Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TechnoGoth

Injuries and lethal combat

This topic is 5382 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

What are peoples thoughts on a combat system where there are no hit points or damage. Instead hits cause injuries that range from cuts and brusies to death or limb loss. Combat is about mastery of moves and techniques where a single hit can mean death. For instance imagine a fight between two people with light sabers, in that case getting hit would mean death or at the least the loss of a hand. Is this desireable or to intense for players to deal with? Also under this system death is not the inevatable result of combat, instead many exchanges would end when the opponent is nolonger able to fight. That could be as shorterm as blow to the head rendering them unconcious to something a little more lasting as in getting beating till you can''t stand up. Don''t worry about about how the player will do this, just the result of getting hit. ----------------------------------------------------- "Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own." Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
fractoid like.

I''m sick of the standard dungeons-and-dragons style hitpoint system. Probably the worst example I''ve ever seen is in Quake 2, where the monsters can take say 5 hits from the standard pistol before dying. (Dunno the exact number, I only ever played the game at a friend''s place.) You shoot it four times, and it''s perfectly OK, fighting at full health and dealing full damage. Hit it one more time, and it EXPLODES! Gibs are good and all, but only when they''re deserved.

I was actually thinking about a system like this for an RTS, where (say) you have a tank with four mini treads. Each tread contributes 1/4 of the tank''s speed, and each one that you destroy cuts the tank speed by 1/4 of it''s original speed. Likewise for guns... then you could give units orders like ''try to disable opponents'' weaponry'' or ''try to make opponents immobile''. Each component of the unit would have only one hitpoint (either working or not) but would have it''s own armour class, and attacks would be done in standard D&D fashion (throw 1d20, add weapon attack bonus, subtract armour class, and if it''s positive then the part is destroyed).

Also, I hate the blanding-out of units that''s been happening (at least in the *craft games) since Starcraft where we had battlecruisers and carriers and so forth. People cry ''down with super-units'' after having their ass handed to them by three battlecruisers, so the units die out. In real life, though, I think you *do* need to have classes of units with vastly different capabilities (and costs). If I have a Sherman tank, then no matter how many Tanzani Spearmen you have, I''m gonna win. If one spear won''t dent the armour of the tank, 10000 won''t either. Bring on the capital ships a la Star Wars. Give them weak spots (shield generators, anyone? so that smaller ships aren''t obsolete, but complimentary.

*cools down* sorry, I seem to be in a ranting mood today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maega you''re right, the Bushido Blade Series used a very brutal health system where one swift hit from your sword could end the enemies life. It is a very viable idea and one that should be used more then it is! A targeting system is needed in my opinion, so that you can target specific areas of the enemy to cause limb loss or the like. Not to mention a meter of some type for the strength and severity of the attack. For example, say you are dueling Sir Arakvan for the attention of the princess. On top of just defeating him you want to humiliate him so you target his head, and go for a light attack. This could cause a light cut across the cheek or something. This brings into question the whole idea of reputations in a game but that''s a question for another time.

Anyways, I''ve actually started to try and develop something along these lines for an RPG I''ve had floating around in my head for years, it''s proving difficult but if I can pull it off, or anyone can pull it off in their games for that matter it would bring a great sense of realism to the game.

JEWISH OPAH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, not a good idea.
Games are not meant to be realistical, they are meant to be fun.
It''s not fun if you can kill (or be killed) in a single shot.
I don''t know what kind of game you are trying to make, but unless it is a massively strategy game (offline game), players might not like it. If you have a RTS or TBS, on the other hand, this cna eb nice, since losing one unit usually doesn''t have very large implications. But "Game Over" in one hit is not nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
I personaly find the the HitPoint system is archaic, and a lingering result of old game players never evolving. Sure the tech evolves but there mechanics do not. Personaly I play a Pen&Paper mechanic system called Silhouette. Does not use the arhaic system. But here is the premise.

There is a attack. Atk.roll
There is a defence. Def.roll
Margin of success(Mos) is the result of the difference in
the attackers favor.
Damage Score = Mos x DamageMultipplier.
This is then crossed with the defenders wounding thresholds.

Nothing,Flesh,Deep,Instant Death
with each level of hit a cumulative penalty is taken.
Also per hit a consious roll is made.

I prefer this style better, it makes the players think
defensivly first rather than straight offense. Better to
live and strike once in a while.

Alot of the time we end up to balance the hitpoint design
is to increase the nunmber of hitpoints, this is based on the
Hit often mentality. Where real combat is based on a Don''t get hit mentality, becuase if you do get hit, it becomes a continuus cycle of decline.

Anyway that''s my thought. Whatever you choose good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Raduprv
It''s not fun if you can kill (or be killed) in a single shot.
Rainbow Six was fun and harrowing, precisely because the stakes were so high. If you get hit, you probably go down, but even if you don''t, you''re slower, a worse shot, louder, etc. on account of the wound. That''s a good system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like a good candidate for a Kill Bill style video game, Bushido Blade with a little Soldier of Fortune for spice.

ld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Raduprv
Games are not meant to be realistical, they are meant to be fun.



there.

A pretty nice example of this is the old "Requiem", which had a very nice, realistic damage (and illness) system - basically you were stranded in a hostile world with very little at your disposal, so everything could (and usually would) kill you, from bleeding to death from a wound to dying of an infected scratch, getting poisoned, starving, dying of exposure, etc... (and if bad came to worse, you could even amputate limbs).

It was fun to see in how many ways you could die, and how you could deal with injury, but all in all it was simply not fun, especially since the game was hard enough when you were healthy. Hobbling along, half-starved on a broken leg usually meant death rather sooner than later.


If you want realistic damage, but keep some of the fun just replace the HP system with something less crude. Introduce fatigue and reaction pools; make it so that a well-rested player will almost always be able to dodge the first blow, but as he gets more tired evading becomes more and more difficult - until he fails, gets hit and gets seriously hurt. To speak in terms of HP, each "hit" (i.e. successful combat check) decreases your HP, as they get lower the chance of being physically hit increase. Then, a new and perversely innovative damage system can apply.

The combat outcomes make for interesting options, but in order to have the player accept a negative outcome (such as being knocked unconscious and robbed, or winning a fight but losing a finger) you have to make a game that will allow (and encourage) playing with sub-optimal results.
What it boils down to is: make getting shot in the foot fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But isn't a system that allows more the 2 out comes to combat by definiation more fun? After all if the only way combat can end is with you dead or the opponent dead then that severly limits the the complexity of combat and thus the games enjoyment. But by having injuries then combat can have many more possible out comes.

-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave


[edited by - TechnoGoth on May 17, 2004 1:51:18 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!