Well... It could be fun. Its kinda like in our ai programming class where we made ai to do specific things then whoever wins well...wins o.o that wqs pretty fun and i do agree that its not that fun in an mmo environment, it could be a total blast in a non-mmo environment. Itll be like playing an rts game except its your tactics against his.
The problem of doing this in an mmo environment is becase od 1 char. If it were like sword where you control multiple chars then if would be much more enjoyable. Ofc since the hook is auto fighting, your enemies MUST be varied.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Auto attack in itself is lazy game design; the time hasn't been spent factoring both skill and aesthetics into the equation; which is why you have the opposite which is twitch based combat.
You essentially have two extremes, where in my opinion the solution lies somewhere in between. To have a system in MMO's where you simply innitiated combat, then sat back and watched, as the OP suggested would become extremely dull and boring after the innitial thrill wore off. Gamers want to feel involved and attuned with their characters, not simply to be observers.
Yeah, without interesting decisions combat tends to become dull quite quickly.
Although it's a bit overkill to call autoattack "lazy design", since it has a very clear and effective purpose. And it works, and players like it :P
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Yeah, without interesting decisions combat tends to become dull quite quickly.
Although it's a bit overkill to call autoattack "lazy design", since it has a very clear and effective purpose. And it works, and players like it :P
Do they? I am not so sure most people even care, and even if they do they have very little none auto attack games that isn't twitched based to choose on.
Games tend to use one of 3 systems:
1. Twitched based combat. The players fastest pushing the button will be first.
2. Semi turnbased combat. Most MMOs use this, there are combat turns hidden behind the mechanics and if the game have auto attacks a combat round is really between 2 ot the auto attacks. It doesn't need to have those auto attacks, but often does. If you want a great example where you actually can see the combat turns if you look closely try DDO. The advantage is that the speed you click in doesn't matter.
3. Real turn based combat. The combat stops up after every attack and you choose a new. Atlantica is the game you see this most clearly in but the Final fantasy games uses this as well.
I am not sure I would say that auto attacks are because lazy devs, it is more because most devs seems to lack the imagination ta make a new combat system and instead use exactly the same as everyone else do.
Auto attack in itself is lazy game design; the time hasn't been spent factoring both skill and aesthetics into the equation; which is why you have the opposite which is twitch based combat.
You essentially have two extremes, where in my opinion the solution lies somewhere in between. To have a system in MMO's where you simply innitiated combat, then sat back and watched, as the OP suggested would become extremely dull and boring after the innitial thrill wore off. Gamers want to feel involved and attuned with their characters, not simply to be observers.
Yeah, without interesting decisions combat tends to become dull quite quickly.
Although it's a bit overkill to call autoattack "lazy design", since it has a very clear and effective purpose. And it works, and players like it :P
It may work, but it doesn't work particularly well; most combat outcomes are down to gear e.g. WoW and not skill. Furthermore I don't know of many players who like it to be honest, as mentioned by another poster there is simply a lack of quality alternatives.
Lazy may have been an incorrect usage of a word, more lack luster or uninspired. I basically meant they aren't willing to experiment or trying anything else.
It may work, but it doesn't work particularly well; most combat outcomes are down to gear e.g. WoW and not skill. Furthermore I don't know of many players who like it to be honest, as mentioned by another poster there is simply a lack of quality alternatives.
Lazy may have been an incorrect usage of a word, more lack luster or uninspired. I basically meant they aren't willing to experiment or trying anything else.
This. Thanks for clearing up my original intent with this thread. A little innovation where auto attack is concerned would be progressive.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
I like your concept. Even though I am admittedly lazy, this type of system would enhance the visceral feel of combat. I think what I'm looking for is a game that includes blocking attacks more often than current MMOs provide. This type of combat would make for more interesting play IMO.
Thanks.
Yeah. I want a game where the combat feels a little more like real combat. Holding a sword and fighting someone else is a real rush, but the mechanics behind it is a lot more advanced than most people seems to think. It actually is a little like chess.
