Paper Scissors Rock Combat

607

October 08, 2006 05:38 AM

Quote:Infantry might have the advantage of being inexpensive, but if you equip (and train) them with more weapons, then they can be better against other types of targets. Everything is a variable - infantry when equipped with proper shields can largely nullify archers. Arm them with pikes and spears and they can get the 'initial strike' in against the horsemen, weakening the mounted troops before the actual engagement.

What you are edging towards here is acutally a complex RPS system. It can be done with 9 types (its the simpelest, not the smallest number though), but it is easier to break it up into 3 groups of 3.

For example:
You have 3 groups: Call them A, B and C.

In each group you also have a group of 3: Called 1, 2 and 3. This gives you a unit total of A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2 and C3.

Thay will have this SPR relationship (it can help if you draw it out on paper):
A1 beats B1, B2, A2 and C3
A2 beats B1, B2, B3 and A3
A3 beats B2, C1, C3 adn A1

B1 beats C1, C2, B2 and A3
B2 beats C1, C2, C3 and B3
B3 beats C2, A1, A3 adn B1

C1 beats A1, A2, C2 and B3
C2 beats A1, A2, A3 and C3
C3 beats A2, B1, B3 adn C1

Instead of being unique units, each type could be a specific weapons and equipment load out.

This, being a symetrical configureation, is the easiets to describe and understand, but not nessesarily the most interesting.

A system like this has been used in games before. The game "Homeworld" used a system similar to this (it was almost the same, except it had a just broken symetery to it).

The advantage of this kind of system is that it gives the player a choice between several almost equivelent options. They are almost equivalent because they do have different units that would be able to beat them. It gives a more dynamic interaction, overall.

solinear

145

October 10, 2006 07:55 PM

That would be one option, I wasn't necessarily thinking of it just as "Equip them with spears instead of sword and shield", more like that or "Equip them with spears in addition to a sword and shield". You end up with reducing their endurance (speed, whatever) and increasing their cost, but can gain flexibility.

In the same token, you can have a really intense, quick fire spell that is made to set things on fire and do that whole "fireball thing", which won't have a significant impact on a water/ice based critter because the change would be too small and not enough of an extreme to have a significant imbact, or have a long-term spell that's not nearly so hot that will damage water-based creatures (making them boil) and ice critters (melting them), whatever. If you drop the temperature even more, but spread it out even more, you can make your enemy's troops exhaust more quickly to gain advantage in large scale battles. You might not do that "flash bang" damage, but the impact might be even more noticable when your enemy starts exhausting and making mistakes. Of course, this spell might have the opposite effect on a fire-based critter (or even critters from hot climates or with cold blood), envigorating them.

Just because you've got a big fire-based spell doesn't mean that it's going to have an automatic + or - against water/ice critters. How the spell works has as much (if not more) impact on them. The fireball-type spell might do very little damage to an ice critter, but the long-term spell made to exhaust enemy troops would probably be fatal before too long. However, that fireball spell would probably have a significant impact on foliage (plant critters) and living things that are more succeptible to small changes in temperature. You increase the outer layer of these critters by 100 degrees and they have melted skin, damaged eyes and are in serious pain. Do that to a water critter and it's just a warm water critter now, some water evaporated, but the temperature change probably dispersed quickly throughout the critter and didn't do much of anything.

I like things a little more complex and getting towards the 'realistic' end of things. I think it makes things more interesting and requires more thought (strategy) for the players.

Edtharan

607

October 11, 2006 12:26 AM

Quote:I wasn't necessarily thinking of it just as "Equip them with spears instead of sword and shield", more like that or "Equip them with spears in addition to a sword and shield".

This is still the Payoff/Penalty that lies at the core of the S/P/R system. Some things are good in 1 situation, but in another situation they are not so good (and somehting else is). But unless you make 1 choice the best in all situations, you will end up with an S/P/R system (eg: A is good in situation 1, but not good in situation 2 and 3. B is Good in Situation 2, but not 1 and 3 and C is good in situation 3 but not in 1 or 2). This is still an S/P/R relationship, just not the direct one that is typical of S/P/R.

You are also thinking of flexability (Sword and Shield + Spear) at a cost (endurance). This can also be used in an S/P/R system where you could choose to play 2 (say both Scissor and Rock), but at a higher cost (and they could choose to play Rock and Paper) to beat you. This, then just creates a meta system which is:

S+P -> P+R
P+R -> R+S
and so on.

It doesn't realy change anything.

Quote:Just because you've got a big fire-based spell doesn't mean that it's going to have an automatic + or - against water/ice critters. How the spell works has as much (if not more) impact on them. The fireball-type spell might do very little damage to an ice critter, but the long-term spell made to exhaust enemy troops would probably be fatal before too long. However, that fireball spell would probably have a significant impact on foliage (plant critters) and living things that are more succeptible to small changes in temperature. You increase the outer layer of these critters by 100 degrees and they have melted skin, damaged eyes and are in serious pain. Do that to a water critter and it's just a warm water critter now, some water evaporated, but the temperature change probably dispersed quickly throughout the critter and didn't do much of anything.

What you are talking about is a more abstract S/P/R system here. Instead of having it do damage directly to Health, you are just applying it to a different Stat for each target. It does create more effort to create (and usually worth it), but it is not different to a S/P/R system. In the case above, Ice -> Fire -> Plant, etc. Also you havent used the factions as the resolution, but the individual abilities of those factions. It is still an S/P/R system.

This is why the S/P/R system is so useful, it will apply to almost any balanced system. Any system that has some abilities that are useful in certain circumstanses and other in diferent circumstances, then you will ususally end up with a form of S/P/R. It might be a loose or abstract syste, (like the one you presented above), or a tighter, more concrete system (like in the actual S/P/R game), but it will still be there.

The Payoff/Penalty method is just one tool that can be used to set a balance in the S/P/R, by having a cost for each choice (be it time, manna, money, etc) and a penalty for a wrong choice (loss of a unit, loss of it's effectiveness, change in state, the target getting more powerful, reduction in hitpoints, further costs, etc) you will be able to construct a balanced system.

There are boundaries to the costs and penalties that will break the balance, but ususally, in an S/P/R system they are fairly flexable.

Combined arms (adn S/P/R is just one application of it) has been around for thousands of years and will be with us for some time yet (I think).

solinear

145

October 11, 2006 09:52 PM

You're oversimplifying to an extent that was not intended, is irrelevant and when you start including enough things, you end up with a rock/paper/scissors type scenario, but what happens when your scissors are made out of adamantium and you're talking about a pummous rock? That's what I'm talking about. The scissors will beat the rock and the paper and the rock is SOL. You'd have to find a rock made out of impervium or unobtanium ;)

Something will always beat something else, it's the nature of how things are developed, ballistae are designed to knock down walls, not take out mobile units. But it's never as simple as rock, paper, scissors. You also missed the point where the footmen didn't gain an additional weakness (other than increased cost and potential marching distance in a day), they simply gained another strength.

But you're trying to prove a point to someone who's went through most of the arguments and decided on his own path already. I also didn't state that I don't think that rock/paper/scissors scenarios and/or systems weren't valid, just that, as a designer, I prefer to spend my time fleshing out a more complex system with more variables than "Did you pick the rock, the paper or the scissors?", even if you make it 5 different units (or 4 or 5 or 9 different unit types).

CadetUmfer

234

October 12, 2006 12:26 PM

Playing most MMOs is like playing rock-paper-scissors where you pick your throw ahead of time, that's all you can throw, and everyone knows what it is.

Anthony Umfer

Edtharan

607

October 12, 2006 11:12 PM

Quote:even if you make it 5 different units (or 4 or 5 or 9 different unit types).

Actually each combination of equipment (like Sword, Shield and Platemail, Sword, Shield and Leather Armour, etc) can each be considdered an option. The S/P/R is just a way of useing each option and checking to see if the system is balanced between each option. It does't have to be a specific "Unit" the player can click on and enter into a build que.

Sometimes the Victory/Defeat is identical (or close enough not to make a significant differnece), but there is still an S/P/R relationship, wether intended or not (just wether it is balanced or not).

The S/P/R is not the only system, it is just the easiest to balance (it has it naturally built in). There are even system that can not be balanced. Take this one:

A -> B -> C

In this, "->" means the one on the left will beat the one of the right.

Regardless of the price, would it ever be worth taking C?

I do know that if it is not an absolute victory (ie: enough of B could defeat A ect), then price is important, but then if you structured the prices right you would end up with a S/P/R relationship (eg: 4 of C could beat 1 of A and C costs 1/5 of A - this would givea S/P/R relationship).

ishpeck

154

October 13, 2006 05:59 PM

After considering this matter more, I would like to propose we analyze the following game as an example of successful CHOPPY, WRAPPY, SMASH (I'm getting tired of refering to the paper, scissors, and rocks) mechanics.

SoulCalibur.

SoulCalibur is a nice network of interlocking "something always beats something else" that elegantly complicates itself into a nasty, brutal fight.

Consider the following:
- Side-stepping dodges basic veritcal attacks but will be hit by horizontal attacks.

- Ducking avoids most horizontal attacks (usually high) and throws but will be hit by vertical or mid-range attacks and removes your mobility.

- Blocking will defend against the basic horizontal and vertical attacks but not low attacks or throws.

- Throws must happen at close range and are suseptible to counter-attacks of any variety.

So the game consists of toggling your response to an attack whether it's blocking, ducking or side-stepping as well as your aggression whether it's vertical cuts, horizontal cuts, or throws.

This is basically the same as playing Paper, Scissor, Rock on two hands: One hand representing your attack and the other, your defense. You compare your defensive hand to your opponent's attacking hand to determine whether you sustain damage, and your offensive hand versus your opponent's defensive hand to determine whether it's the same.

Naturally, to keep it interesting, we complicate it a little more.

- When two combatants perform the exact same offensive move, they "clang" and nothing happens.

- When two combatants fail to properly defend themselves while both attacking, they both take a hit.

Then, to make the game really interesting, you make it so players are allowed to select their paper, scissors, and rocks at any time -- not just simultaneously.

Then you play around with the principles of combos that are chains of moves that change between ducking, high-cuts, vertical cuts, and side-steps.

Though the same basic princples of "X beats Y beats Z beats X" are in place, the game doesn't feel quite as sterile as the basic principle we've based it on.

As I've grown in skill with the game SoulCalibur, I've learned that there is another, more sophisticated degree of the Paper-scissor-rock principle that accounts for all the jankiness of timing and combo-strengths:

- Timing/quickness beats aggression/power
- Grace/library beats timing/quickness
- Aggression/power beats grace/library

The expression "library" is my playgroup's slang-term for just knowing the characters: Their combos, strengths, and weaknesses.

Recurring iterations of interlocking S/P/R chains can effectively scale to a full-fledged, entertaining game mechanic wherein simplistic principles evolve into sophisticated and very replayable dynamics.

-----------------"Building a game is the fine art of crafting an elegant, sophisticated machine and then carefully calculating exactly how to throw explosive, tar-covered wrenches into the machine to botch-up the works."http://www.ishpeck.net/

Edtharan

607

October 14, 2006 05:52 AM

Quote:Recurring iterations of interlocking S/P/R chains can effectively scale to a full-fledged, entertaining game mechanic wherein simplistic principles evolve into sophisticated and very replayable dynamics.

I have never played Soul Calibur, but it sounds like they did use the "CHOPPY, WRAPPY, SMASH" mechanic ( :D ) and didn't just leave it at the plain vanilla. It also sound like they unsed several interlocking C/W/S (aka: R/P/S) mechanics.

They used some interesting mechanics in the resolution (eg: same equals nothing) and a defensive/offensive system.

A lot of the fighting games (like Soul calibur) use this C/W/S system, as it does provide good gameplay. But, if you make it too simple, then you end up with predictability, and therfore it becomes uninteresting.

In fighting games the addition of combos can make for an interesting mechanic. The combos, are predictable, but they offer a big reward (both in gameplay and usually in graphics and sound). The combos are a gamble, where your skill (and your opponentes lack of) determines wether or not you will succeed.

Paper Scissors Rock Combat

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Paper Scissors Rock Combat

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines