[MUD-Dev] Cognitively Interesting Combat

[Paolo Piselli]

--- Derek Larson <tek at physics.ucsc.edu> wrote:

>> Making combat more like chess?  This suggestion has some merit,
>> as chess has the quality of interesting-ness, but chess itself is
>> not the solution.

> I think the goal is just to take a few steps down the road toward
> chess and see what happens.

I hear what you are saying, but see some of my responses to other
threads for my opinions on the applicability of chess AI to making
combat better.  I admit that my position is nothing more than an
opinion, and all my arguments begin with the suppositions that the
coginitive approach is the correct approach to take when analyzing
the player experience, and that productions are a good model for
human cognition.  The reasearch to prove these suppositions has yet
to be done - which leaves room for a thesis if I can spin it as HCI
to my advisor ;)

<snip constraints discussion>

> The above is only true if there is no Holy Grail of combat
> systems-- something everyone would enjoy.  I'm pessimistic about
> finding one, seeing as how personal taste tends to divide people
> too cleanly.  Thus, I propose the only constraints we should
> discuss here are the ones imposed by physical limitations (such as
> how much we can pull off without lag being a problem).

<snip>

> I would argue that this sweet-spot doesn't exist. Is there a
> sweet-spot for spiciness in food?  Just as taste-bud sensitivity
> varies significantly, so do mental ability and physical reflexes.

By "sweet spot" I don't mean "the value that is best for all
people".  Remember these are constraints - or bounding values.  I
really mean "the range of values that is most inclusive of our
target audience without being overly constraining".

> The most basic idea that I think is colossally important is that a
> player's choices in combat need to hinge on what is happening.  It

I am in 100% agreement with you here.

> needs more focus on reaction.  The most that some of the current
> MMOG's have in this regard is healing or running away when low on
> life; it needs to be taken a lot further.

Absolutely, I am hoping that the fruits of this discussion will
ultimately be a hard look at the cognitive tasks involved in playing
some of the archetypical roles we find in a MMOG (tank, rogue,
healer, buffer, nuker, CC, etc.)  I definitly agree with your
assessment that some have a more interesting combat experience than
others because they are more reactive.  What is the sub-game that
each class plays during combat?  Consider the buffing class, which
tends to have no in-combat role and therefore tends to get glommed
onto other classes.  I think something like a buffing class could be
given a much more active in-combat buff management task, and could
ultimately stand on its own in such an implementation.

> A Rock, Paper, Scissors type relation is a good start; much better
> than just Scissors, which is what we've been stuck with.  However,
> there must be information presented that a player can react to
> (can't just show your choice at the same time).  One way to do
> this would be to correlate sequential moves.  By this I mean make
> move n depend on n-1 (and probably n-2 and so forth).  A sword
> thrust may do x damage when done out of the blue, but perhaps it
> does x+2 when it follows a sidestep. Out of this system, you might
> be able to form various combinations of sequences (hmm, combos,
> yes we're in Dead or Alive, etc. territory here).  The analogy I
> see here: starting off a combo is like moving your chess pieces
> into strategic position, to which the opponent gets the
> opportunity to react. Determining the reaction will then invoke
> the RPS of "what works best against the combo I think he is
> using?"

I agree with you, and I am of the opinion that cognitive modelling
is the best general solution to analyzing games from RPS to Dead or
Alive to Chess to evaluate how a player experiences them.

> Another facet important to combat is resource management (though
> you could call it "reacting to yourself").  Often, the only
> resource to manage is HP, and the player isn't given many options
> of how to manage it.  UO did fairly well with HP, stamina, and
> mana; a lot better than SWG did with its three pools I'd say. Use
> of mana in UO generally differentiates novices from experts: the
> newbies just pour it all into damage spells quickly, while the
> veterans conserve it until an opportune time to strike.  This only
> arises because you can heal yourself faster and cheaper
> (mana-wise) than you can do damage.

I do not have much experience with UO, but I would love to hear a
detailed breakdown of all the thinking that goes into managing HP,
stamina, mana, etc. over the course of combat.  What real decisions
does the player have, and how often does he have them?  What
reactions does the player need to make and how often must she make
them?

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

-Paolo

=====
Paolo Piselli
ppiselli at yahoo.com
www.piselli.com , www.bestcoastswing.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev