TWiki Home Tharsis . Combat . CombatSuggestions (r1.1 vs. r1.30) Tharsis webs:
Design | Guilds | Combat | Website
Combat . { Home | Changes | Index | Search | Go }
 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.30 - 18 Oct 2004 - FreD)
Added:
>
>


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.29 - 26 Nov 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

  • Some RPGs have a armour-handling skill that removes the penalties for wearing heavy armour, the better the skill, the heavier armour you can wear without penalty

 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.28 - 26 Nov 2003 - FreD)
Added:
>
>

        • I don't think just light/medium/heavy types isn't enought then. An armour can be made of very different materials wich give them all sorts of pro's and con's. Maybe if these skills were checking the actual wight of the armour, not just the skill like the swords do(give the player a more acurate value than "it looks heavy" by 'weigh ' command?). Then again what about a very heavy sword? or club? -- FreD 27 Nov 2003 17:47

 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.27 - 25 Nov 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

  • I don't think there should be separate skills for the different armour types - but I agree that being overweight should decrease your dex which would then decrease your bonuses in many of the combat skills. -- FantoM
    • I still like the seperate armour types. Wearing full plate requires different training than a light leather jerkin or a simple robe. -- DonaldKincannon
      • I suppose it adds yet another aspect into combat, which is not necessarily a bad thing. -- FantoM
Added:
>
>



Deleted:
<
<

I don't think there should be separate skills for the different armour types - but I agree that being overweight should decrease your dex which would then decrease your bonuses in many of the combat skills.

Deleted:
<
<

I still like the seperate armour types. Wearing full plate requires different training than a light leather jerkin or a simple robe.

-- DonaldKincannon - 25 Nov 2003

I suppose it adds yet another aspect into combat, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

-- FantoM - 25 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.26 - 25 Nov 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>

I suppose it adds yet another aspect into combat, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

-- FantoM - 25 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.25 - 25 Nov 2003 - DonaldKincannon)
Added:
>
>

I still like the seperate armour types. Wearing full plate requires different training than a light leather jerkin or a simple robe.

-- DonaldKincannon - 25 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.24 - 24 Nov 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>



Changed:
<
<

>
>

Added:
>
>

I don't think there should be separate skills for the different armour types - but I agree that being overweight should decrease your dex which would then decrease your bonuses in many of the combat skills.

I'd also suggest that instead of introducing co.de.block.weapon we go with parry.

  • co.de.dodge ( as current )
  • co.de.block ( non-weapon block - quite damaging to the thing doing the blocking unless it's designed for it. Should be able to block with almost anything held in the hands )
  • co.de.parry ( block with a wielded weapon. Harder to completely block, perhaps easier to perform a partial block, less damaging to the weapon, potentially able to perform some type of riposte, possibility of being disarmed?)

I don't mind the idea of specialisation in different categories of weapon however I would prefer

Co.me.edged.shortblade (daggers/knives)
co.me.edged.longblade (swords/longswords, both one and two handed types)
co.me.edged.axe (axes/hatchets)
co.me.blunt.hammer (maces/hammers)
co.me.blunt.staff (staves)
co.me.pointed.spear (daggers/spears/lances/halbreds)

Note: Some weapons are still capable of performing multiple types of attack - thus possibly falling into more than one category depending on how they are being used.

Note: I think putting the major categories edged/pointed/blunt makes sense as all those types of weapon share a fair bit in common and it should be possible to train them all together if you choose - and then once you know enough start to specialise. It doesn't seem right that having spend 500 levels on on longbladed swords that I can know 0 about shortbladed ones.

Two handed I would put under co.special.twohanded

-- FantoM - 25 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.23 - 24 Nov 2003 - DonaldKincannon)
Added:
>
>

Another issue I have with combat...the skills used for combat and the generalization of weapon categories. A spear is much different than a dagger, but both are labeled as "pointed". Also, defense...We should have two skills of block. Block with weapon and block with shield. blocking with a shield should be easier than with a weapon. Also blocking with a weapon should be dependent of whether you are wielding two weapons, or one. Inorder to do that we need a system that supports armour slots. Which brings me to another point, (laf, I apologize for the poor format of this post) Armour weights/types. Wearing leather armour is much different than wearing plate. So I propose we add yet another skill grouping that would incorporate armour effectiveness based on type. combat.armour.unarmoured, light, medium, and heavy. Heavy would offer the most protection but weight the most and effect your physical stamina in return. I think it's easy to see what I mean. So I propose these changes in skills.. -Skills to add- Co.me.shortblade (daggers/knives) co.me.longblade (swords/longswords, both one and two handed types) co.me.axe (axes/hatchets) co.me.hammer (maces/hammers) co.me.blunt (staves/wands) co.me.spear (spears/lances/halbreds) co.me.twohanded

co.de.armour.heavy co.de.armour.unarmoured co.de.armour.light co.de.armour.medium

co.de.block.weapon co.de.block.shield

again how would we arrange the current gcoms to fix this change? Ranma

-- DonaldKincannon - 25 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.22 - 20 Nov 2003 - FreD)
Changed:
<
<

Since every race and person is different these skills should differ from class to class. The default limit break would be "Wild Swing" since it would apply to all classes and races. Also limitbreaks could mean party healing, chance of escaping from battle and so on.

>
>

Limit breaks could be commands. But could only be used when you go

  • frenzy, if
    • major hp loss in one hit vs random
    • Taking alot of damage vs random. Could even go beyond hp stat. Much healing from comrades or self will result in more possible damage dealt in total.
    • skill in combat. Experienced players stay calm in combat better (see below).
  • Berserk(limit breaks accur much more often) if
    • Affected by magic or potion.
  • Rage(command, preferably druid)

The default limit break would be "Wild Swing" since it would apply to all classes and races. Also limitbreaks could mean party healing, chance of escaping from battle and so on.

Changed:
<
<

  • 3. Rows (delete this)

This is a plain definition idea. You talk about 'tanks'. Why not have a front row, back row and flank row. A party leader decides the party formation. Back row players takes much less psychical damage but inflicts much less damage in return (none even since they cannot reach the target in meele). Ideal for mages or ranged combat. Front row players engage in meele combat with normal damages,perfect for fighters and tanks. A player can change row with a simple command. It takes a 'round' to run forward or backwards through the rows so this cannot be done without penalty. A player could also chose to go into flank row (or even rear) and get even more battle perks. Only players can choose to flank someone, just before or in combat. This to enshure not all combatants starts the battle flanking each other.

examples:

     legend:
   B: Back row
   F: Front row
   f: flank row
   party one: o
   party two: x
   attack: capitilized chars

"battle arena"
fffffffffff
b  F   F  b
b  F   F  b
b  F   F  b
fffffffffff

battle example 1:
one enemy orc 'o'
one player 'x' both with swords
-----------
{  {   }  }
{  o   x  }
{  {   }  }
-----------
this is a normal battle where normal rules apply, however if x is severely hurt and wish to heal himself he could do the row command and move to the back row where is more safe from the enemy:
-----------    ---------O-
{  {   }  }    {  {   }  }
{  o   }  x    {  {   }  x
{  {   }  }    {  {   }  }
-----------    -----------
now o could perform the "flank" command and move up to flank x but that takes a round or so, enough time for x to heal himself a little.
battle example 2, flanking:
one enemy orc 'o' with sword
3 party members 'xxx' with swords

-----------    X1X3-------
{  {   x1 }    {  {   }  }
o  {   }  x2   o  {   }  x2
{  {   x3 }    {  {   }  }
-----------    -----------
now you see above that this is doing no one any good since nobody can hit each other. If x1 and x2 choose to flank they will move up and be able to hit x as if they all were standing in front row. if x was a magician or an archer he could still hit everyone else without penalty.
example 3, insane ranks:
players versus players
(these flanks are not just as borders but also between rows)
1               2
-----------     -XX--------
O  {   X  }     O  {   }  }
O  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
{  O   X  }     {  O   X  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   }  }
{  O   X  }     {  O   x  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
-----------     -----------
notice how team o has a very defencive tactic compared to team x who is rushing forwards and pushing the flanks. o is better protected and will probably win if the teams are equal.

Appendix I

Flank works like an alternative front row, which it is really. the enemy could choose to face the flank rank ignoring the normal ranks or keep getting attacked by the flanks, concentrating on someone in the normal ranks. This way fighting in partys would be far superior than fighting alone (altough desperadostyle would be more cool).

Also, enemies would prefer hitting players in front row, since they would inflict more damage that way. with this system you could be able to code quite complex AI systems for bosses and tougher enemies.

Always staying in flank row would be stupid since you must go two steps to enter back row, so it is very risky. Players in flank row cannot tank or shield other players as well

Obvious problems(thumbsdowns)

  1. Flanks are too good at the moment. If you're fighting seers or magigians you could just rush into the flank row and beat the hell our of them(which you should, but still it feels a little bit unfair.. or I dunno what do you think?!).
  2. Its a lot of If's. You kind of leave the control over the battle to the players(which could be good but--).
  3. Hard to get a battle overview.
  4. complex code. will a system like this slow down the mud?

Good stuff(thumbsups)

  1. Complex code which allows you to have much better ai
  2. Its very fun
  3. You leave the control to the players. A fight could be as hard/complex as you like, or easy. A party lead by an experienced leader will be really deadly.
  4. More space and better feel
  5. Leaves room for alot of other cool stuff that could be intergrated into the combat system.
  6. Real party combat

To sum some of it up this is an alternate idea to the BattlefieldDesign? on formations among other things that wasn't really happy with. This will simplify the battlesystem quite a bit taking in consideration what is fun and what isn't. This system is also made for smaller groups, aprox. ranging from 0-20. (0 to fight a bush, chair or whatelse).

Appendix II - battleview

>
>

Appendix I - battleview

Added:
>
>

-- FreD - 21 Nov 2003 19:15

Changed:
<
<

Appendix III - for the lazy, a summary

  • back row = unengaged enteties
  • Flanks engage unengaged enteties as if both would have been standing in front row.

ok I've just realised I've written pretty much the same thing as in the combatdesigndoc. That must mean the idea wasn't all that bad. I will revide the idea soon when I get a yes to add comments to the designdoc.

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 22:00

>
>



 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.21 - 06 Nov 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

  • You will not be able to just leave the room while in combat, you first have to withdraw, and that might or might not be succesful and can incur penalties. -- PumaN - 07 Nov 2003
  • If someone manages to withdraw, we go into FollowHuntTrack mode. -- PumaN - 07 Nov 2003

 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.20 - 06 Nov 2003 - DonaldKincannon)
Added:
>
>

We need a command where we can pick the direction we flee. (wimpy north,etc perhaps) If we have "party leaders" or commanders, they could set the flee of all party members "flee north"..."order flee"

If we are going to have party strategy for mobs as well, we need to determine different lvls of "intelligence for them" A mob of Kobolds would fight recklessly/stupidly whereas a legion of Dragons would have very decissive attacks. -- DonaldKincannon - 07 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.19 - 06 Nov 2003 - FreD)
Added:
>
>


What happens if a party fighting an enemy party leaves the "room"? In order to leave combat they have to flee/withdraw but will the enemy persue them? And the other way around. Will you be able to persue a fleeing enemy. I'd say yes, but there must be some sort of system for this (the current rules just pick a random exit).

-- FreD - 07 Nov 2003 17:36


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.18 - 05 Nov 2003 - FreD)
Changed:
<
<

*3. Rows

>
>

  • 3. Rows (delete this)
Changed:
<
<

Thats it for now, my fingers ache.

>
>

Appendix II - battleview

  • look
    • gets an overview of the battlescene
    • lists all combatants, telling who fight who and unengaged units (colourful)

(add more)

Appendix III - for the lazy, a summary

  • back row = unengaged enteties
  • Flanks engage unengaged enteties as if both would have been standing in front row.

ok I've just realised I've written pretty much the same thing as in the combatdesigndoc. That must mean the idea wasn't all that bad. I will revide the idea soon when I get a yes to add comments to the designdoc.


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.17 - 05 Nov 2003 - DonaldKincannon)
Added:
>
>

We should also think about rows in regard to, terrain protection (like if I'm behind a rock, or other object in a room) And spells that do damage to wider areas (firestorm spell might hit a 3x3 or larger area. Mages could use magical shield to protect their flanks or deal damage to those on their flanks.

-- DonaldKincannon - 05 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.16 - 04 Nov 2003 - FreD)
Changed:
<
<

-1. Interactive combat.

>
>

*1. Interactive combat.

Changed:
<
<

-2. Limit breaks.

>
>

*2. Limit breaks.

