DISCUSSION REQUEST: Combat System
Tyler
Hi out there. I'm part of a group writing our own server from scratch in
C++. We plan to eventually distribute a basic version of it sometime in
the unknown future. Anyway, I'll get to the point:
I'm looking for some sort of system to base combat/magic/characters etc.
off of. I'm very adament about staying away from the AD&D crud for
personal reasons. Anyone want to suggest any existing systems/worlds out
there that we could mold for our own use?
I'm looking for discussion on this subject - and the "this is better than
that because...." type of posts also interest me.
Also, is there anyone out there who has played Archipelago and could tell
me what gaming system they were based off of?
Thanks much
Tyler (aka Slunk)
gh...@shell.golden.net
Well the first thing to consider is you are programming on a computer.
And computers deal with numbers not words (something many people
overlook). So no matter what system you use, it must be a system that
deals in numbers and not words.
Rolemaster has a system which I personally find very hard to use in RL,
because it is mostly just numbers and looking up stuff in large tables.
Which makes it perfect for the computer since the computer can handle most
of that seamlessly. So IMHO a Rolemaster _based_ system would do very
nicely.
But one thing you should remember is since you are programming the system,
you don't need to strictly copy another system. You can create a new
system, or improve/modify another system. I personally hate to just
regurgitate something someone else does.
One thing I think would be good to avoid is a limb based combat system.
Yes I do agree with everyone that a limb based system will be more
realistic, but I have never seen it done even remotely good enough.
Almost all limb based systems I have seen are very hard to use, and seem
even less realistic then non-limb based systems. I believe this is
because the computer deals with numbers, and not with words, and concepts.
One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second. This would be usefull to include
things as parry or dodge. The player would get to specify if they want to
parry, dodge, or not to try and avoid damage. Dodging would be a good
method to avoid damage, but each dodge would add more time between
attacks. Parry would add less time between attacks, but wouldn't work as
well as a simple dodge. And not avoiding the damage would give you the
ability do attacks more often. The player could change this anytime (even
during combat).
I was also thinking of giving players/mobs more then just 1 type of
attack. When fighting most animals do more then just biting. A cat for
example would bite, claw, pounce, trip ... etc. And someone armed with a
sword does more then just thrust. They could thrust, use a down slice,
upward slice, puch, kick, head bash ... etc. This could be accomplished
by giving each of these attacks a chance to happen, when an attack is done
the next one is randomly selected from the list, based on its chance.
Each attack will take a certain length of time to do, based on the attack
and the speed of the character (and a few other things). After that time
the player will do that attack. I think this type of system will appear
much more realistic then the old turn based combat.
So in the end I have to say any system you do choose to use, you must
remember that most RL role playing systems are designed for humans, not
computers. And although most are very good systems, a computer can do
more and handle numbers much faster then we could normally do.
John Davis
gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>
> I was also thinking of giving players/mobs more then just 1 type of
> attack. When fighting most animals do more then just biting. A cat for
> example would bite, claw, pounce, trip ... etc. And someone armed with a
> sword does more then just thrust. They could thrust, use a down slice,
> upward slice, puch, kick, head bash ... etc. This could be accomplished
> by giving each of these attacks a chance to happen, when an attack is done
> the next one is randomly selected from the list, based on its chance.
> Each attack will take a certain length of time to do, based on the attack
> and the speed of the character (and a few other things). After that time
> the player will do that attack. I think this type of system will appear
> much more realistic then the old turn based combat.
fyi the Wheel of Time based MUD, A Moment in Tyme, uses a fighting
system like
this, the player gains 'forms' throughout the world and during combat
the
mud picks what form they will use. There are both offensive and
defensive forms,
and each form has a different speed and effectiveness rating. So if you
want to
see a system similar to what is described above, check out tyme.envy.com
6969.
john
Joshua
gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
> One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
> system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
> 1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
> I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second.
I do not recommend this. We tried it briefly on our mud, and when
more than two participants were in a fight, the spam was just
unmanageable.
It might have been realistic, but playability went right out the door.
Instead we kept melee rounds, and the relative speed of attacking
of each combatant caused it to gain a proper number of attacks per
round. Thus a normal mob would attack once per round, a faster one
might get one attack one round, two the next ... a slower mob might
even skip rounds.
Tyler
In article <3498F029...@mongoose.demon.co.uk>, Joshua
<jos...@mongoose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
> > One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
> > system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
> > 1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
> > I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second.
>
> I do not recommend this. We tried it briefly on our mud, and when
> more than two participants were in a fight, the spam was just
> unmanageable.
> It might have been realistic, but playability went right out the door.
I'm curious...what do you mean the spam was unmanageable?
Regards,
Tyler
Hans-Christian Wittler
Tyler <levi@epix.---NOSPAM---.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<levi-18129...@twnd-75ppp182.epix.net>...
Hmm, I think spam isn't so very bad. We are doing a similar system (time
for attacks determined by the sort of attack thats used in conjunction with
skills and stats) and are installing a filter.
That means if only two people are fighting you get all the msg's. But as
the fight gets more
crowded 'less important' messages get gaged. For instance in a large fight
you won't get info that
one of your teammates is preparing to strike at an opponent you aren't
directly fighting and stuff like that
this way you get quite descriptive messages in 'small' fights and only the
important ones in big ones.
Works quite well to reduce spam in large fights.
Joshua
Tyler wrote:
>
> In article <3498F029...@mongoose.demon.co.uk>, Joshua
> <jos...@mongoose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
> > > One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
> > > system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
> > > 1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
> > > I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second.
> >
> > I do not recommend this. We tried it briefly on our mud, and when
> > more than two participants were in a fight, the spam was just
> > unmanageable.
> > It might have been realistic, but playability went right out the door.
>
> I'm curious...what do you mean the spam was unmanageable?
> Regards,
> Tyler
It amounted to ten or more messages per second, going by in a
constant stream. You couldn't read anything. I agreed with
the builders who said it was impossible to play that way.
A filter sysem might make it usable, but we were willing to
sacrifice the purity of the "real-time" system to allow
large blocks of text at regular intervals.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>>john
thoughts:
A particular sword can be thrust or chopped.
Different armours will protect differently against different attacks.
This is related to the materials, the age, the workmanship,
the configuration (plate vs. chain)
Damage and/or speed of the weapon is determined by:
its size
its size relative to the creature wielding it
the strength of the creature wielding it
dexterity of the creature wielding it
its weight
its hardness
how it is held (two handed vs. one handed, how far apart the two hands
can be)
In certain fighting styles one person is attacking while the other is
on the defensive until the defender can turn the tables and get on the
offensive.
Whether one can successfully attack another depends on relative agility
and dexterity, the speed of the weapons, the reach of the weapons
(and skill, of course)
If you are fighting you can not tie your shoe laces.
If you pick something up off the floor you will be at least somewhat more
vulnerable and lose a chance to attack.
I have no intention of implementing all of the above, and some of what
I implement will not be from 1st principles but rather guestimations
using bases and modifiers and taking play balance into account.
As I said, just some thoughts.
Robert
Richard Woolcock
gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>
> Well the first thing to consider is you are programming on a computer.
> And computers deal with numbers not words (something many people
> overlook). So no matter what system you use, it must be a system that
> deals in numbers and not words.
Both computer-based muds and roleplaying games (usually) use random numbers
to work out conflicts - I think what you are trying to say here is that
computers deal with lots of number crunching better than humans do. This
allows more complex calculations (such as the timed attacks you talk about
later) which would slow down roleplaying.
> Rolemaster has a system which I personally find very hard to use in RL,
> because it is mostly just numbers and looking up stuff in large tables.
> Which makes it perfect for the computer since the computer can handle most
> of that seamlessly. So IMHO a Rolemaster _based_ system would do very
> nicely.
Agreed, but even Rolemaster has things which are 'simplified' for dice-
wielders. It would probably be best to use a combination of different
systems, but Rolemaster is certainly a good place to start looking.
> But one thing you should remember is since you are programming the system,
> you don't need to strictly copy another system. You can create a new
> system, or improve/modify another system. I personally hate to just
> regurgitate something someone else does.
>
> One thing I think would be good to avoid is a limb based combat system.
> Yes I do agree with everyone that a limb based system will be more
> realistic, but I have never seen it done even remotely good enough.
*chuckle* if nobody else has managed to do limb based combat well, then
surely this is a perfect reason TO code it - and make sure it is done
properly! If you always go with the flow, you may well have a good mud,
but you'll never have an exceptional one.
