[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[David Kennerly]

John Buehler wrote:
> cruise writes:

>> So what ways could depth be added to combat?

> Add more factors that go into its success or failure.

Here, here!  The devil is in how.

> If we start to lose, our characters will run away.

Did you propose that a player character runs away against its
player's wishes?

>  2. Introduce physical balance and momentum into the game.  Not as
>  single values, but as a set of vectors that the computer knows
>  about, and that the player can only guess at.  The computer then
>  involves that in dodging, kicking, lunging, throwing and other
>  activities that the player directs the character to use.
>  According to context, the use of those skill - and their
>  application on the character - influences to what degree they can
>  be used again.  If I dodge, I can't lunge until I find my feet
>  again, and my energy is going in a specific direction.

I'm not sure I'm following you here:

>  Not as single values, but as a set of vectors that the computer
>  knows about, and that the player can only guess at.

It may be wise to assume that the player population has perfect
knowledge of the game state.  Any vector can be represented as a
sufficiently large single value, albeit not as elegantly.  And, in
my limited experience with MMPs, there are two cases of variation:
relations (as in generalizations of functions) and randomness.
Players, over time and with a level of esprit de corp that would
make a Communist blush, catalogue relations.  In the other case,
even when the result is random, players catalogue its distribution.

>  3. Involve the environment.  In a combat system with blunt
>  weapons, anything that is hard enough can be used as a weapon.
>  Improvisation becomes an art.  Grab a chair and have at it.
>  Punch this guy, throw a rock at that guy.  Daylight combat
>  tactics versus night combat tactics.  Slippery wet grass versus
>  dry rock.  Falling down on rocks versus falling down on sand.
>  Dodging and diving on a steep slope versus the same on a flat.

Assuming this is a persistent game.... :) Once someone has a weapon
that she likes, why would she then choose to improvise with the
items that she already turned down in previous play sessions?  Are
items non-persistent?  Or is this an instanced (therefore private)
combat area with items that someone else hasn't already grabbed and
thrown?  From what you said so far, it sounds like the worst-case is
more fun if it is instanced than if it is public.  In a public
environment, in the worst-case, there is nothing worth using on the
ground anywhere, because if there was, it would have already been
used.

>  4. Multiple opponents.  This requires careful collision detection
>  to ensure that opponents don't overlap, etc.

How can careful collision detection be done on the Internet at a
pace that feels somewhat like combat?  There's several techniques
for client-side simulation in MMPs and MP FPSs, but is there one
anywhere in existence that guarantees collision detection on the
Internet in the US?  In Korea they can play arcade games on the
Internet, but Korea is wired to the gils and is a tiny landmass.
But for the rest of the world, we're stuck between the rock
(reverting the client state) the hard place (inaccurate collision
detection) and the other rock (an authoritative client).  At least
until our Internet catches up.

> Or the sky is cloudy, and that mirror distraction trick isn't
> going to work.

I missed that.  Could you explain it again?  It sounds fascinating.

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