[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[Brendan O'Brien]

David Kennerly wrote:

> 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?

Well, I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with the concept that players
are essentially risk-averse.  When talking about the way they handle
a level treadmill, then yes, players will take the safer path
because it tends to be faster in the long run.  The time lost from a
potential death is often not worth the risk of fighting the more
difficult creatures.  However, in terms of fighting strategies and
how players spec their characters, it is very common to see players
focus almost entirely on offensive-based skills.  They like the
bragging rights and shock value of landing a huge hit, and are
certainly willing to sacrifice a bit of defense in order to achieve
it.  If nothing else, just think of how many games have ended up
with a very popular "glass canon" template.

Nonetheless, I do agree that there needs to be more to combat than
staying in "defensive mode" whenever you are getting attacked.  The
system I was discussing is fairly complicated to explain it clearly
in these emails, but I'll try to give a bit more detail below as to
how it should prevent what you are talking about.  If nothing else,
consider that the most defensive tactics would not involve any
attacks at all.  While it could be useful as a stalling tactic while
waiting for reinforcements or an opening to flee, it would not allow
you to win many fights on its own.  It would still only take one
mistake on your characters part to provide the opening your opponent
needs.

>> 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?

I wouldn't really consider it a matrix in the same way at all.  At
least not in the terms of thinking that choosing one option will
always work when used against another option.  Instead, I consider
this to really be just one more variable added to the overall
equation.  Consider it as a way to describe how hard you want to
swing at a given time.  It can be a light jab to feel out your
opponent's defenses, or it can be a strong jab designed to set up
your next move.  The harder you hit your opponent, the more likely
you are to gain control of the fight (by injuring him, making him
lose his balance, or just putting him on the defensive).  However,
the risk is that if you misjudge the opportunity, a harder blow is
more difficult to get off, which could result in your opponent
taking control (your move can be prevented from being executed if
your opponent is able to turn the round of combat into his favor).

What I don't mean to imply is that a player would automatically have
an advantage by sitting back defensively and waiting for the
opponent to take the first risk, as this would not be the case.
This isn't a case where defense beats offense, or vice versa.  It
would still depend on the abilities of the characters, the skills
they are trying to use, and the situation during the fight.

>> 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?

Many of the outcomes would have to use similar animations, as I
don't think we are quite at the point yet where we can truly
recreate a realistically fluid combat animation for use in an
on-line game.  I would also want to slow down combat a little bit to
give players more time for strategy, and to keep latency issues to a
minimum.  For general purposes, letting the players see which
character executed the move and what the resulting status would be
is enough.  Other small effects such as trails behind the swords
could help differentiate between relative swing types.  Overall
though, I do believe that animation is difficult to do realistically
at this time, especially when dealing with multiple character types
(such as non-humanoid).

>> 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?

By keeping the pressure on him.  If the single warrior is under
sufficient enough attack that he can't risk letting up his defenses,
the attackers would have more success when using aggressive attacks.
It's conceivable that he could reach a state where he knows it's
only a matter of time before his defenses falter, in which case he
may decide to try one last gamble.  A desperate lunge at one of his
attackers could catch them by surprise and be the spark for him to
win the encounter.  More likely, it would get him killed, but
anything is possible depending on the situation.  If the single
warrior can manage to take out one of the opponents, the resulting
morale boost would swing the fight drastically in his advantage.

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

> This is the security strategy.

Yes, but security would not guarantee victory.  By playing
conservatively, they would allow the solo fighter to have more
options at his disposal, as his opponents are not really dictating
the direction of the fight.  All he needs is one small opening, and
a longer fight could benefit him even more than his opponents.

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

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

I've been writing these descriptions from work, so they are a bit
more disjointed than I would like.  However, I will try to make the
process a little bit more clear, as playing conservative all the
time is likely to get you killed just as quickly as playing
aggressive all the time.  Both strategies have their uses, but a
smart player would be able to overcome either fairly easily if the
tactics are never altered.

Basically, when 2 characters are fighting each other, many different
variables will come into play.  It's not as simple as saying move A
will always beat move B, move B will always beat C, etc...  A more
accurate way of thinking about it would be that move A has a higher
probability of success given certain advantageous conditions, but
move B can also be effective under the right conditions.  If my goal
for the next move is to block a high swing, and you come at me with
a strong swing at my head, I could still be knocked back if you are
sufficiently stronger than me.  Once knocked off-balance like that,
every follow-up move is likely to continue pushing me more
off-balance until a fatal opening develops.

What I'm trying to say, is that if you let your opponent use his
strengths against you, eventually he will get the advantage.  The
whole point is that you need to mix things up to keep him
off-balance too.  The only way to keep yourself safe is to keep your
opponent guessing as to what your next move might be.  If you are
predictably conservative, you would still be fairly easy to defeat.

I hope this has made a little bit more sense.  I feel the balancing
would take a bit of work to make sure no one strategy was effective
to the point where you could just repeat it all the time.  Without
multiple options and useful techniques, you would end up with
another case of boring, repetitive combat.

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