I think the balance that has to be found is between turning the game into a total twitch reflexes button fest that most fighters are and the non-emersive combat systems of just hitting the A key and letting the computer take over attacking. I didn''t mean an exact copy of soul caliber 2 or what ever fighter is your favorite. The important parts of those systems is the struggle for the control of distance between you and your opponent and the timing to innitiate a particular attack. I never want to see it digress into the complex button mashing that Soul Caliber and others are.
The part I want to see added is the tactical use of distance and the timing of attacks that are the backbone of most fighters. You dont have to have a complicated or difficult to produce attack system to produce that. Of course the more timing you add to a game the more server lag becomes a huge issue. But I think that is the next frontier in creating an immersive online RPG

Movement is only part of it. In Fallout, you could run anywhere you want to, if you have the action points. What I wanted, though, was to grab some cover around a corner and crouch down and shoot guys while exposing about 7% of my body for them to shoot back. That''s way better than just havng enough HP and armor to stand in front of a freaking chaingun.

Get some environment interaction in there, and I''ll be delighted.

krez, the "look for an opening and kill the guy" might be better implemented as a "mindset" command. Set it up as "always seek to kill the other guy to the best of your ability" or "bring him in alive" or "minimize contact" at some point in the battle, maybe make it an option with every "action turn". That way, counter attacks and stylistic decisions would be worked in. How many times have you been trying to get that enemy down low enough that you could capture or recruit it, only to have your knight score a critical hit and wipe it out? Tell your guys to shoot to maim, and that problem goes away.

Seems to me that there are two schools of though in the thread, and they''re basic disagreements are overcomplicating the discussion.

On one hand, we''ve got those who want to have maximum, action-style control over the characters. Issues like preserving role-play and the influence of character attributes vs. player skill are relevant to them.

On the other hand, we have those who, like me, want to preserve the RPG "hero attacks orc" format, but evolve it beyond twenty-sided dice and armor classes. For us, issues like proper representation of character actions and skills are the key issues.

These two discussions are bumping into one another and getting their wires crossed, so nobody is really making progress here. What to do...

I don''t think there would ever be a *best* RPG combat system. Its too much a matter of personal taste. If you want true control over EVERY action play a P&P RPG.

If you want something nice to look at your going to have to give over some control to a computer.



The problem was stated very well in the original post.

There is the action side: You make every move.. the player lives and dies by your skill to mash buttons.

And

There is the choose an action side: You decide what type of move to make and its all done using #''s and given a (over simplified)graphical representation.


Personally I like the type of system defined by Iron Chef Carnage. Although it would be hard to define the whens/wheres you get to set actions up at.

I would think that if you implimented his system with TechnoGoth''s timeing system(you choose how fast the action happens) you could have a good system.

***************************
Also, for me RPG games should hopefully start to add in more quality AI for non-combat interactions. For me I would much rather have quality realistic reactions from NPC''s than see a game(RPG) with a great combat system and go back to Dragon Warrior level NPC interaction

I really enjoy Morrowind, even though the combat system has a simplistic look it *is* a good example of a blended combat system. The damage is figured mostly using stats but its up to you to determine what weapon, when and how to swing it.

But after about 5 hours of playing it I really turned to the NPC and quest aspect of the game, not fighting(which I still enjoy).

******


I guess I really didn''t add any thing to help out, but really just wanted to point some stuff out. I''ll try to work up a technical/gameplay overview of my optimal RPG combat system and post it up in afew days.

How about something like this...

Allow a player to ''design'' a personality for the character... Do this at character creation and allow minor tweeks to it when they ''level''.

Do things like...