> Almost all limb based systems I have seen are very hard to use, and seem
> even less realistic then non-limb based systems. I believe this is
> because the computer deals with numbers, and not with words, and concepts.
I disagree on this. Limb-based combat may be a little more tricky to code
than regular combat, but any responsibility for badly coded limb-based
combat falls squarely on the shoulders of the person who coded it.
> One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
> system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
> 1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
> I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second. This would be usefull to include
> things as parry or dodge. The player would get to specify if they want to
> parry, dodge, or not to try and avoid damage. Dodging would be a good
> method to avoid damage, but each dodge would add more time between
> attacks. Parry would add less time between attacks, but wouldn't work as
> well as a simple dodge. And not avoiding the damage would give you the
> ability do attacks more often. The player could change this anytime (even
> during combat).
I have a simple version of this. Combatants each get an 'initiative' value
depending on various things such as dexterity, skill, etc. I then have a
very rapid update which decrements the counter of all people currently
fighting, until they reach 0 - at which point they make their blow. I have
found that while this has a nicer feel, it is also somewhat spammy. I would
like to improve this by allowing players to select their next action/s in
the fight, thus 'kick' would mean your next attack would be a kick, while
'grapple' might make you try to grapple with them. Each manover could have
an initiative bonus/penalty. People could also 'stack up' their attacks
like this, maybe storing the next dozen actions they wish to apply. I am
still trying to decide how this will work.
> I was also thinking of giving players/mobs more then just 1 type of
> attack. When fighting most animals do more then just biting. A cat for
> example would bite, claw, pounce, trip ... etc. And someone armed with a
> sword does more then just thrust. They could thrust, use a down slice,
> upward slice, puch, kick, head bash ... etc. This could be accomplished
> by giving each of these attacks a chance to happen, when an attack is done
> the next one is randomly selected from the list, based on its chance.
I would like to add more complex moves as well, such as 'decapitate' and
'disembowel', as well as body-location specific actions (chop hand, stab
eyes, and so on) and show-off moves (knock the hat off their head, carve
your initials on their chest, etc). Needless to say, such actions will have
large penalties.
> Each attack will take a certain length of time to do, based on the attack
> and the speed of the character (and a few other things). After that time
> the player will do that attack. I think this type of system will appear
> much more realistic then the old turn based combat.
Exhaustion could also be used effectively here. Two people who have been
fighting it out for a long time would start to slow down - and even the
best of fighters would have to avoid combat if s/he hadn't slept for a
couple of days.
> So in the end I have to say any system you do choose to use, you must
> remember that most RL role playing systems are designed for humans, not
> computers. And although most are very good systems, a computer can do
> more and handle numbers much faster then we could normally do.
Quite right. Humans and computers are both better at different types of
system. It is far better to do something a computer can do well rather
than try to emulate something a human can do well.
KaVir.
WAR
Just a note -- I'm responding to both of these people in this one
post. I do understand quoting. ;)
On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:10:31 -0800, Richard Woolcock
<Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> decided to take finger to keyboard and
send:
>gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>>
>> Well the first thing to consider is you are programming on a computer.
>> And computers deal with numbers not words (something many people
>> overlook). So no matter what system you use, it must be a system that
>> deals in numbers and not words.
>
>Both computer-based muds and roleplaying games (usually) use random numbers
>to work out conflicts - I think what you are trying to say here is that
>computers deal with lots of number crunching better than humans do. This
>allows more complex calculations (such as the timed attacks you talk about
>later) which would slow down roleplaying.
I think the point to be made by those who advocate a text based damage
system (non-numerical) is that it makes the environment more
immersive. Yes, it is based on numbers, but when you take a "very bad
hit" instead of "30 points of damage," it adds to the feel of the
game. It is based on numbers, of course, but those numbers are then
translated for the user into virtual world terms.
<Rolemaster item snipped>
>> But one thing you should remember is since you are programming the system,
>> you don't need to strictly copy another system. You can create a new
>> system, or improve/modify another system. I personally hate to just
>> regurgitate something someone else does.
Of course, you are not legally allowed, under normal circumstances, to
copy someone else's system. It is a violation of the copyright, but,
more important philosophically, is the fact that you would be stealing
from the original coder.
>> One thing I think would be good to avoid is a limb based combat system.
>> Yes I do agree with everyone that a limb based system will be more
>> realistic, but I have never seen it done even remotely good enough.
