standard times for equipping / unequipping gear
Numeron
gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its
not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen,
especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that
everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn
(as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given
direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it
its even less obvious...
So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body
armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier
have an impact?
-Numeron
corremn
wrote:
I dont know why armour is always more, it seems like a "lets add some
reality here" thought. The time it would really take to put on
armour, you would be dead 10 time over. For reality how about "you
forgot to buckle your armour in your haste and it falls around you
ankles" or "you attempt to put on your gloves and you little finger
get stuck in the wrong hole" or "you attempt to put on you boots of
speed but last time you forgot to untie them" etc.
Just make every thing 1 (or 1.5) and a quick-swap .5 (or 1) turns.
Shorter the better, players dont want to see the red dragon and then
rumage through there pack for that ring of fire resistance only to be
killed by its breath. They want to react and prevent their death. You
cant expect the player to know whats around the corner. Unavoidable
deaths will make players stop playing which is a bad thing. Of course
in a game where you know you are going to face this can be different.
As long as the value is short and deterministic the player will be
happy.
Jeff Lait
wrote:
I'm generally opposed to player speeds in the first place. A 10%
increase in player speed really just means "one in ten moves you get a
double attack" against normal speed opponents. Turn based comments
means you either get your turn or you don't.
POWDER makes everything a single turn. Moving is a turn, equipping a
turn, etc. Swapping is also a turn, despite consisting of a dequip
and an equip internally. My logic is that since the user made a
single UI decision, they should only expend a single turn. Having a
single UI decision take many turns is fraught with perils - you then
need to support interrupting, support half-eaten bread, etc.
The interesting question is *why* you make things take longer or
shorter. The usual logic is that allowing too fast a swap allows
people to min/max their equipment for each battle. Ie, see a red
dragon, quickly dig out all the fire resist items, then switch to ice
resist for the next white dragon. Long equip times don't, I think,
really eliminate the problem. Instead, it becomes see a red dragon,
run for a closet, then switch. If I'm able to face the red dragon
with my default equipment, I'm much more likely to just slug it out
than pay the UI cost of switching. That's the other half of the
equation - spending keystrokes has a cost just like spending in-game
turns. Of course, each player has their own balance of what they want
to spend. But, I'll point out that making it expensive in turns to
switch items could easily be for naught if you give me a single key
press to do the undress/redress maneuver.
The best argument against making long equip times to prevent equipment
optimization is to point out that the real culprit is the zany
roguelike dragons where you encounter alternating red and white
dragons in the first place. A more thematic dungeon context can solve
the problem with stashes and limited inventory. This is the more
*band solution - using scrolls of recall and a stash at home so you
can switch to lightning armour "instantly", but at enough of a UI cost
that you don't do it lightly.
--
Jeff Lait
(POWDER: http://www.zincland.com/powder)
zai...@zaimoni.com
wrote:
> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip
> gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its
> not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen,
> especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that
> everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn
> (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given
> direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it
> its even less obvious...
Especially in SSCrawl, where it's the world's speed that gets adjusted
during slow or haste effects.
> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body
> armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier
> have an impact?
Floppy time model: just make it 1 turn for most gear and body armor,
and maybe 0.1 turn for quickswap.
Strict time model, where turns are defined in terms of RL time: use
the turn duration as an inverse scaling factor. E.g., the *bands
generally use 10,000 normal speed turns/100,000 time ticks as 1 day,
so a strict time model for a *band would require 1 turn for a pair of
gloves or helmet, 2 turns for a pair of boots, 1-2 turns for a
shield. And (pulling from D&D): at least 7 turns for even the
lightest body armors, maybe 60 turns for plate mail etc.
Brog
wrote:
My belief is that any element of a game should be as simple as
possible unless it is an integral part of gameplay.
Therefore in a turn based game, either a) all atomic actions take
exactly one unit of time, or b) time management is an integral part of
gameplay.
Try to decide which of these applies to your game. Is the player
constantly weighing up the value of different actions in terms of
their time cost? If not, probably time is not important and time
costs should be equal.
