Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why Can't MMOs Have Realistic Injuries?
donjn
Member UncommonPosts: 816
I think it is unrealistic for mobs to run away when injured. Why? Because they are injured.
Imagine walking through the forest and running into a goblin. You start fighting, when he is low on health, he drops to his kness and holds his hands up? Maybe at that point you can choose to have mercy on him and let him go? Or what if he is really injured badly and decides to run away only to fall and start crawling?
One of the cool things about Fallout 3 was that you could get injuries in specific parts of your body. You would limp if you legs were hurt, and the screen would get blurry in and out if your head was hurt.
It is 2009, and I am shocked we don't have a more realistic way of dealing with combat injuries. Instead, when low on heatlh, mobs run away at full speed?
Comments
Lol, I bet you would chop that goblins head off anyway for the xp.
Some good deaths of mob I have seen in Requiem BloodyMare, well deaths of everyone and anyone who dies really including me, which sometimes were just hillerous.
Serious at level 25 or something theres a dungeon with an uber boss, well theres a few but I was 25 when I done this, he hits pretty hard, once I got hit so hard I bounced of the floor, hit the roof of the dungeon all the while in some kind of spasm mode, LOL
The only time I could not stop laughing when I died in a mmo.
That's pretty funny.
Well with my idea, you would still game XP from the fight. If it is skill based you would not need to make the kill.
If it is like WoW, heck, spare his life for that necklace number 3 out of 10 you are trying to collect..
If realistic injuries applied to players then no way. It would be a little annoying to be crippled then have to drag yourself to safety and especially if there is player verses player. Players being the malicious spiteful things they are would go out of their way to cripple and taunt others, I mean they kill and annoy people without any bonus but the ability to add injury to insult would encourage griefers even more.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
The part that always bothers me the most is that all characters operate at 100% effectiveness until they are dead. So silly, and it really trivializes combat.
The current combat model assumes that weapon blows or magical attacks are doing real damage to the opponent. Blood and gore aplenty, including turning enemies into pincushions with arrows, or slashing them into quivering piles of meat with a cleaver. "It's all so violent"
If you want something more realistic, then most attacks should be blocked, parried or avoided (subject to whatever skill system is in place, whether character and/or player). When a blow lands on an armored opponent, that blow may well produce some kind of performance-impairing damage without actually breaking flesh or bone. A blow landing on an unarmored opponent is going to do serious damage. "Serious damage" is the sort that puts an opponent on the ground.
Landing an attack on a goblin's armored hip may not do serious damage, but it may make him move less nimbly. That will give you greater advantage in the fight. If you're fighting him solo, then you'll do better against him. If you're fighting several goblins, that one goblin may take that minor injury as a opportunity to withdraw. The same could be said for striking the weapon from the goblin's hand, stunning his sword arm, etc. Combat becomes a case of trying to avoid that performance-impairing damage.
Then we come to the poster's observation about experience points and going for the kill. In a game where kills equate to experience points, sure, players will kill the goblin. How about a game where experience points are subtracted when you kill a surrendering opponent? It's all about how the game is structured, and most gamers have very ingrained notions about how MMOs must be structured. Yet MMOs need not be structured as they are today. They sure didn't start out the way they're structured today.
I presented the idea of slow motion combat recently. That would permit more involved melee so that each sword swing, duck, dodge or parry would be played out. It would make combat a bit like a lethal dance, or a game of high-speed chess. It could also be applied to hand-to-hand combat. The idea of having attacks impair the performance of a character dovetails with all this nicely; if your mobility is impaired, then your opponent will try to leverage that impairment in his slow motion attacks.
If magic is left to its current form, it would be a disaster; point at a character, say "damage" and it is instantly damaged. Unless magic can be parried, blocked or avoided like a physical attack, magic would need to be changed to be something else entirely. My preference is to make magic something that has nothing to do with combat. Physical weapons are for combat. Stop making fighters obsolete. Let them do their thing. Magic becomes a way of playing with ambient conditions in the game. Magic lets a smith's fire be hotter (or go out), the door that the goblins are trying to break through be stronger (or collapse), the ground that the goblins are charging across slipperier (or the ice more stable), the bow that the archer is firing be more powerful (or weaker), etc.