>
>*chuckle* if nobody else has managed to do limb based combat well, then
>surely this is a perfect reason TO code it - and make sure it is done
>properly! If you always go with the flow, you may well have a good mud,
>but you'll never have an exceptional one.
I agree completely. If ever this is a mud that does a limb combat
system very, very well, I will be one of the first to reside there
(assuming I hear soon enough after it opens ;). Limb based systems do
offer realism, that is true, but there is another aspect that I think
justifies their use. If you have maruading high level players in low
level areas seeking to gain lots of money, for example, a limb
critical hit system can make that risky, even for someone fighting way
below themselves. Yes, they might have to fight 100 mobs in order to
receive a critical hit (lopping off their leg, for instance), but it
will at least add that danger.
It is not the same as a pure critical hit that kills instantly (which
I detest, for obvious reasons!). This limb critical hit adds a very
nice amount of realism, and, if you add bleeding wounds, you have a
great way to manage damage.
>> Almost all limb based systems I have seen are very hard to use, and seem
>> even less realistic then non-limb based systems. I believe this is
>> because the computer deals with numbers, and not with words, and concepts.
>
>I disagree on this. Limb-based combat may be a little more tricky to code
>than regular combat, but any responsibility for badly coded limb-based
>combat falls squarely on the shoulders of the person who coded it.
If you have ever played DragonRealms (formerly on AOHell), it had a
very well done limb based combat system. There were some flaws, but,
overall, it's the best implementation of a combat system that I have
ever seen in a mud.
>> One new idea I have been thinking of coding is going from a turn based
>> system to a real time system. Where instead of Mob gets 3 attacks, I get
>> 1, Mob 3, Me 1 .... etc, The mob would get 1 attack every 1/2 second, and
>> I would get 1 attack every 3/4 second. This would be usefull to include
>> things as parry or dodge. The player would get to specify if they want to
>> parry, dodge, or not to try and avoid damage. Dodging would be a good
>> method to avoid damage, but each dodge would add more time between
>> attacks. Parry would add less time between attacks, but wouldn't work as
>> well as a simple dodge. And not avoiding the damage would give you the
>> ability do attacks more often. The player could change this anytime (even
>> during combat).
Again, check DragonRealms for ideas on parrying, dodging, and real
time combat. In my opinion, they have taken it a bit too far, making
it ridiculously difficult in certain situations (high level players
are often killed very quickly in difficult areas -- areas intended for
their levels but still too heavy on critical hits). However, all of
these elements are present and work.
Taking the damage and getting more time for attacks is a novel idea.
>I have a simple version of this. Combatants each get an 'initiative' value
>depending on various things such as dexterity, skill, etc. I then have a
>very rapid update which decrements the counter of all people currently
>fighting, until they reach 0 - at which point they make their blow. I have
>found that while this has a nicer feel, it is also somewhat spammy. I would
>like to improve this by allowing players to select their next action/s in
>the fight, thus 'kick' would mean your next attack would be a kick, while
>'grapple' might make you try to grapple with them. Each manover could have
>an initiative bonus/penalty. People could also 'stack up' their attacks
>like this, maybe storing the next dozen actions they wish to apply. I am
>still trying to decide how this will work.
I'm afraid I don't quite follow this, but a little experimentation
always does more than description. :) Sounds interesting though.
>> I was also thinking of giving players/mobs more then just 1 type of
>> attack. When fighting most animals do more then just biting. A cat for
>> example would bite, claw, pounce, trip ... etc. And someone armed with a
>> sword does more then just thrust. They could thrust, use a down slice,
>> upward slice, puch, kick, head bash ... etc. This could be accomplished
>> by giving each of these attacks a chance to happen, when an attack is done
>> the next one is randomly selected from the list, based on its chance.
Having mobs with more than one attack is great. You make certain
attacks more deadly, but blocking them or avoiding the damage is
easier. With other less powerful attacks, the mob has a greater
chance of hitting (and less of a chance of a critical hit). Giving
such choices to the player as well adds a nice strategy element to the
combat, instead of just hack and slash.
>I would like to add more complex moves as well, such as 'decapitate' and
>'disembowel', as well as body-location specific actions (chop hand, stab
>eyes, and so on) and show-off moves (knock the hat off their head, carve
>your initials on their chest, etc). Needless to say, such actions will have
>large penalties.