Of course, this only applies if you're putting gameplay first. It's a
perfectly valid approach to let gameplay come second to accuracy of
simulation, as interacting with a complex and realistic system has a
joy of its own. In this case, 60 turns for plate mail is good as the
previous guy said.
Paul Donnelly
> On Jul 18, 1:49 am, Numeron <irunsofastineedafinonmyh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Im currently trying to balance the time it takes to equip and unequip
>> gear, and Im wondering how long other roguelikes take to do it... Its
>> not always obvious with the "turns" that are displayed on the screen,
>> especially when I suspect that for most games, the clock that
>> everything is scheduled to runs at least 10 cycles per standard turn
>> (as mine does): that is it takes 10 units of time to walk in a given
>> direction, attack etc... once differing player speeds enter into it
>> its even less obvious...
>>
>> So what do you all think? 3 standard turns for most gear, 5 for body
>> armor, and 1 or less for quickswap? should the player's speed modifier
>> have an impact?
>
> I'm generally opposed to player speeds in the first place. A 10%
> increase in player speed really just means "one in ten moves you get a
> double attack" against normal speed opponents. Turn based comments
> means you either get your turn or you don't.
I don't think there's any reason not to have player speed, as long as
it's something the player can pretty much ignore (for example, the
player gets turns at a constant rate and NPCs are awarded turns at a
rate proportional to it). If a slow NPC only attacks every two or
three player turns, or if on most player turns a fast NPC performs two
actions, it won't disrupt play. And with that implemented, you get
neat stuff like speed potions and fast vehicular travel for free, as
well as faster speed from stat boosts and speed penalties for
exceeding your carry weight or wearing bulky armor.
> POWDER makes everything a single turn. Moving is a turn, equipping a
> turn, etc. Swapping is also a turn, despite consisting of a dequip
> and an equip internally.
I'm all for that. Multi-turn actions are too much complication for no
payoff. And I'd make "quick swaps" free.
Gerry Quinn
015cb1...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, torespon...@hotmail.com
says...
> The interesting question is *why* you make things take longer or
> shorter. The usual logic is that allowing too fast a swap allows
> people to min/max their equipment for each battle. Ie, see a red
> dragon, quickly dig out all the fire resist items, then switch to ice
> resist for the next white dragon. Long equip times don't, I think,
> really eliminate the problem. Instead, it becomes see a red dragon,
> run for a closet, then switch. If I'm able to face the red dragon
> with my default equipment, I'm much more likely to just slug it out
> than pay the UI cost of switching. That's the other half of the
> equation - spending keystrokes has a cost just like spending in-game
> turns. Of course, each player has their own balance of what they want
> to spend. But, I'll point out that making it expensive in turns to
> switch items could easily be for naught if you give me a single key
> press to do the undress/redress maneuver.
It depends on what you intend for the gameplay.
I don't have armour in Lair, but I think it adds a touch of realism to
have a time for wielding weapons. You can have four weapons wielded
(one of each type) and switch between them without penalty. Wielding a
new weapon takes 4 seconds which is enough to move four squares or hit
once with a slightly slow weapon. If I had rings of resistance etc.
they would be the same.
It's more for realism than gameplay to be honest. It does mean you have
to choose between carrying the good wand with 4 shots or the mediocre
wand with 1 shot left. (Actually I was thinking that it is a little
hard on thieves, and I might allow them to switch darts in 2 seconds.)
In the absence of protective gear, closets aren't an issue.
> The best argument against making long equip times to prevent equipment
> optimization is to point out that the real culprit is the zany
> roguelike dragons where you encounter alternating red and white
> dragons in the first place. A more thematic dungeon context can solve
> the problem with stashes and limited inventory. This is the more
> *band solution - using scrolls of recall and a stash at home so you
> can switch to lightning armour "instantly", but at enough of a UI cost
> that you don't do it lightly.
Lair is based on non-return dungeons with a limited inventory, so you
don't select gear for monsters, just make do with the best of whatever
drops. Same as Rogue.
Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped
simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at
least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would
just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
- Gerry Quinn
--
Lair of the Demon Ape (a coffee-break roguelike)
<http://indigo.ie/~gerryq/lair/lair.htm>
Jeff Lait
>
> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped
> simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at
> least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would
> just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
Agreed. A lot of games fall into the two handed bow trap. With POWDER
I allow the bow to be in the off-hand so you can shoot arrows while
wielding a sword. There is still a trade off - you give up 2 handed
weapons and shields - but no equipment swapping nightmare.
Paul Donnelly
Isn't that where the bow always goes? Or do you mean, specifically,
having it in your hand while there's a weapon in the other?
Regardless, I'd like to see someone dual-wielding a sword and bow. I
imagine with some work you could draw the bow with your teeth and
achieve true dual-wielding.
Jeff Lait
wrote:
I mean having bow in left hand and the sword in the right hand. With
this configuration, you can attack with the sword and shoot with the
bow with no change to your equipment. Note that this isn't dual-
wielding - you still can't do both attacks in both turns. Instead, it
is assumed that when you shoot with the bow you'll be putting your
sword away to make the shot and vice versa. Much like one is assumed
to have a free hand to open and drink a potion despite dual wielding
two swords.
The alternative, as far as I see, is to have some quick-swap key and
differential timing to support a fast swap. This is all a lot of
extra code (and rules for the player to remember) and extra keystrokes
when it is better abstracted away. Having the bow in your left hand
on the paper doll isn't supposed to mean literally the bow is in your
left hand every single second. Instead, it means that the left hand
is readied for the bow.
Paul Donnelly
> On Jul 19, 10:54 pm, Paul Donnelly <paul-donne...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Jeff Lait <torespondisfut...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> > On Jul 19, 5:49 am, Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped
>> >> simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at
>> >> least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would
>> >> just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
>>
>> > Agreed. A lot of games fall into the two handed bow trap. With POWDER
>> > I allow the bow to be in the off-hand so you can shoot arrows while
>> > wielding a sword. There is still a trade off - you give up 2 handed
>> > weapons and shields - but no equipment swapping nightmare.
>>
>> Isn't that where the bow always goes? Or do you mean, specifically,
>> having it in your hand while there's a weapon in the other?
>> Regardless, I'd like to see someone dual-wielding a sword and bow. I
>> imagine with some work you could draw the bow with your teeth and
>> achieve true dual-wielding.
>
> I mean having bow in left hand and the sword in the right hand. With
> this configuration, you can attack with the sword and shoot with the
> bow with no change to your equipment. Note that this isn't dual-
> wielding - you still can't do both attacks in both turns.
No love for my "teeth" suggestion, then.
Ray Dillinger
> Rogue went wrong with not allowing bows and swords to be equipped
> simultaneously - there was basically no point in carrying a bow, or at
> least I thought so. Especially given the limited inventory. I would
> just drop my bow and throw arrows while wielding a melee weapon.
I disagree here. I think that wielding a bow or a sword (and when to
switch) are tactical decisions and that it is entirely proper for
these weapons to be mutually exclusive.
I do not think that throwing arrows should get you anything similar to
the damage that arrows do when launched properly from a bow. Maybe a
third of normal range and damage, at best. Otherwise a bow is no advance
over darts.
Bear
Gerry Quinn
donn...@sbcglobal.net says...
You're holding a lantern in your teeth!
- Gerry Quinn
Paul Donnelly
Fair enough, although if I can hold a weapon in each hand, it seems
like I should be able to hold more than one thing with all these teeth
I've got.
Billy Bissette
news:87fxpy9...@plap.localdomain:
You do, at least when you are reading a scroll, drinking a potion,
or eating while holding a lantern and wielding your bow and sword. :)
PhilipH...@gmail.com
Seconded. Swapping out weapons is a tactical descision. Allowing the
player to use two different (2-handed) weapons is an abstraction we
don't need. I guess you could go down that path, but if you do,
there's a better way to do it. Rather then labeling it as a sword in
one hand and a bow in the other, label it as the melee weapon in use
and the range weapon in use. It'll save your players some dental
work.
And throwing arrows is just plain silly.
Paul Donnelly
Billy Bissette
Are there any Roguelikes with horse-riding or similar? If so,
you can probably ride while doing all of the above. :)
Scautura
That's the way I've done it in mine (weapon/firearm, rather than
left/right) - the world is already deadly enough as it is, why make the
player waste a turn switching when they could be dead after that turn?
"modern" firearms can be slung (similar to a bag's strap), so dropping
your firearm and pulling a knife will take moments anyway, and you don't
lose your firearm either. Alternatively, why not just shove the weapon
into the gonk's gut and get some critical damage/bleeding in the
stomach? (Future options for martial arts combat with firearms rather
than melee weapons)
Besides, if you look at "tradition" CRPGs, how many people swap between
ranged and melee weapons? They tend to use one or the other. Diablo
2/TitanQuest/Sacred, all let you do a quick swap, this is just a
different direction for a similar option.
Note: I'm working from recent memory on RPGs I've played, so don't slate
my choice! I haven't played ToEE, NWN1/2, PoR in a long enough time to
remember their systems.
Ray Dillinger
> That's the way I've done it in mine (weapon/firearm, rather than
> left/right) - the world is already deadly enough as it is, why make the
> player waste a turn switching when they could be dead after that turn?
> "modern" firearms can be slung (similar to a bag's strap), so dropping
> your firearm and pulling a knife will take moments anyway, and you don't
> lose your firearm either. Alternatively, why not just shove the weapon
> into the gonk's gut and get some critical damage/bleeding in the
> stomach? (Future options for martial arts combat with firearms rather
> than melee weapons)
I'm making firing a bow take twice as long as swinging a sword.
Plus, you can't do it if you've been attacked in meelee since your
last action, so if your opponent closes and you're still wielding
a bow, that's bad. It's a ranged weapon, not practical for use
up close. Point-blank attacks would work fine with pistols, but
my game doesn't have them. At least not yet.
Swinging a sword takes noticeably longer than walking one square,
too; enough longer that the difference between diagonal and
orthogonal movement time costs won't ever result in a double
attack by an opponent who has speed reasonably similar to yours.
No need to make the interface annoying though; I'm using a one-key
swap (or even zero-key implicit swap if I can make it smart enough)
that takes less than a walking turn of gametime, assuming both
weapons have quick-access carriers (a scabbard for swords; a sling
for bows).
Bear
Scautura
> I'm making firing a bow take twice as long as swinging a sword.
> Plus, you can't do it if you've been attacked in meelee since your
> last action, so if your opponent closes and you're still wielding
> a bow, that's bad. It's a ranged weapon, not practical for use
> up close. Point-blank attacks would work fine with pistols, but
> my game doesn't have them. At least not yet.
>
> Swinging a sword takes noticeably longer than walking one square,
> too; enough longer that the difference between diagonal and
> orthogonal movement time costs won't ever result in a double
> attack by an opponent who has speed reasonably similar to yours.
>
> No need to make the interface annoying though; I'm using a one-key
> swap (or even zero-key implicit swap if I can make it smart enough)
> that takes less than a walking turn of gametime, assuming both
> weapons have quick-access carriers (a scabbard for swords; a sling
> for bows).
>
> Bear
Having done a little archery, followed by a little LARP, I quite agree
that a bow in close combat tends to become a: something to whack someone
with, followed shortly by b: not a bow any more.
You're better off dropping your bow and using your fists (worst case) or
drawing your sword/dagger/mace/other...
Even modern day firearms aren't entirely suited to the "shove it into
the enemy's stomach" idea - a rifle or SMG is just too unwieldy and is
more likely to be used as a blunt weapon (use the butt against someone,
they *hurt* when used right) but a pistol in close combat can become a
lethal extension of your hands, used right.
For mine, everything takes roughly the same time - firing a weapon
(including a burst if the weapon is capable), swinging a baseball bat,
stabbing with a knife, walking, putting things on, taking things off,
etc... Some things can take longer - firing a large caliber weapon
(requires bracing or say goodbye to the bones in your wrist) for
example. All of these are relative, as well. Someone who moves fast
could manage to brace and fire a large caliber weapon in the same time
it takes someone slower to fire a small caliber weapon. It's very
simplistic at the moment, but it's my first roguelike.
Bows still make some of the best silent killers, even in the modern
world, so there will be some in my game - just sometime in the future,
when I implement "sound".