My idea is more of an example on how to solve it, me and a few buddies were talking if it would be possible to make a fun and more realistic combat system, some said it was impossible and a few of us made some ideas that should work. A good combat system should have the following rules:
* Strategy is the most important thing to win
* You can't win on spamming the same button
* All out attacks should be risky
* The resault off an attacks should be based on what both you and your enemy just did
* Block, parry and dodge should open up opportunities
I think this is onto the right design for a MMORPG.
First, I think you have to start with an auto attck. You have players with varying connection speeds as well as comps. So you need to design combat with that in mind. So I think an auto attack, coupled with special moves that can be thrown in and then timed to "finish" is the way to go.
But with what I just mentioned you need more to reach the goal you've set, a very desirable goal in my opinion.
So, add in defensive stances that rock/paper/scissors with special attacks. Stances that can be changed on a whim, but also are timer set to accomplish the change. But also have a visual indication of that stance. So the opponent player can read the stance, and decide to do something that works better against that stance based on player knowledge of the combat system. But the first player can also change his stance (with a timer), so it becomes a game of wits to an extent. Skill (character skill) in stances as well as special attacks can come in here too.
Also add in some "opportunities", situations based on stance changes and effects of special attacks vs. stance. With timers.
This gives players a lot of choices to make, times it so as to help remove connection speed advantages and leave it in the realm of player decisions and skills.
Edit to add: I forgot something, that there could be "opportunites" as a result of a special attack failing because it was used against a defensive stance that's good against that sort of special attack, too. Maybe a failed attack against the right stance against that attack form leaves the attacker open for a crushing blow type of return attack, and timed with a 2-3 second window for the defender to read the visual cue and hit their hot key to perform.
Auto attack in itself is lazy game design; the time hasn't been spent factoring both skill and aesthetics into the equation; which is why you have the opposite which is twitch based combat.
You essentially have two extremes, where in my opinion the solution lies somewhere in between. To have a system in MMO's where you simply innitiated combat, then sat back and watched, as the OP suggested would become extremely dull and boring after the innitial thrill wore off. Gamers want to feel involved and attuned with their characters, not simply to be observers.
Yeah, without interesting decisions combat tends to become dull quite quickly.
Although it's a bit overkill to call autoattack "lazy design", since it has a very clear and effective purpose. And it works, and players like it :P
It may work, but it doesn't work particularly well; most combat outcomes are down to gear e.g. WoW and not skill. Furthermore I don't know of many players who like it to be honest, as mentioned by another poster there is simply a lack of quality alternatives.
Lazy may have been an incorrect usage of a word, more lack luster or uninspired. I basically meant they aren't willing to experiment or trying anything else.
Um, but gear's role in combat is part of the clear and effective purpose behind auto-attack. That's the point!
I think out of Loke666's examples, the twitch-centric and turn-based (psuedo-realtime) options are just inherently less casual than a game which is realtime and twitch-lite. Being realtime and twitch-lite are the two key traits. That still leaves plenty of room for variety, and I'd agree with Loke666 that we haven't seen *too* much experimentation (but admittedly a good completely-new combat system from scratch is a pretty difficult and rare thing to create; let alone create one that's polished which can stand up to the very-polished existing combat systems on the market.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think this is onto the right design for a MMORPG.
First, I think you have to start with an auto attck. You have players with varying connection speeds as well as comps. So you need to design combat with that in mind. So I think an auto attack, coupled with special moves that can be thrown in and then timed to "finish" is the way to go.
But with what I just mentioned you need more to reach the goal you've set, a very desirable goal in my opinion.
So, add in defensive stances that rock/paper/scissors with special attacks. Stances that can be changed on a whim, but also are timer set to accomplish the change. But also have a visual indication of that stance. So the opponent player can read the stance, and decide to do something that works better against that stance based on player knowledge of the combat system. But the first player can also change his stance (with a timer), so it becomes a game of wits to an extent. Skill (character skill) in stances as well as special attacks can come in here too.
Also add in some "opportunities", situations based on stance changes and effects of special attacks vs. stance. With timers.
This gives players a lot of choices to make, times it so as to help remove connection speed advantages and leave it in the realm of player decisions and skills.
Edit to add: I forgot something, that there could be "opportunites" as a result of a special attack failing because it was used against a defensive stance that's good against that sort of special attack, too. Maybe a failed attack against the right stance against that attack form leaves the attacker open for a crushing blow type of return attack, and timed with a 2-3 second window for the defender to read the visual cue and hit their hot key to perform.
Something like that would work, yes. But you do know that high and medium guard are the only 2 real historical stances you can do with swords?
Something like that would work, yes. But you do know that high and medium guard are the only 2 real historical stances you can do with swords?
Still, you are on the right track.
... don't you mean with western swords?
... or maybe even with some specific historical style?
I know there's more stances for other styles. Specifically in Japanese swordfighting. Even with the more historical styles, rather than just kendo. :T
(edit to add following part)
On a more on-topic note, I used to play a JRPG simulator, where you would pick and outfit a party, then click 'adventure', and they'd go run off, and do things. Though the AI either sucked or was brilliant (I'm not sure which) Example? I had a healer who would sit there and watch the characters in front get slaughtered, not blink an eye, and whenever he got hurt he'd heal himself. Then when he was the only survivor, he'd run away.
What a jerk, but maybe it was just REALLY REALISTIC AI of somebody being a jerk.
It made a great screensaver, and it was interesting seeing what characters would do. Maybe a little TOO auto-attack for what OP was talking about though.
I think this is onto the right design for a MMORPG.
First, I think you have to start with an auto attck. You have players with varying connection speeds as well as comps. So you need to design combat with that in mind. So I think an auto attack, coupled with special moves that can be thrown in and then timed to "finish" is the way to go.
But with what I just mentioned you need more to reach the goal you've set, a very desirable goal in my opinion.
So, add in defensive stances that rock/paper/scissors with special attacks. Stances that can be changed on a whim, but also are timer set to accomplish the change. But also have a visual indication of that stance. So the opponent player can read the stance, and decide to do something that works better against that stance based on player knowledge of the combat system. But the first player can also change his stance (with a timer), so it becomes a game of wits to an extent. Skill (character skill) in stances as well as special attacks can come in here too.
Also add in some "opportunities", situations based on stance changes and effects of special attacks vs. stance. With timers.
This gives players a lot of choices to make, times it so as to help remove connection speed advantages and leave it in the realm of player decisions and skills.
Edit to add: I forgot something, that there could be "opportunites" as a result of a special attack failing because it was used against a defensive stance that's good against that sort of special attack, too. Maybe a failed attack against the right stance against that attack form leaves the attacker open for a crushing blow type of return attack, and timed with a 2-3 second window for the defender to read the visual cue and hit their hot key to perform.
Something like that would work, yes. But you do know that high and medium guard are the only 2 real historical stances you can do with swords?
Still, you are on the right track.
Ahh, I didn't mean "stances" as in a specific tactic from RL. Some "stances" the way I mean them....
Evasive, dodging style of fighting, best suited for lightly armored types (or against more heavily weighted or slow opponents)
All out attack mode based on strength
All out attack based on speed and agility
All out defense mode based on parry
All out defense mode based on using armor to deflect
Defenses based on blunt blocking
Defense based on shifting opponent strikes or body balance
etc. and combinations
A system based on this sort of thing, although I'm being very rough here.
These stances would modify whatever else the player wants to do, his special attacks or manuevers. And they could modify how well the player defends against various types of opponents attacks or manuevers.
This isn't an actual design, it's just a rough idea of the sort of goal for a system.
Let me run through an example of combat with this idea.
2 warriors (A and B), equally outfited in medium armor and weaponry.
They are both in a general stance, not concentrating on any particular fighting style.
A decides he's going for broke, he wants to give B a powerful over the head crushing type of blow with all his strength.
A can get more into this blow by shifting to "All out attack mode based on strength"
This "stance" takes 2 seconds to achieve as the character on screen widens his footing and places one a little behind the other.
A hits hit hotkey to perform the special attack "Crushing Overhead" (He could also do this without shifting his "stance", but to less effect)
A needs a critical to really have a big effect, gets bonuses for his new stance for both the chance for crit as well as results
it takes A 1.5 seconds to perform the special attack. This gives B 3.5 seconds to notice the shift in "stance" and the special attack animation. If he's lagged beyond that, he'll have to rely on guesswork and timing.
B doesn't do anything special, and the results fall as they may with a decent chance that A gets some good results.
However, if B shifts his stance to "Evasive, dodging style of fighting" or "Defense based on shifting opponent strikes or body balance" he might have a very good chance to throw A off balance and return a devastating attack as a result.
He might have made this "stance" shift because he saw what A was up to, or just by chance trying to outsmart him.
I'm thinking that the effects of a "stance" shift for defense would have to be immediate, but the effects for attacks of a "stance" shift would have to have a timer on as above.
I'm also thinking that the player punches in what he wants to do, and the game performs the tasks as the opportunity opens up. So Player B could have shifted his stance and hit a hotkey for the return attack in hopes of player A doing just what he did. This can lead to a lot of thinking and predicting based on what an opponent has already done, and what skills he's shown to have, fighting style, etc.
And sorry for the edits here, but I wanted to point out that this can alleviate quite a bit of the problems of lag in tactics, by giving an opponent a chance to "read" the other, determine what they are good at, and what tendencies they might have.
Comments
The problem of doing this in an mmo environment is becase od 1 char. If it were like sword where you control multiple chars then if would be much more enjoyable. Ofc since the hook is auto fighting, your enemies MUST be varied.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Yeah, without interesting decisions combat tends to become dull quite quickly.
Although it's a bit overkill to call autoattack "lazy design", since it has a very clear and effective purpose. And it works, and players like it :P
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Do they? I am not so sure most people even care, and even if they do they have very little none auto attack games that isn't twitched based to choose on.
Games tend to use one of 3 systems:
1. Twitched based combat. The players fastest pushing the button will be first.
2. Semi turnbased combat. Most MMOs use this, there are combat turns hidden behind the mechanics and if the game have auto attacks a combat round is really between 2 ot the auto attacks. It doesn't need to have those auto attacks, but often does. If you want a great example where you actually can see the combat turns if you look closely try DDO. The advantage is that the speed you click in doesn't matter.
3. Real turn based combat. The combat stops up after every attack and you choose a new. Atlantica is the game you see this most clearly in but the Final fantasy games uses this as well.
I am not sure I would say that auto attacks are because lazy devs, it is more because most devs seems to lack the imagination ta make a new combat system and instead use exactly the same as everyone else do.
It may work, but it doesn't work particularly well; most combat outcomes are down to gear e.g. WoW and not skill. Furthermore I don't know of many players who like it to be honest, as mentioned by another poster there is simply a lack of quality alternatives.
Lazy may have been an incorrect usage of a word, more lack luster or uninspired. I basically meant they aren't willing to experiment or trying anything else.
This. Thanks for clearing up my original intent with this thread. A little innovation where auto attack is concerned would be progressive.
(My son speaking to his Japanese Grandmother) " Sorry Obaba, I don't speak Japanese, I only speak human."
I think this is onto the right design for a MMORPG.
First, I think you have to start with an auto attck. You have players with varying connection speeds as well as comps. So you need to design combat with that in mind. So I think an auto attack, coupled with special moves that can be thrown in and then timed to "finish" is the way to go.
But with what I just mentioned you need more to reach the goal you've set, a very desirable goal in my opinion.
So, add in defensive stances that rock/paper/scissors with special attacks. Stances that can be changed on a whim, but also are timer set to accomplish the change. But also have a visual indication of that stance. So the opponent player can read the stance, and decide to do something that works better against that stance based on player knowledge of the combat system. But the first player can also change his stance (with a timer), so it becomes a game of wits to an extent. Skill (character skill) in stances as well as special attacks can come in here too.
Also add in some "opportunities", situations based on stance changes and effects of special attacks vs. stance. With timers.
This gives players a lot of choices to make, times it so as to help remove connection speed advantages and leave it in the realm of player decisions and skills.
Edit to add: I forgot something, that there could be "opportunites" as a result of a special attack failing because it was used against a defensive stance that's good against that sort of special attack, too. Maybe a failed attack against the right stance against that attack form leaves the attacker open for a crushing blow type of return attack, and timed with a 2-3 second window for the defender to read the visual cue and hit their hot key to perform.
