[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[David Kennerly]

Brendan O'Brien wrote:

> Watching melees fight in most any MMOG is really quite silly.  I
> really do think they look like lumberjacks now, chopping away at a
> foe until they have done enough damage to knock it down.

Hehehe.

> In other words, if I really thought I had you close to death, I
> could go all out with my attack, leaving myself very exposed but
> much more likely to break through your defenses if I can land the
> attack.  Or, if I am more worried about a counter-attack, perhaps
> I will be a bit more conservative in my selection, as there is no
> need to let my advantage slip away so soon.

By your description so far, I'm imagining that conservativism
defines the security level of this game.  In which case, what payoff
exists to tempt the player to use anything but a security strategy?
Combat is a constant-sum (in real-life... negative-sum) game;
therefore, one player's gain is the other's loss.  Most MM players
employ security strategies, regardless of the game mechanics.  So,
apparently MM players are risk-averse.  Given that, a large carrot
has to exist to swap from a security strategy.  For example, if you
did a coup de grace, you get a power-up of some sort (such as sand
in Sands of Time), or some other reward.  And yet if it left you
vulnerable (much more vulnerable than Sands of Time), then might
that begin to describe what I think you're after?

> What this entails could be as simple as a 1-5 rating determining
> how aggressive your character will be with a given move.

Also, how does the payoff matrix of this aggression differ from
Rocks, Papers, Scissors?  That is, given player 1 and 2, both with
options {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, forming a 5x5 matrix, how do the payoffs
differ from the 3x3 RPS matrix?

> This is certainly a complex system when taken as a whole, and a
> lot of testing would be required to balance the various combat
> moves.

And if this has graphics: animation.  It's already hard enough to
animate a lag-free fighting game.  And that's assuming the game
designer got the move/countermove timing-equations right.  Animating
variable latency is nontrivial.  Combat systems that don't have
these interactions don't have to worry about this, exactly because
they are noninteractive.  The status-EverQuest-quo animation fits
into a simple finite state machine.  Lumberjack: chop, chop, chop,
chop... timber.  That's only 2 state vertices and two arcs.  I'm
curious what you're envisioning.  For a 5x5 matrix, will there be 25
unique animations?  Or will some of these 25 possible outcomes be
equivalent?

> Things get much more complicated when dealing with multiple
> attackers, but I still feel this would be a lot of fun.  A
> superior fighter facing two foes would still be able to win, but
> he would need to fight intelligently, using moves more suitable
> against multiple opponents.  His attackers would also have many
> different options available to them.  They could risk being more
> aggressive, hoping that the partner would keep the warrior from
> retaliating,

How?

> or they could try for a longer fight, knowing that the single
> warrior is likely to tire faster against multplie foes.

This is the security strategy.

> This is certainly a complex system when taken as a whole,

Not if there is no compelling reason not to use the security
strategy.

> Heck, anything has to be more fun than what we are faced with in a
> typical game today.

Amen.

David
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev