- The first hit will always be at its strongest.
- However, as they fight, their power meter decreases. This of course means that your punches, kicks, combos, or special moves won't be at 100%.
- But there's also a Rage meter. As you connect your attacks, the Rage meter increases. This increase in the Rage meter will also increase the Power Meter by a certain amount.
- If the Rage meter reaches 90% or above, the Power meter increases rapidly.
- Defending attacks will not decrease your Rage meter, but will decrease your Power meter (a hit is a hit).
- Taking a flurry of undefended attacks will decrease your Power and Rage meter significantly.
- These two meters are in addition to the standard Energy meter. A player could get a "second wind" depending on the amount of Power and/or Rage is left when the player's energy reaches 0.
- If the Power meter reaches 100%, the Energy Meter will not decrease. The only way to stop the "invincibility" is to land 2 consecutive hits. Then Rage and Power Meters drop to 75%.
Controlling Power of Attack by Different Gauges.
I'm thinking of Tekken, SoulCalibur, SFII/IV.
Basically, when two fighters begin a fight, they are at maximum power.
I don't see how this would have a strategic effect on players. It's just an overtly complicated positive-negative feedback mechanism, extra reward when your blows land and extra punishment when you get hit or when your blows are blocked.
Yeah. Something more along the lines of a system which gives you attack bonuses when you successfully block and attack, or penalties if you let an enemy block and attack, might be more interesting for gameplay. Having a system which lets one player mercilessly beat the other one unconscious isn't that fun.
I have to aggree it seems a bit overly complex.
I'd suggest either using a system where the first attack is the weakest and chaining moves and combos together increases their damage. Rewarding the player for executing long combos rather than single lucky hits and power attacks.
Or a fatigue system where damage is portional to remaining health. So the more damage you take the weaker and slower your attacks. You could tie that into a rage or desperation move system that lets you expend all your rage on a single attack.
I'd suggest either using a system where the first attack is the weakest and chaining moves and combos together increases their damage. Rewarding the player for executing long combos rather than single lucky hits and power attacks.
Or a fatigue system where damage is portional to remaining health. So the more damage you take the weaker and slower your attacks. You could tie that into a rage or desperation move system that lets you expend all your rage on a single attack.
This is a kind of "Momentum" system. In these one combatant has the momentum and has an advantage, but if the other player can break that momentum, then the first player takes a penalty (having momentum is good, loosing it is bad).
Often in these kinds of game, this implimented by combos. When a player succeeds at landing a running combo, they can often gain an advantage (eg: stun lock) over their opponent, but if the opponent can break the combo, then it opens up the enemy for a combo attack against them.
You are trying to do this with the "Invicibility" and that it can be broken by two consecutive hits. It is just the the trigger for this is handeled by the metres rather then directly by the player skill (succesfully performing the combo).
An interesting idea would be to use this as an attack and defence system, where you can gain an attack momentum as well as a defence momentum. A player could ahve both, or just one, but only one player could have the attack momentum or the defence momentum at any time (or neither of them have it/them).
Essentially the attack momentum would mean your attacks are more powerful (or can't be blocked) and the defece momentum would mean you take less damage (or no damge) until they were eventually broken (or the time runs out on them).
You could even have different momentum for different attack (or defence) types. eg: a dodge defence momentum might mean your dodges are faster than normal, but if you get hit, then you loose the mometum and are stunned for a short while, or perhaps if you hit repeatedly with your ranged/reach attack, your ranged/reach attacks do more damage.
To mix it up a bit, you could ahve the momentum bonus give its bonus to some other aspect (eg: the attack momentum gives a bonus to your defences, etc), which would encourage players to mix up their attack/defence strategies, and even give the other player warning of what their opponent might be doing next (eg: if the defence momentum gives a bonus to attack, then the player knows if their oppoent has the defence momentum, then their opponent might try to attack soon).
This could add quite a bit of strategy and bluffing to the game.
Often in these kinds of game, this implimented by combos. When a player succeeds at landing a running combo, they can often gain an advantage (eg: stun lock) over their opponent, but if the opponent can break the combo, then it opens up the enemy for a combo attack against them.
You are trying to do this with the "Invicibility" and that it can be broken by two consecutive hits. It is just the the trigger for this is handeled by the metres rather then directly by the player skill (succesfully performing the combo).
An interesting idea would be to use this as an attack and defence system, where you can gain an attack momentum as well as a defence momentum. A player could ahve both, or just one, but only one player could have the attack momentum or the defence momentum at any time (or neither of them have it/them).