Once upon a time....
Um, but gear's role in combat is part of the clear and effective purpose behind auto-attack. That's the point!
I think out of Loke666's examples, the twitch-centric and turn-based (psuedo-realtime) options are just inherently less casual than a game which is realtime and twitch-lite. Being realtime and twitch-lite are the two key traits. That still leaves plenty of room for variety, and I'd agree with Loke666 that we haven't seen *too* much experimentation (but admittedly a good completely-new combat system from scratch is a pretty difficult and rare thing to create; let alone create one that's polished which can stand up to the very-polished existing combat systems on the market.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Something like that would work, yes. But you do know that high and medium guard are the only 2 real historical stances you can do with swords?
Still, you are on the right track.
... don't you mean with western swords?
... or maybe even with some specific historical style?
I know there's more stances for other styles. Specifically in Japanese swordfighting. Even with the more historical styles, rather than just kendo. :T
(edit to add following part)
On a more on-topic note, I used to play a JRPG simulator, where you would pick and outfit a party, then click 'adventure', and they'd go run off, and do things. Though the AI either sucked or was brilliant (I'm not sure which) Example? I had a healer who would sit there and watch the characters in front get slaughtered, not blink an eye, and whenever he got hurt he'd heal himself. Then when he was the only survivor, he'd run away.
What a jerk, but maybe it was just REALLY REALISTIC AI of somebody being a jerk.
It made a great screensaver, and it was interesting seeing what characters would do. Maybe a little TOO auto-attack for what OP was talking about though.
Ahh, I didn't mean "stances" as in a specific tactic from RL. Some "stances" the way I mean them....
Evasive, dodging style of fighting, best suited for lightly armored types (or against more heavily weighted or slow opponents)
All out attack mode based on strength
All out attack based on speed and agility
All out defense mode based on parry
All out defense mode based on using armor to deflect
Defenses based on blunt blocking
Defense based on shifting opponent strikes or body balance
etc. and combinations
A system based on this sort of thing, although I'm being very rough here.
These stances would modify whatever else the player wants to do, his special attacks or manuevers. And they could modify how well the player defends against various types of opponents attacks or manuevers.
This isn't an actual design, it's just a rough idea of the sort of goal for a system.
Let me run through an example of combat with this idea.
2 warriors (A and B), equally outfited in medium armor and weaponry.
They are both in a general stance, not concentrating on any particular fighting style.
A decides he's going for broke, he wants to give B a powerful over the head crushing type of blow with all his strength.
A can get more into this blow by shifting to "All out attack mode based on strength"
This "stance" takes 2 seconds to achieve as the character on screen widens his footing and places one a little behind the other.
A hits hit hotkey to perform the special attack "Crushing Overhead" (He could also do this without shifting his "stance", but to less effect)
A needs a critical to really have a big effect, gets bonuses for his new stance for both the chance for crit as well as results
it takes A 1.5 seconds to perform the special attack. This gives B 3.5 seconds to notice the shift in "stance" and the special attack animation. If he's lagged beyond that, he'll have to rely on guesswork and timing.
B doesn't do anything special, and the results fall as they may with a decent chance that A gets some good results.
However, if B shifts his stance to "Evasive, dodging style of fighting" or "Defense based on shifting opponent strikes or body balance" he might have a very good chance to throw A off balance and return a devastating attack as a result.
He might have made this "stance" shift because he saw what A was up to, or just by chance trying to outsmart him.
I'm thinking that the effects of a "stance" shift for defense would have to be immediate, but the effects for attacks of a "stance" shift would have to have a timer on as above.
I'm also thinking that the player punches in what he wants to do, and the game performs the tasks as the opportunity opens up. So Player B could have shifted his stance and hit a hotkey for the return attack in hopes of player A doing just what he did. This can lead to a lot of thinking and predicting based on what an opponent has already done, and what skills he's shown to have, fighting style, etc.
And sorry for the edits here, but I wanted to point out that this can alleviate quite a bit of the problems of lag in tactics, by giving an opponent a chance to "read" the other, determine what they are good at, and what tendencies they might have.
Once upon a time....