I would love to see that implemented. One of the flaws of
DragonRealms was the lack of such a system, though many players
advocated it vociferously. That further adds to the strategy of
combat and makes for distinctive playing styles.
>> Each attack will take a certain length of time to do, based on the attack
>> and the speed of the character (and a few other things). After that time
>> the player will do that attack. I think this type of system will appear
>> much more realistic then the old turn based combat.
>
>Exhaustion could also be used effectively here. Two people who have been
>fighting it out for a long time would start to slow down - and even the
>best of fighters would have to avoid combat if s/he hadn't slept for a
>couple of days.
Again, check DR. I hate to harp on it, but just about everything
mentioned here is present in their combat system. Combat variables
not only include limb hits (including catatrosphic damage to arms
translating to dropped items), time restrictions, fatigue, but also
balance (if you attack with an unwieldy weapon or inexpertly, you are
thrown into a vulnerable position). The sleeping thing was discussed
but resoundingly rejected -- it's very realistic but more or less just
a royal pain.
Jon A. Lambert
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 05:42:12 GMT, WAR spaketh...
>
>On Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:10:31 -0800, Richard Woolcock
><Ka...@dial.pipex.comNOSPAM> decided to take finger to keyboard and
>send:
>
>>gh...@shell.golden.net wrote:
>>>
>>> One thing I think would be good to avoid is a limb based combat system.
>>> Yes I do agree with everyone that a limb based system will be more
>>> realistic, but I have never seen it done even remotely good enough.
>>
>>*chuckle* if nobody else has managed to do limb based combat well, then
>>surely this is a perfect reason TO code it - and make sure it is done
>>properly! If you always go with the flow, you may well have a good mud,
>>but you'll never have an exceptional one.
>
>I agree completely. If ever this is a mud that does a limb combat
>system very, very well, I will be one of the first to reside there
>(assuming I hear soon enough after it opens ;). Limb based systems do
>offer realism, that is true, but there is another aspect that I think
>justifies their use. If you have maruading high level players in low
>level areas seeking to gain lots of money, for example, a limb
>critical hit system can make that risky, even for someone fighting way
>below themselves. Yes, they might have to fight 100 mobs in order to
>receive a critical hit (lopping off their leg, for instance), but it
>will at least add that danger.
Rolemaster certainly comes to mind as a limb-based system although
there are no called-shot options in the standard system nor is there
a hit location table nor are there arbitrary divisions of hit points to
body locations. Other FRP systems such as Warhammer and Morrow Project
attempt limb-based systems which more closely resemble systems I've seen
in various LP libs (ie. they include the above mentioned features).
RM's limb-based combat is solely contained within the critical hit system
(normally). I tend to prefer this method. It also resembles Ars Magica
and many home-grown enhancements to AD&D in this respect.
>It is not the same as a pure critical hit that kills instantly (which
>I detest, for obvious reasons!). This limb critical hit adds a very
>nice amount of realism, and, if you add bleeding wounds, you have a
>great way to manage damage.
>
I don't mind instant kills at all. To my mind it's a normal combat
risk. I should note that it is interesting that death is the default
outcome of mud combat. I prefer unconsciousness as the default outcome
of combat. It's a bit more realistic I believe. Of course death usually
follows in many cases, especially if the character is soloing rather than
grouping.
This also makes healing a more integral part of group play, rather than
the simple refreshing of hit points. Different spells/skills can
be implemented for concussion damage, blood loss and the different
types of critical wounds.
>>> Almost all limb based systems I have seen are very hard to use, and seem
>>> even less realistic then non-limb based systems. I believe this is
>>> because the computer deals with numbers, and not with words, and concepts.
>>
>>I disagree on this. Limb-based combat may be a little more tricky to code
>>than regular combat, but any responsibility for badly coded limb-based
>>combat falls squarely on the shoulders of the person who coded it.
>
>If you have ever played DragonRealms (formerly on AOHell), it had a
>very well done limb based combat system. There were some flaws, but,
>overall, it's the best implementation of a combat system that I have
>ever seen in a mud.
>
Actually I would be interested in some specifics of what anyone considers
good or bad about limb-based combat. What are the key features of limb-based
combat? Which are good or bad?