Changed:
<
<

Thats it for now. I have yet to learn to write more brief and informative. (edited again since it was very tough to read)

>
>

*3. Rows

Changed:
<
<

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 01:35 (edited 14:30)

>
>

This is a plain definition idea. You talk about 'tanks'. Why not have a front row, back row and flank row. A party leader decides the party formation. Back row players takes much less psychical damage but inflicts much less damage in return (none even since they cannot reach the target in meele). Ideal for mages or ranged combat. Front row players engage in meele combat with normal damages,perfect for fighters and tanks. A player can change row with a simple command. It takes a 'round' to run forward or backwards through the rows so this cannot be done without penalty. A player could also chose to go into flank row (or even rear) and get even more battle perks. Only players can choose to flank someone, just before or in combat. This to enshure not all combatants starts the battle flanking each other.

examples:

     legend:
   B: Back row
   F: Front row
   f: flank row
   party one: o
   party two: x
   attack: capitilized chars

"battle arena"
fffffffffff
b  F   F  b
b  F   F  b
b  F   F  b
fffffffffff

battle example 1:
one enemy orc 'o'
one player 'x' both with swords
-----------
{  {   }  }
{  o   x  }
{  {   }  }
-----------
this is a normal battle where normal rules apply, however if x is severely hurt and wish to heal himself he could do the row command and move to the back row where is more safe from the enemy:
-----------    ---------O-
{  {   }  }    {  {   }  }
{  o   }  x    {  {   }  x
{  {   }  }    {  {   }  }
-----------    -----------
now o could perform the "flank" command and move up to flank x but that takes a round or so, enough time for x to heal himself a little.
battle example 2, flanking:
one enemy orc 'o' with sword
3 party members 'xxx' with swords

-----------    X1X3-------
{  {   x1 }    {  {   }  }
o  {   }  x2   o  {   }  x2
{  {   x3 }    {  {   }  }
-----------    -----------
now you see above that this is doing no one any good since nobody can hit each other. If x1 and x2 choose to flank they will move up and be able to hit x as if they all were standing in front row. if x was a magician or an archer he could still hit everyone else without penalty.
example 3, insane ranks:
players versus players
(these flanks are not just as borders but also between rows)
1               2
-----------     -XX--------
O  {   X  }     O  {   }  }
O  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
{  O   X  }     {  O   X  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   }  }
{  O   X  }     {  O   x  }
o  {   x  }     O  {   X  }
-----------     -----------
notice how team o has a very defencive tactic compared to team x who is rushing forwards and pushing the flanks. o is better protected and will probably win if the teams are equal.

Appendix I

Flank works like an alternative front row, which it is really. the enemy could choose to face the flank rank ignoring the normal ranks or keep getting attacked by the flanks, concentrating on someone in the normal ranks. This way fighting in partys would be far superior than fighting alone (altough desperadostyle would be more cool).

Also, enemies would prefer hitting players in front row, since they would inflict more damage that way. with this system you could be able to code quite complex AI systems for bosses and tougher enemies.

Always staying in flank row would be stupid since you must go two steps to enter back row, so it is very risky. Players in flank row cannot tank or shield other players as well

Obvious problems(thumbsdowns)

  1. Flanks are too good at the moment. If you're fighting seers or magigians you could just rush into the flank row and beat the hell our of them(which you should, but still it feels a little bit unfair.. or I dunno what do you think?!).
  2. Its a lot of If's. You kind of leave the control over the battle to the players(which could be good but--).
  3. Hard to get a battle overview.
  4. complex code. will a system like this slow down the mud?

Good stuff(thumbsups)

  1. Complex code which allows you to have much better ai
  2. Its very fun
  3. You leave the control to the players. A fight could be as hard/complex as you like, or easy. A party lead by an experienced leader will be really deadly.
  4. More space and better feel
  5. Leaves room for alot of other cool stuff that could be intergrated into the combat system.
  6. Real party combat

To sum some of it up this is an alternate idea to the BattlefieldDesign? on formations among other things that wasn't really happy with. This will simplify the battlesystem quite a bit taking in consideration what is fun and what isn't. This system is also made for smaller groups, aprox. ranging from 0-20. (0 to fight a bush, chair or whatelse).

Thats it for now, my fingers ache.

