[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[John Buehler]

David Kennerly writes:
> 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.

The focus of attention in The Sims is the career of many characters.
The focus of attention in EverQuest is the micromanagement of a
single character.  I'd like to broaden the focus of attention to
what's going on around a single character.  I can't imagine both
driving a character EverQuest-style and also keeping track of new
information such as a complex faction system, a greater volume of
objects around the character, etc.  The player is already fully
loaded from a task standpoint, and adding new forms of entertainment
just isn't practical.  The player only has 10 fingers and two
eyeballs.

As a result, the player needs to back off of the micromanaging of
the character so that they can find entertainment in higher-order
tasks.  I use the term 'herding' because of the imprecision of
control, not because of any desire to have players managing multiple
characters.

>> 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?

Micromanagement does NOT encourage socialization.  Current games
keep players involved by presenting them with the dilemma of
carefully controlling everything that their character does - or
else.  I can be in the middle of sending a message to another player
when my character is suddenly attacked.  My character won't so much
as defend itself unless I tell it to, and I have to discard what I
was saying to another player in order to get the character to defend
itself.

Micromanagmenet has saturated the player with trivial
responsibilities.  This is an effect that fighter pilots encounter
because of all the stuff that's going on.  I recall the story of a
pilot whose wingman told him over the radio that there was an
air-to-air missile coming at him.  The guy never heard it because he
was focusing on his cockpit, the mission, his radios and a pile of
other stuff.

I believe that by moving the player a step away from the character,
time will be freed up for the player to get involved in other tasks.
Perhaps research, perhaps investigation of what objects are around
the character as it moves through town, perhaps talking to other
players.

>> 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.

The level of control decides what the player should be asked to
optimize.  Try dancing ballet with an EverQuest character.  It just
can't be done because of the lack of control at that level.  Back
off farther from that level of control and players will optimize on
whatever they can control.

> 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.

The key is the last clause: "if it leads to power".  This combat
system exists in a game where there are no traditional levels.
Power is accumulated in context.  If you configure your character to
be a master of the quarterstaff, then the power wielded is physical
power in combat.  Perhaps you have a position in the PvP ladder.
But the character has no political power, and no skill in crafting.
So certain portions of the game are closed to your character.

Want to open those areas up?  Reconfigure your character.  Add
political skill and start climbing the political ladder to gain
political standing.  No real power, just as being on the PvP ladder
doesn't give you power, but it gives you rank and a sense of
accomplishment.  And then there are the cooperative efforts that
move the game story along.

> 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?

That's when they're relating stories, enjoying the scenery, finding
out about what other players are doing, etc.  They should also be
planning their trip to some distant land using in-game utilities.
Perhaps they need to do some resource management on their craftsman,
review the political alliances that they have, and so on.

That's the goal of 'herding'.  When travelling or some such thing,
the player is freed up to do other tasks - and those other tasks had
better be available or the game simply turns boring; too much free
time.

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

> Isn't that what makes a good story?

Yes.  And I want more unexpectedness in the game.  Thus the loss of
precise control and the introduction of a wider array of possible
ways of interacting.  Improvisation is the goal.

>> and usually because a player made some mistake.

> Would it have been unexpected otherwise?

I mentioned player mistakes because they're viewed as mistakes.
They're not improvisations at opportune moments.  Those would be
both unexpected and entertaining.  Mistakes are unexpected and
oppose the treadmill.  But everyone is running the treadmill.  They
don't want somebody in the group tripping things up.

> 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.

Something is predictable when you already know what will be
presented to you as well as how any interaction with that thing will
proceed.  When the game world involves more factors into combat,
there are a greater number of permutations of those factors
possible.  If they have a meaningful impact to combat then combat
encounters will unfold in a number of ways.  When the changing
environment is included in the equation, every encounter will be
unique.

> 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?

And as a result it's very predictable at a macro level.  Therefore
it is not very involving after a certain number of encounters.

Returning to the flight simulator, note that there is nothing random
about the behavior of a flight simulator.  It's all very
straightforward calculations - but entirely based on environment,
the characteristics of the vehicle and the imprecise control of the
pilot.  That is what makes it engaging.

>> 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.

Try removing cumulative rewards.

Only short-term rewards exist as a result.  And I don't mean
long-term rewards that erode.  I mean only short-term rewards exist.
Win a race?  Cool.  You won a race.  There isn't a ladder based on
how many races you've won, so the game doesn't inherently encourage
such treadmill behavior.

By eliminating cumulative rewards, players start to look at the
entertainment itself.  If they don't find it entertaining, they move
on - business suicide.  Because it's difficult to come up with basic
entertainment, but it's easy to construct a treadmill for a
particular type of player, game developers build treadmills.

>> 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.

Absolutely.  This isn't stuff that an engineer can knock off in a
weekend.  Some of it just isn't practical yet.  For example, the AI
portion of the characters is going to be super-touchy.  Get it wrong
and characters are either just doing stupid things all the time or
are doing stuff that just stupid enough to completely annoy the
players.

> 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.

The missing part is improvisation.  Designers continue to believe
that they must design every bit of entertainment that the players
will experience.  And part of that is a result of the treadmill.
Here we are in a long distance race, and everyone wants to know that
they're fairly matched against the competition.  So they make sure
that the bandit class gets 'ambush' and the paladin class gets
'anti-ambush'.  Diametric opposition leads to predictability and
optimization.

Remove the long distance race and remove balance.  Lack of balance
keeps things more entertaining.  But only if essentially nothing is
on the line.

It's okay to have a long distance race.  But it's so impossibly
restrictive on game design to make everything a 'fair marathon'.

> 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.

Yes, and I'd love to play it as well.  It's a shame I don't have the
money to throw at getting all the base technologies to work.  For
now it will remain an untested idea.

I haven't played City of Heroes, but I'm tempted to believe that
they're planning on building up from a basic experience.  I like to
think that's the way I'd do it: find a simple game experience that
people will fool around with.  Then incrementally add other
experiences that are equally-well crafted.  Look to the long term.

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