[snip]
>>> I was also thinking of giving players/mobs more then just 1 type of
>>> attack. When fighting most animals do more then just biting. A cat for
>>> example would bite, claw, pounce, trip ... etc. And someone armed with a
>>> sword does more then just thrust. They could thrust, use a down slice,
>>> upward slice, puch, kick, head bash ... etc. This could be accomplished
>>> by giving each of these attacks a chance to happen, when an attack is done
>>> the next one is randomly selected from the list, based on its chance.
>
>Having mobs with more than one attack is great. You make certain
>attacks more deadly, but blocking them or avoiding the damage is
>easier. With other less powerful attacks, the mob has a greater
>chance of hitting (and less of a chance of a critical hit). Giving
>such choices to the player as well adds a nice strategy element to the
>combat, instead of just hack and slash.
>
I am using the RoleMaster Claw Law as the basis for my creatures of animal
intelligence and below. It has both the chosen methods of attack and specific
types and methods of attack as well as frequency, special attacks, etc.
A nice side effect is that each creatures "script" is rather succinct and
easily machine parsable. It's also already in tabular format, which while
cumbersome for the human GM to page through, it's rather convenient for the
automated GM.
[snip]
--
Jon A. Lambert
Walter Goodwin
In article <349a087c...@news.mindspring.com>, WAR <Me> wrote:
>
>Of course, you are not legally allowed, under normal circumstances, to
>copy someone else's system. It is a violation of the copyright, but,
>more important philosophically, is the fact that you would be stealing
>from the original coder.
From my layman's understanding (Ie. don't depend on this in court :),
Rules of a game can't be copyrighted, only the presentation of those
rules. Granted, some idiot judge granted a _patent_ to wotc for the
entire collectible card game genre, but that's neither here nor there.
Otherwise TSR would have had to sue anyone who runs a diku mud in order
defend their copyright (or lose it)
>I agree completely. If ever this is a mud that does a limb combat
>system very, very well, I will be one of the first to reside there
>(assuming I hear soon enough after it opens ;). Limb based systems do
>offer realism, that is true, but there is another aspect that I think
>justifies their use. If you have maruading high level players in low
>level areas seeking to gain lots of money, for example, a limb
>critical hit system can make that risky, even for someone fighting way
>below themselves. Yes, they might have to fight 100 mobs in order to
>receive a critical hit (lopping off their leg, for instance), but it
>will at least add that danger.
Well, it depends. After careful though, I've decided against a limb based
system per se, simply for reasons of "fun" and playability :) Don't get me
wrong, I think there needs to be a balance for high level players, especially
in a totally player run pk environment (aka, the general population will
determine if pk is allowed or not by enforcing their own rules :) though
it'll flow from not having the hlp's having 100 to 1000(!!!) times the hp's
of the lower level players :)
>Having mobs with more than one attack is great.
to be equitable, you have to give the player's more than one attack style
also. Personally, I'm a convert of the combat script system, where
each player/npc has some sort of script for fighting written up. Simply
continously hacking at a npc for 10 minutes just _isn't_ fun for me
anymore.
Tyler
Ok, there's been quite a bit of discussion on good implimentations of limb
based combat systems. Since my project is currently under way, I would
like to know what people are looking for in a limb based combat system.
Tyler(Slunk)
Richard T. Glasgow
On 18 Dec 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
> Different armours will protect differently against different attacks.
> This is related to the materials, the age, the workmanship,
> the configuration (plate vs. chain)
>
Another idea for a realistic combat system is armour typing on the basis
of race. If your mud uses a race system a simple modification to your
standard armour base allows a very simple and intuitive racial armour
setup. Just add a set_armour_for( int *races ) or possibly a string
array depending on your tastes. A mud I am working on has added this
option thinking tht perhaps an elf isnt going to be able to wear a
troll's armour etc. The point is the more your broaden your field of
thought re: combat options the more you bring to your world
N.B. I usually work with modified Genesis LPC lib and to be quite honest
have absolutely no idea if some of the other systems use anything
like this or not. If I am being out of date and unorigional flame
away (as I notice that has never been much of a problem)
.-,--.
' | \. .,-.,-.,-.
, | /| || || || |
`-^--' `-|' '`-'' '
/| Dy...@randomc.com
`-'
Divorces arent performed, They're handled.