Archers are a bit of a mess themselves because of the problem of making defense interesting. After all, the defense against archery is to hunker down and hide, whether behind a shield, a tree or a stone wall. MMOs are about entertaining everyone, not just the attacker. Archery would probably have to include lots of player skill in a challenging situation to ensure that only a real enthusiast would try to be an archer. That, or as with magic, ways to parry, block or avoid arrows would have to be introduced. But that's not particularly realistic.
Because realistic injuries really hurt.
If you want realism, one hit and you're dead or at least incapacitated is more realistic than having an HP bar. No healing in combat and take weeks or months to recover from serious wounds is realistic, too.
Not at all. If you are crippled, just hit the ol' "pass out" button and you're back at your spawn point. That's the most obvious solution to realistic injuries. In normal play, if you have a healer, he can patch you up, but if a griefer is on you, you pass out.
One aspect of great value to realistic injuries is having characters operating under suboptimal conditions. Instead of always having the same 100% character, sometimes you'll have to complete an engagement with an arm injury that slows your sword swings or a head injury that just slows everything. Judgment calls will have to be made. You'll bite off less than you normally would. You'll rely on stealth and planning a bit more than simply charging headlong into another fight.
You'll bring a healer next time.
Because realism for the most part just isn't a fun concept, which is why we're playing videogames=) You have to know where to blur the lines while keeping a game fun. We are still taling about games here, not virtual worlds=)
its 2009 and MMO devs are still lazy as fuck.
if i want realism id rather go play a real fps game
Healing is magical, however the being beaten by a mace should not let you run away. Nothing magical about that.
Realism can be fun.
Skill based games are more realistic. I find them fun. "Leveling Up" and choosing skills is not realistic. Gaining skill points over time by practicing a skill is.
And it is still fun..
Yep. And the line got blurred long before combat could ever be considered to be fun.
I've highlighted my own views on this topic in a number of previous posts, 'how to stop theory crafting' was the latest. It seems obvious to me that more realistic game play will provide a wider range of options not limit a players options. Sure it will be annoying if your character gains a limp from a fight or can only use one arm, but being dead is fairly annoying yet we've accepted that this will occur. Its just a new idea (not that new to many) and so for a while some folk will say 'I dont like it, its different', and then after a while when most are use to the idea they'll be defending it against the next 'new idea'.
I agree with JB47394, weapon damage is very telling, combat should be all about avoiding such impacts, failure to avoid should not be removing some 'HPs' but giving you some injury, ranging from a simple stunned limb (effect dependant upon the limb) to the removal of said limb with a colourful shower or gore for all present. In order to retain some 'health-bar' system for those who need one, you can employ a HP system to reduce the nature of the injuries until this health is all but depleted, hence you'll tend to get stuns, disarms and broken bones before you start to lose limbs (or head).
Of course 'stronger' characters (monsterous creatures etc) will have some reductions to any given injury while more capable weapons and users may be able to increase the nature of any injuries, hence dragons will tend not lose their head to a dagger wielding halfling, but the halfing will be squished in return. By retaining 'health' you can retain a choice about just how injured you're willing to risk becomming, doing a runner when the health gets low, although I'd still propose that limited injuries can occur regardless of health- that'll teach you for parrying hammer blows with an empty hand.
I can see ranged characters having an upper hand in these kinds of situations, and balancing this kind of combat would be my primary concern.
In theory, all it would take is an arrow or two to the legs and your character would be toast if realistic injury applied. Yes, you could have armor, but then where do you draw the line when it comes to where realism applies or not, since not all armor deflects arrows. Plate might, but a plate-wearing character shouldn't be able to move as nimble as someone in leather or lighter.
Well, I wouldn't mind a game with more realistic combat system, most games today probably have the most unrealistic system possible.
