[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[David Kennerly]

John Buehler wrote:

> In the context that I'm talking about, I'm starting with the
> assumption that the player has a different mindset for interacting
> with a character.  They herd it more than they drive it.  Because
> their control is imprecise, the game is about trying to get the
> character to navigate and accomodate the influences that affect
> it.

So they're like The Sims?  Sounds kind of like a pet, which many MM
players love.

> It may be that encouraging such a separation between character and
> player will encourage socialization - which implies a certain loss
> of control.

Why does having a pet encourage socialization?  For the same reason
having a real pet encourages flirting?

> The experience that I'm drawing on here is that of flight
> simulation.  I could hand you the equations that we used to model
> vehicles, weapons and the world.  Atmospheric densities, lift and
> drag curves, engine performance, the whole nine yards.  But when
> you're flying along in real time, having to juggle a
> three-dimensional problem that is not linear, all that knowledge
> affords you nothing.  You still have to fly your aircraft.  So
> long as the context in which your decisions are being made remains
> fluid, so will your reactions.  That characteristic of fluidity
> contributes to the appeal of PvP.

True enough.  Same goes for a first person shooter, which is a
popular non-persistent online genre.

> Which takes us back to the herding tactic.  Imprecise control over
> a character impairs a player's ability to micro-manage the
> character.  Given that knowledge, the game need not be predicated
> on players micro-managing characters, running treadmills
> optimally, etc.

I'd like to see an example.  In my imagination it means
macro-managing is the tools the player has to work with to optimize.
One can optimize Dungeon Keeper or Civilization as well as Chess.
It's not the level of control that determines optimization.

But in my opinion, optimization is the player's prerogative.  As
hard as I've tried, I've never stopped the power-gamer cold in his
feet and forced him to consider a different method of interacting
with the MMP.  I've given other options, but many powergamers have
no other desire.  I guess it's true in real-life too.  Some people
are just materialist power-seekers that will follow any activity,
repetitive or mindless, if it leads to power.

I have a bit of Devil's advocacy...

> I want players to relate stories of what happened in a single
> encounter, not talk about how many hours they camped a mob.

What about the hours they spent herding their pet?

> The stories that I've heard and told are invariably the ones where
> something unexpected happens,

Isn't that what makes a good story?

> and usually because a player made some mistake.

Would it have been unexpected otherwise?

Now back to some of the key points of the design:

> Imprecise control by herding a character can aid in making
> encounters more involved and unpredictable.

Well, you defined herding as less interactive.  As for
unpredictable, that sounds like Stone soup.  It may be more
unpredictable.  But why?  It's not from randomness or the
complexity.  By definition, nothing is more unpredictable than
randomness.  However, an attack roll with a 50/50 chance is not
interesting, because there's only two outcomes, and given time, it
just becomes a binomial distribution, and then eventually a normal
distribution.  What is the ingredient that makes this design
involving?

> Further, we needn't assume that the game is a treadmill grind.

In my experience, the players turn anything persistent and
distinguishing into a treadmill, despite the designer's intentions.
My best successes at countermining the grind were giving treadmills
that required creativity, such as awarding exclusive garments,
titles, and quest-activation to winners of literature, art, and
philosophy contests.

> Herding a character is the key.  Clients send directives to the
> server to get them implemented.  Such directives cannot be
> fine-grained, such as 'move left 1 foot'. They would be directives
> such as 'go to the bakery'.  The server then relies on the design
> of the player's character to decide how to get to the bakery.

I see.  Now I'm following the implementation.  God, how I wish MMPs
would have some sort of pathfinding for players.  Even if it were a
simple graph embedded in the level data.  But I digress.  :)

> In combat, this means that characters must be able to operate
> fairly autonomously because of all the real time reactions that go
> into combat.  Ducking, dodging, etc.

I see.  Cool.  A few years ago I gave tactics like this some thought
in a design.  Because of lag, I still think it's a good idea.  The
devil, of course, still remains in the details.

The cause you're fighting for is not entirely absent.  Although you
use different themes, many MMPs do have some tactical play to them.
In the Kingdom of the Winds, there are a number of role-specific
tactics, such as an ambush ability that is a cute teleportation
effect.  This is not to say that there's no room for improvement.
Just that some of what you are saying, to me, sounds like different
clothes for the same tactics, but...  hopefully... balanced to a
finer degree to avoid dominant strategies.

Having said all the above, I look forward to playing it!  Let me
know if you need a tester.  :) It's got potential, and sure would be
worth trying after the years of D&D-bastard-children games that most
MMPs won't or can't break from.  Even CoH, which has been more fun
than any of the other D&D-bastard children still clings to the
tank-healer-nuke-buff role model.  Could be just me, but I am bored
of that model.  But then again, I was bored of the D&D (tactical)
"role"playing model before there were graphical MMPs derivatives of
it.

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