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 22:00


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.15 - 04 Nov 2003 - FredHayden)
Changed:
<
<

  1. Party combat is a big must
>
>

  1. Party combat is a big must
Changed:
<
<

  1. Combat should be much more intense
>
>

  1. Combat should be much more intense
Changed:
<
<

  1. Interactive combat.
>
>

-1. Interactive combat.

Changed:
<
<

Not as in intensive, I was thinking of how the player recieves blows and punches in combat. In order to make it more realistic(haven't yet given any thought to the funfactor) a punch to the head could actually knock out a player or make him dizzy (drastricly lower perception) for a short while, say a round or two, sprincle blood over himself and even faint. Again think of it as a boxing match where both combatants circle around each other and once in a while deals a heavy blow to the other. a succesful blow to the stomach would at least halt a combatant, who have to caugh his breath(which is ofcourse neatly scripted into the 'blow' system).

>
>

Not as in intensive, I was thinking of how the player recieves blows and punches in combat. In order to make it more realistic(haven't yet given any thought to the funfactor) a punch to the head could actually knock a player out or make him dizzy(drastricly lower perception) for a short while, say a round or two, sprincle blood over himself and even faint. Again think of it as a boxing match where both combatants circle around each other and once in a while deals a heavy blow to the other. a succesful blow to the stomach would at least halt a combatant, who have to caugh his breath(which is ofcourse neatly scripted into the 'blow' system).

Changed:
<
<

This adds for a number of things that has to come into consideration; fair play for an example and as mentioned above, the funfactor, since TG is very combat intense it wouldn't be very fun to always faint in combat if you're a weak magician.

>
>

This adds for a number of things that has to come into consideration; fair play for an example and as mentioned above, the funfactor, since TG is very combat intense it wouldn't be very fun to always faint in combat if you're a weak magician.

Added:
>
>

--

Changed:
<
<

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 01:35

>
>

I have now given some thoughts about if 1. is fair overnight. Strong players could knock anyone out cold which would lead to some serious injury to the funfactor. I came to think of something that Square developed a long time ago (if someone is master of partycombat its them).

-2. Limit breaks.

Naturally if you recieve lots of damage and/or blows (read 1.) you get very angry/frenzy/berserk and be able to perform a much stronger attack that could get you _back in the fight_(or out if it, read on). A Limitbreak must be "set" in order to use it and the available breaks are thought be someone in the game. Again strong and experienced players will get stronger and better limitbreaks which will beat the hell out of new players, but its a question of balancing later.

Since every race and person is different these skills should differ from class to class. The default limit break would be "Wild Swing" since it would apply to all classes and races. Also limitbreaks could mean party healing, chance of escaping from battle and so on. Now to the design of it. 2 modes; auto or use.

Auto: Perform the limit break without a command when it is available, however more experienced players would not go in frenzy so easily and this command will be a great drawback for them.

Use: A command triggers your limitbreak. works for all. This option would allow people to bot ofcourse but here as well as on auto more experienced players should get limitbreaks more seldom. --

Thats it for now. I have yet to learn to write more brief and informative. (edited again since it was very tough to read)

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 01:35 (edited 14:30)



 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.14 - 04 Nov 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>

Fun factor is very important as you say - considering our combat-heavy game. And really combat at the moment it's really that exciting.

-- FantoM - 04 Nov 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.13 - 04 Nov 2003 - FredHayden)
Added:
>
>


While reading through all your (very good) ideas something seem to be missing so I'll add my $0.02 before I forget it.

  1. Interactive combat.

Not as in intensive, I was thinking of how the player recieves blows and punches in combat. In order to make it more realistic(haven't yet given any thought to the funfactor) a punch to the head could actually knock out a player or make him dizzy (drastricly lower perception) for a short while, say a round or two, sprincle blood over himself and even faint. Again think of it as a boxing match where both combatants circle around each other and once in a while deals a heavy blow to the other. a succesful blow to the stomach would at least halt a combatant, who have to caugh his breath(which is ofcourse neatly scripted into the 'blow' system).

This adds for a number of things that has to come into consideration; fair play for an example and as mentioned above, the funfactor, since TG is very combat intense it wouldn't be very fun to always faint in combat if you're a weak magician.

Players should also within the combat be able to control at least where some of their blows would be aimed.

-- FredHayden - 04 Nov 2003 01:35


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.12 - 02 Apr 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>


i think that the combat system should be broken down into more different types of skills besides melee/blunt/pointed... there should be a sword/axe/dagger/flail/mace/staff/whip/polearm/exotic catagory therefore, allowing a player to train in a specific type of weaponry...and the exotic weapons will be anything that does not classify as any of the other catagories.

-- DougJenkins - 02 Apr 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.11 - 06 Feb 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

CombatFromOtherMud, a system much like the one Im designing


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.10 - 29 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>


Subtopics:


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.9 - 29 Jan 2003 - PyrO)
Added:
>
>


My general views on combat are:

  1. All forms of damaged should be integreated, eg the learnt commands that are used in combat, should be part of the combat, not just an outside entity

This is a major thing I think, as it presents a lot of problems for combat right now. Why would someone concentrating their energy on casting a lightning, be swinging their swords and blocking attacks? When a player casts a spell, it should take multiple rounds for it to hit, not run on its own time concept. Eg a lightning would take 4-5 rounds of attack for it to be finished casting, where as stab would take 1.

  1. Party combat is a big must

As things are right now, everyone is more or less solo. They fight in groups so people can take turns leading, while the others bot and do something else. There no real need to fight in a group anymore. That is why I like the idea of tanks. Here is an excerpt from a 2 year old idea of mine relating to the concepts of party fighting to our current guilds:

A druid, storm, thief and warrior in a party prepare to fight a mob. The warrior initiates combat and becomes the 'tank' and recieves all the damage. The druid periodically heals the warrior, as well as casting the occasional damage spell/potion upon the mob or enhancing the abilities of the fighters. The thief follows the warrior with a back stab, then occaisonly stabs and ultilizes poisons. A storm stands in the back and takes a long time to cast elemental spells dealing immense damage.

This concept is pretty much what was discussed before, you have tanks, mages and healers. All an essential part of the key party.

  1. Combat should be much more intense

Right now combat just involves typing kill mob and then waiting for it to die, throwing in the occasional gcommand. As metioned before, things should be slowed down a lot more and allowed for more complex actions and planning. It shouldn't take a 100 rounds of combat to kill ANY mob. What I mean by round is, in case its unclear, is that a round is when damage is dealt to the mob, and damage is recieved from the mob.

Those are just reiderations of the overall ideas with my views on them. I love the AD&D combat system and if concepts from there can also be applied, all the better.

-- PyrO - 30 Jan 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.8 - 12 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

From AD&D ADnDCombatRuleBook 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003

>
>

From AD&D rulebook 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003

Added:
>
>

Summary from important parts of the ADnDCombatRuleBook

CombatDesignPonders on a system designed from the ADnDCombatRuleBook


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.7 - 11 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

From AD&D RuleBook? 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003

>
>

From AD&D ADnDCombatRuleBook 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.6 - 10 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

From AD&D rulebook 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003

>
>

From AD&D RuleBook? 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.5 - 10 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>


From AD&D rulebook 'Player's option: Combat & Tactics', TSR 2149 -- PumaN - 11 Jan 2003

In most forms of personal combat, there is a lot more going on than a cycle of swingand-miss and swing-and-hit actions. In a fight, people move around. They press advantages or fall back when they need to get some room. Consider a pair of boxers. They're not just throwing punches; they're ducking, dodging, weaving, and trying different attack strategies such as jabs, hooks, or uppercuts.

Armed combat is much the same. Position is important. Enemies try to surround lone characters to get flank or rear attacks. Large creatures such as giants or dragons use their bulk to knock smaller opponents back and scatter defenses. These are not unusual attacks or special maneuvers; they're things that just happen in the chaos of a fight.


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.4 - 09 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Changed:
<
<

Combat should be performed in parties battling, not one on one fights. Should allow for such things as stronger members (warriors, knights) protecting the weaker (mages, archers) from physical attacks. Both players and npcs should fight in parties. Parties should be able to diverge in such tactics as formation, flanking, charging, etc...

(Guild)commands should be a part of the combat, not something that lies on top of it.

Combat rounds could be slower, so that you have time to decide what to do next. Combat should should last for fewer rounds, making combat more intense.

My idea is that healing, once you have the chance to avoid combat and think about such matters, should be fairly quick and uneventful, the challenge should instead lie in getting out of the combat alive.