But devs and producers are scared that they wont get enough subs for that kind of game and maybe they are right.
Still, I wish the devs at least took a few sword fighting lessons, it is obvius that few or none ever hold a real sword in their hands.
But totaly realistic system just isn't possible right now and will probably never be. There are just to many factors.
Balancing archery is a challenge. I see two techniques to apply to archery to ensure that it does not supplant melee combat:
1. Make archery attacks difficult. Aiming a bow has no assists. No targeting, no crosshairs. Include wind and humidity as factors that affect the flight of arrows (think procedural content here). Include encumbrances as a factor that affects the ability of the archer to aim. A quiver holds 20 arrows. Rapid firing requires sticking arrows in the ground (preparation time). Pulling from a quiver is slower. And so on. There are lots of burdens that would make archery optimal only for firing at long ranges into large groups or firing one or two arrows into charging opponents. Stupid opponents. Monsters. No Machine-Gun Legolas stuff.
2. Make archery defenses easy. Move from cover to cover, or carry cover with you in the form of a shield. Even improvised shields. Zig-zag so that the archer doesn't have a stable shot. Plate is effective at defeating arrows, while lesser armors are usually penetrated. Shields are there for a reason.
Archery against monsters could be made far more practical than against players. Monsters may not be interested in armor, shields and cover. Most of them may just charge. A group of archers would cut down charging monsters, but they will eventuallly have to retrieve their arrows or simply run out of the things. Then those charging monsters are going to drive off the lightly-armored archers unless they are very good with their melee weapons.
For all I know, that will be the 'best build' choice for most players; lightly armed and armored archers that plink monsters and finish off a few stragglers with the sword. But I would hope that if the game doesn't place great reliance on efficiency in battle, then players would be more willing to experiment with different combat styles - just because it's fun to do so. Donning heavy plate mail to see if punching a goblin in the face with an armored hand is more satisfying than picking them off at a distance might just provide enough new 'content' to keep players coming back for more. "I'm gonna keep trying spinning slashes until I take a goblin's head clean off!"
Plate mails can be penetrated with longbows as history proves us. I saw it on some documentary that a a single arrow could strike through the plate armor, through the man and hit the horse eventually killing both.
Realistic or rather near-realistic combat would be a refreshing change. In a real war, you don't want to kill the enemy but wound him so that it takes two guys to drag him off the battlefield. In a sense, you get 3 with one bullet.
Rock, paper, scissors would demand that heavily armored enemies could be defeated and killed with grappling, choking and breaking limbs... like samurais' Jiu-Jitsu.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Not at all. If you are crippled, just hit the ol' "pass out" button and you're back at your spawn point. That's the most obvious solution to realistic injuries. In normal play, if you have a healer, he can patch you up, but if a griefer is on you, you pass out.
One aspect of great value to realistic injuries is having characters operating under suboptimal conditions. Instead of always having the same 100% character, sometimes you'll have to complete an engagement with an arm injury that slows your sword swings or a head injury that just slows everything. Judgment calls will have to be made. You'll bite off less than you normally would. You'll rely on stealth and planning a bit more than simply charging headlong into another fight.
You'll bring a healer next time.
Yea I agree on what you say. But also that I dont think a goblin would beg for mercy, they would rather just spit at you or disrespect all the way until they die. Thats usual in the movies, so I guess the games are that way. It would be a disadvantage. Like other say even I will tend and want to taunt them, and if they beg for mercy or etc I probably wont agree..on some occasions
Realism...
Is it fun? and how does it allow a player to tell their story to other players? are the only things that MMORPGs should concern themselves with (Aside from technology limitations)
Why do you think it will be fun and how can you incorporate it into telling a PCs story?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
I can see realism of receiving attacks a bit more in a scifi setting. It could be that everyone has personal energy shields and those shields go down when you are hit. People can replenish shields (heal). You would realistically not get hurt or weaken. Of course when the shields go out and you are really hit, you die.