Richard Woolcock
WAR wrote:
> [snip]
> >Both computer-based muds and roleplaying games (usually) use random numbers
> >to work out conflicts - I think what you are trying to say here is that
> >computers deal with lots of number crunching better than humans do. This
> >allows more complex calculations (such as the timed attacks you talk about
> >later) which would slow down roleplaying.
>
> I think the point to be made by those who advocate a text based damage
> system (non-numerical) is that it makes the environment more
> immersive. Yes, it is based on numbers, but when you take a "very bad
> hit" instead of "30 points of damage," it adds to the feel of the
> game. It is based on numbers, of course, but those numbers are then
> translated for the user into virtual world terms.
Ah yes I agree - the point I was trying to make was that by letting the
computer do all the numerical work (rather than rolling dice like in an
RPG), you are able to make far more complex combat systems - however,
while in a roleplaying game the GM might interpret your blow as:
"You stab your sword through the goblins hand, giving the blade a sharp
twist. The goblin squeals with pain, clutching his ruined hand and
desperately trying to stem the flow of thick, black blood. A trickle
of the blood begins to slowly run down your blade, leaving a foul-
smelling stain. You notice that the goblin has started backing off,
eyeing you fearfully."
Obviously it would require a great deal of work to have something similar
worked out automatically by the computer - thus it is worthwhile having
something more numerically complex to compensate.
[snip]
> >I have a simple version of this. Combatants each get an 'initiative' value
> >depending on various things such as dexterity, skill, etc. I then have a
> >very rapid update which decrements the counter of all people currently
> >fighting, until they reach 0 - at which point they make their blow. I have
> >found that while this has a nicer feel, it is also somewhat spammy. I would
> >like to improve this by allowing players to select their next action/s in
> >the fight, thus 'kick' would mean your next attack would be a kick, while
> >'grapple' might make you try to grapple with them. Each manover could have
> >an initiative bonus/penalty. People could also 'stack up' their attacks
> >like this, maybe storing the next dozen actions they wish to apply. I am
> >still trying to decide how this will work.
>
> I'm afraid I don't quite follow this, but a little experimentation
> always does more than description. :) Sounds interesting though.
Okay well imagine two players fighting each other. Player one might be a
little faster, say with an initiative value of 9, while player two might
be a little slower with an initiative value of 10. This means that every
time player one hits, he gains a fraction of a second over player two,
until eventually (after 10 blows) he effectively wraps around, getting
in two blows (one just after player 2's blow the second just before player
2's next blow).
Now rather than just hitting with your sword/etc, suppose you could specify
exactly what you wanted to do. Thus by typing 'kick', your next blow would
be a kick, by typing 'punch' your next blow would be a punch, and so on.
The stacking up I was talking about could be used to prepare a number of
specific blows in advance - eg "5 kick and 5 punch" would set up your
next 10 blows, unless you typed something else or specifically chose to
stop fighting.
KaVir.
Richard Woolcock
Richard T. Glasgow wrote:
>
> On 18 Dec 1997 mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>
> > Different armours will protect differently against different attacks.
> > This is related to the materials, the age, the workmanship,
> > the configuration (plate vs. chain)
> >
>
> Another idea for a realistic combat system is armour typing on the basis
> of race. If your mud uses a race system a simple modification to your
> standard armour base allows a very simple and intuitive racial armour
> setup. Just add a set_armour_for( int *races ) or possibly a string
An alternative would be to have an array of race sizes (and limbs), and
then have each armour work within a range of sizes (depending on the
material - full plate is far less flexible than leather for example).
This means that you could have a very small human who has to wear armour
designed for hobbits, or a very fat elf who can only wear troll's armour.
Might be a little more interesting, without adding too much extra work.
KaVir.
Adrian Price
In article <67d37d$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, wgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
(Walter Goodwin) wrote:
> In article <349a087c...@news.mindspring.com>, WAR <Me> wrote:
> >
> >Having mobs with more than one attack is great.
>
> to be equitable, you have to give the player's more than one attack style
> also. Personally, I'm a convert of the combat script system, where
> each player/npc has some sort of script for fighting written up. Simply
> continously hacking at a npc for 10 minutes just _isn't_ fun for me
> anymore.
I personally like stances, because you can have one stance that raises
dodge, or one that raises hit, or one that raises dam, or one that raises
disarm, or whatever, and it allows for more variation, and more strategy
to chose the right stance to fight a certain mob.