>
>

  1. Combat should be performed in parties battling, not one on one fights. Should allow for such things as stronger members (warriors, knights) protecting the weaker (mages, archers) from physical attacks. Both players and npcs should fight in parties. Parties should be able to diverge in such tactics as formation, flanking, charging, etc...
  2. (Guild)commands should be a part of the combat, not something that lies on top of it.
  3. Combat rounds could be slower, so that you have time to decide what to do next. Combat should should last for fewer rounds, making combat more intense.
  4. My idea is that healing, once you have the chance to avoid combat and think about such matters, should be fairly quick and uneventful, the challenge should instead lie in getting out of the combat alive.
Changed:
<
<

  1. If I run from a fight then they oponents should get clear shots at my back
>
>

  1. If I run from a fight then the opponents should get clear shots at my back (divide "run" into 'wild flight' and 'ordered retreat' -- Puma)

 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.3 - 08 Jan 2003 - FantoM)
Added:
>
>


Fixing some of the crappy things that exist in the current system

  1. When I start attacking someone else they should start fighting back straight away, not after I first hit them.
  2. partying and combos would rock
  3. Initiative should be available - if I enter a room where someone is who wants to kill me they should have substantial bonuses to their initiative
  4. If I run from a fight then they oponents should get clear shots at my back
  5. Fast vs slow weapons and multiple attacks

-- FantoM - 09 Jan 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.2 - 08 Jan 2003 - FantoM)
Changed:
<
<

Combat at the moment, is not the least bit intuitive. It is mostly a matter of sitting watching a series of hits and misses, everything rounded of with guildcommands that is a system totally outside the combat system...

>
>

Combat at the moment, is not the least bit intuitive. It is mostly a matter of sitting watching a series of hits and misses, everything rounded of with guild commands that is a system totally outside the combat system.

Changed:
<
<

My want is to make combat fun, challenging and dangerous, requiring your interaction at all times. To come up with something like this, we will need a fair bit of brainstorming, join in... -- PumaN? - 08 Jan 2003

>
>

Getting a new system that is worth having will need a fair bit of brainstorming, join in, add your comments at the appropriate locations in the text below, or start subtopics if need be.

A detailed description of how combat currently works can be found in the ExistingCombatSystem topic and the DesignDocument contains ideas which have been accepted into the final product.


My want is to make combat fun, challenging and dangerous, requiring your interaction at all times.

-- PumaN - 08 Jan 2003

Changed:
<
<

My idea is that healing, once you have the chance to avoid combat and think about such matters, should be fairly quick and uneventful, the challenge should instead lie in getting out of the combat alive. -- PumaN? - 08 Jan 2003

>
>

My idea is that healing, once you have the chance to avoid combat and think about such matters, should be fairly quick and uneventful, the challenge should instead lie in getting out of the combat alive.

-- PumaN - 08 Jan 2003


 <<O>>  Difference Topic CombatSuggestions (r1.1 - 08 Jan 2003 - PumaN)
Added:
>
>

%META:TOPICINFO{author="PumaN" date="1041984600" format="1.0" version="1.1"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="WebHome"}% Combat at the moment, is not the least bit intuitive. It is mostly a matter of sitting watching a series of hits and misses, everything rounded of with guildcommands that is a system totally outside the combat system...

My want is to make combat fun, challenging and dangerous, requiring your interaction at all times. To come up with something like this, we will need a fair bit of brainstorming, join in... -- PumaN? - 08 Jan 2003


Ideas:

Combat should be performed in parties battling, not one on one fights. Should allow for such things as stronger members (warriors, knights) protecting the weaker (mages, archers) from physical attacks. Both players and npcs should fight in parties. Parties should be able to diverge in such tactics as formation, flanking, charging, etc...

(Guild)commands should be a part of the combat, not something that lies on top of it.

Combat rounds could be slower, so that you have time to decide what to do next. Combat should should last for fewer rounds, making combat more intense.

My idea is that healing, once you have the chance to avoid combat and think about such matters, should be fairly quick and uneventful, the challenge should instead lie in getting out of the combat alive. -- PumaN? - 08 Jan 2003


Topic CombatSuggestions . { View | Diffs | r1.30 | > | r1.29 | > | r1.28 | More }
Revision r1.1 - 08 Jan 2003 - 00:10 GMT - PumaN
Revision r1.30 - 18 Oct 2004 - 00:45 GMT - FreD
Copyright © 2001 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration tool is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Tharsis? Send feedback.