Thoughts on future combat systems.

[Chakravanti]

So I recently discovered a game called Endgame: Singularity. In the game you are constantly fighting two percentiles. One cannot reach %100 and the other is the persistant risk of being discovered at one of your locations and having to destory the place to cover your tracks. So I ran through the game on easy to get a feel for the game and won so I went straight to hard and discovered that I actually didn't know how to determine my probabilities and that doing so was an advanced skill I had to pick up later.

It occured to me that such a thing could solve both UI and formula difficulties for H&H combat. I was really high but I get good ideas when I smoke weed and play a mentally stimulating game for 12+ hours virtually nonstop under a steady supply of coffee. At least I think it's a good idea. It's based around one concept:

The more information that is hidden or obscured from a player will both increase the difficulty and allow less to be present in the 'combat ui'.

In more detail, what i'd like to see is a fairly complex but meaningful system that has a less numerical output. One of the greatest Muds ever and the origin of the Smaug codebase, Realms of Despair, told you what your hitpoints are but never how much damage is dealt in numbers. Rather it described with words (as text based muds do) the event which occurred and use more severe language to describe more critical hits.

Now I'm not suggesting we use words. But as this is a 2d pixel game, injury and health details can't be presented with much detail on the character itself.

What I was thinking is having a skeleton/quasi-transparent combat UI that is a circle around the actual combat with minimal nodes for readouts and buttons.

The idea is to make a sort of game of 'rock paper scissors' but not to have the battle be transparent. One of the unique factors of H&H combat is that you have no idea what you're going up against until someone is half dead.

Typically games have you choose a class and a stance. What you're wearing will usually give away your class but stance is a choice that can be obscured. How or if H&H implements class formally or otherwise isn't the point. It's already informally existant in the game because gamers are geeks and enough of them are good with numbers that min/maxing is pretty much the standard in any competitive gaming.

I thought that stance could be both offensive and defensive. Typically stance is about how aggressive or defensive you are and that cna be true without it being a linear function. Stance advantage and disadvantages should be large enough to make a difference but not so large as to be noticeable. Each stance or style or whatever choice the player is presented with that is obscured from the opponant should have a critical weakness and if there are enough choices, an exceptional counter.

Switching defensive stances/styles should cost you a delay and maybe even take an exchange of blows or two to complete. The longer you stay in any particular stance/style the more obvious it should be to your opponant and there should be guage of how probable it is that your enemy has worked out what you're doing and found the hole in your defense. This should be a 'battle of wits' that pits your psy against your opponants intellect in order to determine the accuracy with which you guage your opponants awareness of yourself. You shouldn't know how successful you were at this.

Rates of increasing probablity could be a fun formula for loftar to devise but essentially every time you attack and every time you defend there is a chance your stance will be revealed and the only way to reduce it is by changing. CHanging attack stances would also increase the probability of revelation.

This system of gyroscopically balancing a ufo (3 liquid mercury anti-grav electromagnet engines) against an unknown in a battle of REAL wits with the other player. Things like critical hits and how each strike is exchanged could easily be worked in but something I think that should be most strongly observed is that the fight progress automatically and without easy interruption. There should be a button for disengaging combat safely and choosing a 'flee' direction a defense penalty and attack of opportunity, as it were (don't curse me for saying it here just because WotC fucked it up) for not disengaging and a the possibility of failing a disengagement.

Stats should matter but a clever and tactical player even half the levels should still be able to outmanuever an enemy with a good share of lucky guesswork and rolls.

If a players stance/style is exposed it would automatically grant the enemy a free attack stance switch and it can be an option to have your player automatically captiolize on exposures. A freebie if it were. Risk should be minimal to begin with but depending how long a fight should last players should find it increasingly difficult to prevent exposures. Critical hits should reset the balance so matches aren't landslides.

Anyway, those some ideas and thoughts I had feel free to do what you will with them.

[Thijssnl]

This is really, really uh,. radical? Nah, in a positive way: This is different.
Good job, im excited about it!

[Potjeh]

I prefer deterministic and transparent combat. I think the current combat system would be just fine with some tweaks (mostly to streamline it), and a good replacement for LP (main problem with combat now is that it's too grind-dependant).

[brohammed]

This system of gyroscopically balancing a ufo (3 liquid mercury anti-grav electromagnet engines) against an unknown in a battle of REAL wits with the other player.

You're right, you are really fucking high.

jk, it's a good, well thought out post and I hope loftorb reads it.

[Chakravanti]

I think the current combat system would be just fine with some tweaks.

Edit - I should point out that the combat system as i is, is not transparent.

You're right, you are really fucking high.

The technology isn't absurd. Spinning liquid metal produces an electromagnetic field just like the core of our planet. Mercury happens to be a metal that is liquid at room temperature.

[rye130]

Very interesting idea and I think a change like this, where combat because more a battle of strategy and intelligence, rather then a battle of stats would be a very positive thing.

One thing I'd like to say is that stats should only slightly affect your ability to determine the enemies stance and the enemies chance of detecting yours. That way while a less stated character will only be at a small disadvantage. Where stats should largely come into play would be in damaging the opponent.

[Chakravanti]

Well quite frankly I'd rather see stats play a crucial role in every aspect of combat. How much advantage is provided is just number play.

There should be good odds, I'd say 1.8, or even 1/16th chance of winning if your stats are half that of your opponant's and all else is equal.

This way the numbers you worked hard for mean something but combat is still a risk if the cookie crumbles badly for you and it provides excitement and thrill at every encounter.

This isn;'t really an attempt to push for obfuscation of processes and algorithms. If you've been with us long enough you'll know I've griped more than once about the lack of transparency in the game function. What I'd like to see is a more simple system of interacting with combat where it's directly your choice against the opponants and you don't know how well you've done until you're recovering from the blow or ready to capitolize on a successful strike.

THere should be a rhythm and tempo to combat and facing multiple opponants should reduce the defense you can apply to them. In this fashion half a dozen mid levels could quickly take down a well developed tank

[Potjeh]

I prefer combat that doesn't rely on luck.

[rye130]

I dislike luck also (one of my favorite parts about the current system is how its consistent. If I hit I bear for 200 damage with a sting one time and none of my stats change, I'll hit it for 200 next time too. No dice rolls or anything like that), but a system like this one would be cool to atleast test out.

The reason I say make stats only play a minor rule in the detection of stance is because I think splitting the combat into too parts would prove interesting. Brute strength of the stats deciding your damage vs. a persons ability to think, use strategy, and respond to situations effectively.

The player with higher stats should definitely have an advantage in combat, but a smart player should be able to beat a high stated character who fights like an idiot any day.

[Jackard]

The more information that is hidden or obscured from a player will both increase the difficulty and allow less to be present in the 'combat ui'.

Is this really a worthwhile goal when designing game mechanics for an open alpha?