That is where the realism ends then, because you respawn or are rezzed moments later, hehe. Personally I would rather see a system like that, but in fantasy, I just conveniently ignore that I am getting blasted by spells, arrows and hacked with swords, but still fighting well. It is after all, a game. Most do have you running slower though when your life is low, like you're too injured to get away.
your right..when i think of realism, I think of it as you can run away freely. Maybe take a long time for you to heal your wounds. Have a doctor maybe. If you die you would have to start all over with a new character, it would be realistic but annoying when you die
Realism would be a little too hardcore in a game...but I think you have a great idea for the future of combat MMO's out there. If you want a combat MMO with player-skills as the backbone of your combat, the health system HAS to change. I agree with Vynt that this would work real well with scifi, but why not with fantasy based mmos?
In my head I see the combat MMO's adapting and deriving a new health system using new-age FPS's (COD4 +5, Halo, KZ2). That is, no health meter, but a damage indicator. Now, this would need to a derivation because in the FPS's, you can die VERY fast. Well just slow it down in the MMO. And add the injury status with a mini-picture of your character in the lower corner of the hud to see what part is damaged (so you don't have to open a menu like in Fallout 3 since there is no pause online).
Again, a lot of balancing issues with ranged vs. melee would need to be adressed, but like posted before, make range players very suseptiable to damage and don't allow one shots unless it is a head-shot placed arrow with a loadup of pulling the arrow back that would take 5 seconds (so they couldn't fire mutiple headshots and kill you in one shot, many people have survived an arrow to the face). Now magic would be a little tricker, and the magic system would need to be REVOLUTIONIZED to make it very diffuclt to master since it is the most powerful in fantasy settings (old AC style is a good start.).
But yea I must agree if these supposed COMBAT MMO's are coming out, the health meter needs to be changed. If its player skill against player skill, stats of items should affect things differently (like how injury prone or resistant you are).
Have a good one.
Again I find myself agreeing with JB, for most fantasy games you'll want to either make bows harder to score a hit with or easier to prevent being hit by, this is simply to exaggerate the importance of getting into melee in line with most peoples perception of whats fun and in keeping with the lore.
Reduce the number of shots with any accuracy, and the accuracy at any significant range and of course the penetrative capacity and we'll see fewer bows in action. Although a long bow could penetrate plate armour it was not very efficient except at short ranges, typically the bow reduced charging mounted knights to slowly trudging knights (Agincourt). I'm happy to see bows firing around in combat, but the enemy must be free to engage such troops and not find themselves trapped by 'aggro' nonsense. Also you'll need to consider just when you can start shooting, if its as they emerge into the forest clearing you'll get perhaps one rushed shot. If its an army some considerable distance away then you can loose a few shots before they get close, but they'll have plenty of chance to shield themselves or perhaps move out of the way of your slowly arcing arrows.
So a bow will have a short period of use and then you'll be in melee, if the bow prevents you employing heavy armour and you cant get many accurate shots off, then many folk wont bother with a bow, problem solved. And those who do will have the ability to occasionally bring down a larger foe quite quickly and not even risk all that up close melee stuff; of course if they dont bring down their foe they'll need to swap weapons (quickly) and face their opponent potentially without shield or armour. Of course sometimes a bow will be vital, at other times it will be useless... thats why we have choices and friends.
Yea i strongly agree..for ranging you should turn into almost 1st person and have to follow the person with your mouse. then have to calculate the angle and power..for the future then it will be a little more balanced..and maybe have the arrows hit more when it hits more vital spots
I agree. I was throwing in my comment because all too often folks get myopia, seeing every scenario according to the games that they've played. A goblin is traditionally a beastly monster, intent on death and destruction (rather like an MMO player). But imagine if players were up against human bad guys. Pirates, bandits, enemy knights, etc. Having them surrender could have some significant consequences. Players would then have to deal with prisoners as a kind of loot, to be ransomed back to their clan, city or nation. That might involve diplomacy or negotiation skills.
There are so many unexplored opportunities in these games.