Essentially the attack momentum would mean your attacks are more powerful (or can't be blocked) and the defece momentum would mean you take less damage (or no damge) until they were eventually broken (or the time runs out on them).
You could even have different momentum for different attack (or defence) types. eg: a dodge defence momentum might mean your dodges are faster than normal, but if you get hit, then you loose the mometum and are stunned for a short while, or perhaps if you hit repeatedly with your ranged/reach attack, your ranged/reach attacks do more damage.
To mix it up a bit, you could ahve the momentum bonus give its bonus to some other aspect (eg: the attack momentum gives a bonus to your defences, etc), which would encourage players to mix up their attack/defence strategies, and even give the other player warning of what their opponent might be doing next (eg: if the defence momentum gives a bonus to attack, then the player knows if their oppoent has the defence momentum, then their opponent might try to attack soon).
This could add quite a bit of strategy and bluffing to the game.
I'd argue this would decrease the strategic element. Attacking > blocking > getting hit: The player's best bet is to try to get in as many hits as possible, regardless of whether or not they're blocked, essentially a button masher.
To increase strategy you want to make attacking and blocking valuable in different ways. What if attacking gives the power penalty? If you can defend a fury of attacks, you'll end up in a good position to counter (rope-a-dope). You can build a rock-papers-scissors sort of battle, where an all-attack strategy overwhelms an all defense strategy, but is susceptible to balanced play of defending and taking advantage of openings. But the balanced strategy against all defense just wears that attacker out.
To increase strategy you want to make attacking and blocking valuable in different ways. What if attacking gives the power penalty? If you can defend a fury of attacks, you'll end up in a good position to counter (rope-a-dope). You can build a rock-papers-scissors sort of battle, where an all-attack strategy overwhelms an all defense strategy, but is susceptible to balanced play of defending and taking advantage of openings. But the balanced strategy against all defense just wears that attacker out.
Quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
I'd suggest either using a system where the first attack is the weakest and chaining moves and combos together increases their damage. Rewarding the player for executing long combos rather than single lucky hits and power attacks.
I agree with this suggestion: hitting first and starting an unavoidable positive feedback slide towards victory is boring, luck-based and trivially easy, while a combo requires skill and is normally spectacular and rewarding for the player.
Of course the defender should have a way to be more skillful than the attacker and break the combo with parries, movement, etc.; a mechanism that makes extending a combo progressively more difficult (e.g. decreasing reach or speed) would also help avoiding "locks" and challenge the best players.
It is complicated, not complex. Complicated as in, there are a number of variables, but all that matters to the player is that you are only in trouble if the enemy gets a bunch of hits on you -- as mentioned, a positive feedback loop. That is a bad thing.
A complex system is one in which each part of the system does something tangible and important. An example is Guilty Gear: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html
If you're trying to design a deep fighting game system, it is probably best to study the mechanics of existing fighting games, and study what they motivate the player to do. Most of it is mind-games; the site I linked to has a bunch more articles on the subject, although sometimes I think his theory can be a little "out there".
Basically, you want to focus on interactions between player and other player, not player and meters. The meters just facilitate/moderate the interactions.
A complex system is one in which each part of the system does something tangible and important. An example is Guilty Gear: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/fail-safes-in-competitive-game-design-a-detailed-example.html
If you're trying to design a deep fighting game system, it is probably best to study the mechanics of existing fighting games, and study what they motivate the player to do. Most of it is mind-games; the site I linked to has a bunch more articles on the subject, although sometimes I think his theory can be a little "out there".
Basically, you want to focus on interactions between player and other player, not player and meters. The meters just facilitate/moderate the interactions.
A system like this would work in a Fight Night style of fighting.
Where you can counter and simply dodge attacks.
No fancy aerial combos or supers.
Just balanced, weight-classed, boxing.
However, in your typical arcade style fighter, deep gameplay doesn't come from rewarding steamrolling, it comes from preventing it.
Guard Breakers, Super Cancels, Parrying, Counter-Hitting, Ground Rolling... The list goes on.
There has to be a level of mastery involved, a wide array of tactics available.
More than one way to win, basically.
Where you can counter and simply dodge attacks.
No fancy aerial combos or supers.
Just balanced, weight-classed, boxing.
However, in your typical arcade style fighter, deep gameplay doesn't come from rewarding steamrolling, it comes from preventing it.
Guard Breakers, Super Cancels, Parrying, Counter-Hitting, Ground Rolling... The list goes on.
There has to be a level of mastery involved, a wide array of tactics available.
More than one way to win, basically.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