--
Adrian
adr...@earthlink.net
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/rabidmonkey/
NOTE: My return address is somewhat dislexic. Fix it to reply.
'Intel Inside: the worlds most widely used warning label.'
Richard Woolcock
Adrian Price wrote:
>
> In article <67d37d$f...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, wgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu
> (Walter Goodwin) wrote:
>
> > In article <349a087c...@news.mindspring.com>, WAR <Me> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > also. Personally, I'm a convert of the combat script system, where
> > each player/npc has some sort of script for fighting written up. Simply
> > continously hacking at a npc for 10 minutes just _isn't_ fun for me
> > anymore.
> I personally like stances, because you can have one stance that raises
> dodge, or one that raises hit, or one that raises dam, or one that raises
> disarm, or whatever, and it allows for more variation, and more strategy
> to chose the right stance to fight a certain mob.
Stances are okay (I even added player-customisable ones). However they are
completely different to combat scripts, and there is no reason why you
cannot combine the two. Combat scripts are something I feel my mud is
lacking right now, I do intend to have a play around and see what I can
come up with.
KaVir.
Adrian Price
In article <67d6r0$a...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
> Rolemaster certainly comes to mind as a limb-based system although
> there are no called-shot options in the standard system nor is there
> a hit location table nor are there arbitrary divisions of hit points to
> body locations. Other FRP systems such as Warhammer and Morrow Project
> attempt limb-based systems which more closely resemble systems I've seen
> in various LP libs (ie. they include the above mentioned features).
> RM's limb-based combat is solely contained within the critical hit system
> (normally). I tend to prefer this method. It also resembles Ars Magica
> and many home-grown enhancements to AD&D in this respect.
>
If you want that type of system, look to FASA's Battletech system. It
includes HP for each limb, probability to hit each limb, hit tables for
all directions of attack, called shots, and critical hits depending on
limbs.
Mike McGaughey
Joshua <jos...@mongoose.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Tyler wrote:
>> <jos...@mongoose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > more than two participants were in a fight, the spam was just
>> > unmanageable.
>>
>
> constant stream.
Heh. Long ago, we realised that players don't really give a damn
about these messages - only being interested in how their hit points
were going - so we implemented a `brief' combat mode, where, instead
of seeing the usual (LP-style) combat messages (`Harry nicks you
on your left arm'), it printed one of `Biff' `Pow', `ungh', and so
on. Without line breaks, of course.
Works very nicely.
Cheers,
Mike.
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mm...@cs.monash.edu.au
"Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest" - Milton.
Jon A. Lambert
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 19:30:50 -0700, Adrian Price spaketh...
>
>In article <67d6r0$a...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
>jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com (Jon A. Lambert) wrote:
>
>> there are no called-shot options in the standard system nor is there
>> a hit location table nor are there arbitrary divisions of hit points to
>> body locations. Other FRP systems such as Warhammer and Morrow Project
>> attempt limb-based systems which more closely resemble systems I've seen
>> in various LP libs (ie. they include the above mentioned features).
>> RM's limb-based combat is solely contained within the critical hit system
>> (normally). I tend to prefer this method. It also resembles Ars Magica
>> and many home-grown enhancements to AD&D in this respect.
>>
>includes HP for each limb, probability to hit each limb, hit tables for
>all directions of attack, called shots, and critical hits depending on
>limbs.
No I really don't want it. The ONE aspect which I do not like at all
with Battletech, Warhammer and Morrow Project is the arbitrary division
of hit points to limbs. While it is a solution, it poses other problems.
a) Each creature body-type requires it's own hit location table.
b) Hit locations are often unrealistic due to cover, body position
or extraordinary size.
c) Total limb destruction is way too common in these systems.
Actually I prefer the RoleMaster critical hit system as my limb based
system. Of course I've had to make some significant modifications in
the way armor class is used and determined in RM. This is one aspect
of RM that has remained as bad as the AD&D abstract AC. The only thing
that I am currently not happy with in my current combat system, is my
lack of "called shots".
My current thoughts are to handle this by:
a) reducing the chance to hit by a variable amount depending on size
of the area of the called shot (e.g. head -50%, torso -20%, etc.)
b) ignoring critical results if not in the area or adjacent area to the
called shot area
c) increasing the severity of critical results if in the area or adjacent
to the area of the called shot by 2 or more degrees.
--
Jon A. Lambert
"Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato