no damage but ultimatly the other player will land a blow....

Just fyi in my rpg games I'm going to take an idea from Legend of Dragoon (playstation title), when you defend, not only does it half the damage but it also regains 10% of your max health. Though I may use 7% as the magical number here, now there's a REASON to defend. And forces the other player to re-think his strategy of doing simple attacks.

[edited by - markadrake on August 13, 2003 10:22:48 PM]

I remember watching the History Channel''s show Conquest and Peter Wormwood narrated a recreation of a 18th century france duel, done with Foils... and some kind of shield I think. The actual fight was pretty much even matched, so one of the fighters learned the strategy of a perfect defense. The result was that the fight last several hours, until the other fighter had slipped up, and the first took the opportunity to poke a hole in his leg. The second was so humiliated that he choose to bleed to death rather then accept defeat.

In an evenly matched fight, the only way out is a Hail Mary, so I suggest the following: randomize the damage a bit, yes, but also include possibility of the critical hit. You could do it randomly, like 1 in every 32, but to have it as a strategic element, give both meters that govern the critical hit, so that the "better" strategy is rewarded. Then you just have to figure out if the attacker should have the advantage, or if the defender should.

quote:Which would work best in terms of gameplay? If #1, how less often should you be able to defend than attack?

I''d personally go with partial damage... Say 50% of the total damage isn''t taken if your defending.

If you go with #1, I''d say just set a limit to how many times it can be used per player per battle. Have a defend count set at the number of times you want it to be available, and when they choose it have a defend--; Once defend = 0 its no longer an available option.