[MUD-Dev] Better Combat

[Corey Cauble]

David Kennerly wrote:
> Brendan O'Brien wrote:

>> 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 conservatives
> 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?

I am actually playing an alpha that uses this method of combat
interaction, http://www.wurmonline.com.

It is only using 3 styles which I think sums up all the required
levels: Aggressive, Normal, Defensive. Aggressive uses lower hit
rates and defensive posture with higher payoff in damage. Normal
uses a balanced payoff. Defensive uses the high defensive posture
and less hit attempts for normal sized damage.

In all solo cases the defensive stance is by far the best method of
fighting, as David says, and there seems to be no reason to use
anything else. However in a multiple person coordinated attack it is
the usage of aggressive and normal attacks that makes the difference
in how effective your team is. We usually have the "tank" in
defensive mode while anyone not being attacked is in normal or
aggressive mode. This allows you to move through the opposition at a
higher rate.

In defense of Brendan's suggestion I am not sure he is looking for
higher payoffs in the end result, i.e. item gains. If I understand
it correctly, he is looking just for a more tactical representation
of the combat features.

> 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.

This seems to be the hardest aspect to date to improve in the MMO
arena.  It is kind of funny to watch two people fighting with sword
strikes contacting only air and the players 20ft apart. I have been
working on some improvements in this area. Once I have a working
model I will supply a link to an example.

___________________________________________

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