1) How defensive is the character? (Have a slider bar that goes from 0-100) The more defensive the character, the harder it is to hit, but the less damage they do...
2) What is the Characters stance on killing? (Always, When Necessary, Not if it can be helped and never) And allow this to determine if the opponent is actually killed (Always = always, When Nec = when health below 3/4s, etc).
3) Favorite Maneuver 1-3 (for primary weapon). Increases the odds that this maneuver will actually happen in the combat queue.
4) Favorite Maneuver 1-3 (for secondary weapon) See #3
5) Personality Traits (Flamboyant, Calm, Confident, etc) and allow that to modify the maneuvers and defensive rating (a Flamboyant character is more likely to leave openings for attack than a calm character). It probably should be allowed to pick a couple of these, but certain ones would rule out others (like passionate and cold ).

Leave certain things up to the players, like tactics, down time, quest selection, and even most of combat... Just force it to be modified by their ''personality'' when they do.

Allow them to develop a history during character creation that allows them to pick a birth place, parents, current status, etc from a list of available options.

I am sure that others can come up with more, but in general allow the player to ''define'' the character more than just an avatar and stats... Give them (and others) a reason to like and/or hate their characters. But certainly do not turn it into an action game pretending to be a RPG

quote: Original post by benfinkel
Hello all,

As a big fan of RPG games, I was wondering why their combat interfaces are usually so boring.

The subject is usually brought to mind when watching my characters defeat some orcs in Dungeon Siege, or (god forbid) the repetative snake-bashing of Everquest. To me, a game is supposed to be an interactive fun experience. Here are my thoughts on the matter:

There seem to be two schools of thought when it comes to combat.

On one side you''ve got the people who want it to be a completely dice-roll kind of system. You spend hours developing your character pefectly, getting all of the right magic equipment and spells, so that he is a master with that sword. It doesn''t matter that you, as the player, have no idea how to use a sword. There''s the appeal; a handicapped person can become a master swordsman without having to be highly coordinated or reflexive. You''ve built a character that handles all of that for you. The down-side seems to be that combat is a boring thing. You may make a few choices about when to pause and drink a health-potion, but generally the game handles all of the interesting stuff.

On the flip side, you''ve got a totally action-oriented system where it''s ENTIRELY up to the player to be quick, reflexive, and coordinated. Think Soul Caliber, where the player must know what attack combinations to use at which point, and must be able to execute them in a timely and correct fashion. The down-side to this is that there is no RPG element. If you''ve got a few magical enchantments that increase your skill with the sword, and your character is level 75 and spent all of his skill points in swords, you as the player are still not any better at it.


So, why hasn''t anyone tried to devise a system that marries the two?

Thoughts for the day. Apparently this is what too much Turkey does to you.

-Ben

The game that I''m working on, and RPG named Dyne, will use your two ideas together. You will get to combine weapons, train until you master a weapon, Dyne, magic, ect. Then, you will have to use your reflexes and skills with the keyboard to do the attack. So if you entirely press [Space], your character will still have a chance of hitting, but the hit will be a lot less.


Quick Clickys: [ WiseElben.com | My Journal | nMagic | My Profile ]
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he will eat for a life time."
-Chinese Proverb

It was mentioned having different defensive options of Dodge, Block, and Parry.

Dodge is fairly obvious... but in a game, what would be the differences in effect between performing a block and a parry? They''re both thwarting the enemy attack ... how would you make them unique, and best applied to special circumstances?

I ask because I''m trying to develop a combat system, and up until now I''d only ever considered using one of the two.

I''m pretty sure krez is right. A block is simply getting hit without taking damage, i.e. stopping his sword with your sword, or your shield, or even taking the hit on a strong part of your armor. A parry implies that you are somehow overcoming his attack such that you gain control of the situation, which is why parry is usually paired with riposte. You never hear anyone say, "block-riposte". But that might just be a linguistic nuance.

In "Kengo", the "parry" was more like a throw. Your character stepped into the attack and used his support hand to grab the enemy''s sword arm and swing him around. It didn''t even resemble a "block".

Washime, that''s an interesting idea. Would the character autonomously conduct dialogue or NPC interactions?