Back again... You remember a little while ago where we were discussing a location based fighting system. The mouse selects where you are to hit and you can choose to slash, stab or block etc... Anyway.. This is a continuation of that. I was thinking about how you could get the player involved in the actual learning of fighting skill. Instead of the instructors just allowing an extra level of competence to be reached (Skill based of course ), they also tell the player of combinations that allow for quicker attack speeds. For example, if the player were to just hack from top-left to bottom-right and choose their next attack as the same, then they have to wait until their sword goes back to top-left before the next attck starts.... INSTEAD: The player can start with their top-left to bottom-right hack, followed by a slash at the legs (right to left) followed by a slicing upward motion through the middle region. There would of course be limitations to this, as you could factor in ''effort to stop attack'' or something. This acts like inertia for the sword. If they strike successfully, then their sword may stop at the top-left side of their enemy, they can then choose to push down into their enemy or to cut upwards, downwards or out. This would give a lot more variety to currently simple attack systems, without adding on a lot of overhead. Ideas or comments anyone? -Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche           

Thinking about it, this adds a few parameters to attacking:

1. Location of the weapon ( top, middle, bottom and left, middle, right could work )
   
2. Start Location of the Attack
   
3. End Location of Successful Attack
   
4. End Location of Failed Attack
   
5. End Location of Blocked Attack
   
6. Time Taken to move weapon from one location to another.
   
7. Time Taken to Complete Attack
   

With those parameters, you''d have a start at a system that works like what you described.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Have you ever tried "Die by the Sword"?

In this action fantasy game (underrated in my opinion) you control the legs with one set of keys and and the sword with another. This meant that to control your character in this game you had to use in the range of 16-20 keys. It was ok after some practice.

The point was that you move the sword in front of you by using one set of keys (the numpad) and had a lean key (0). So to make a swing you pressed 6 a bit and then held down 4. When a hit was made the sword speed and strength was used to calculate damage and body parts came flying of it was hard enough, otherwise small wounds appeared. Strength could be gained by charging the opponent at the same time.

Combining this with a skeletal animation system that took into acount variations in height in the floor and a risch varity of monsters this was really excellant sword fighting.

Die by the Sword also had a "move editor" where moves could be predefined moves which could be triggered in mid fight with a set of hot keys.

I remember one brilliant scene where the main character is caught in a rope trap and have to fight while swinging back anf forth upside down.

Try it out, if you haven''t. It''s it is on budget sale.

Jacob Marner

About Die By The Sword (which is excellent research material on this subject)...

You can download a fairly good demo from the official website for free (about 15 Mb I think).

I tried Die... for a while, with the mouse as the controller.

The movement of the mouse is DIRECTLY linked to the movement of the character''s sword.

This gives you a real sensation of control...
Or lack thereof. Because the fact is that to me it seems just too hard to control the mouse good enough to give me an adequate control in game. To me, my sword kept getting stuck in the sand...But I''m sure a little practice will prevent that. Still, I can''t see this interface ever working to give me enough skill to really fight a tough one-on-one battle against another player controlled character. I still think it''ll just result in a move-mouse-from-left-to-right-to-left-to-right fest.

I think the interface used in Die has some merits but needs improvement. For example, there is no real way to STAB. Also, there will never be a way to control two weapons at once (which I think is a big thing).

I think a good fighting game should be made with PLAYER SKILL in mind. I mean, the player should be the one with the actual skill in fighting (''Die'' being hard for me right now, might actually end up doing just that, but I just have to playtest it more to know). The player should be the one that knows what he''s doing when he pushes the buttons. Not like the way I play most arcade games...push buttons and see what happens.

After Player Skill, Character skill is next. The system used should be able to reflect growth of the character in fighting skills. Strenght, speed, agility, dexterity shouldn''t just be numbers, or be used to determine who hits and who misses (you have AC 5, I have Strenght 6, Dexterity 8, I roll die and that decides if I hit or not), they should be an addition to player skill.
If a player is bad at fighting with a sword, no ability scores/skills should make him an excellent fighter. High character statistics might make the ''player'' a better fighter but it shouldn''t elevate him too much. A good player with bad character statistics should win against a bad player with excellent character statistics.

And yes, one way to show growth of the character is to let him learn new moves that will improve his fighting skills.

To Felonius and Silvermyst:
Die By The Sword has been suggested in the thread that sparked this discussion. The reason Dwarfsoft started this thread is because he and I were discussing ways of having a pretty interesting sword-fighting system that uses no more than two fingers on each hand to use. I.e., no control systems with 20 buttons, simple point-and-click, with possibly one or two modifier keys, MAX.


To the Anonymous Poster:
That''s an interesting observation. I know very little about actual swordfighting, I''m in this discussion because I''m pretty good with simplifying user interfaces to the bone. Even with the motion you describe, you might fail in stopping the weapon where you intended, and this might require you to adjust your strategy for the next blow.
Making this realistic is an interesting challenge, and for this we''d need people that know a bit about effective melee or swordfighting.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

What kind of battles are you looking for ?
Realtime battles for FPS, realtime in 3rd personn view or turn based ?

Since I do think it''s for realtime, how much ''arcade'' should the game be ?
I mean is the battle an important part of the gameplay or just a requirement in certain circumstances ?

The answers of those questions are really important to the design of the final battle system.

For a FF like it would be different than from a Zelda like.

I still hesistate on the value of battles and arcade vs strategy in my game.
Do the player control a party or only his character ?

Would like to have some more details please.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

Quickly, before I have to go to my exam , I have to defend my choice. I said top-left to bottom-right for a reason. That is a simple hack''n''slash methodology. Just look at diablo and DII if you don''t believe me... That is why I suggested it. Personally, I would make that attack the stupidest and least likely to do anything...

More later (once I have properly read all the replies )

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

First off, MKV had it right. You can have a simple 2-Button mouse with single and double click possibilities, possibly even a third button... And maybe a shift key or a ctrl key ON OCCASION. That makes it very simple to control.

About the left-right right-left... fest. It wouldn''t happen due to an innertia value. It is too slow (and too energy consuming) to stop an attack and turn it around. It is much faster to start moving in a different plane (up/down, backwards/forwards) than to stop a blade dead and reverse the direction. This is why you penalise that kind of attack..

Also, doing so in such a wild manner leaves you open to attack. The system that I was originally discussing with MKV worked so that when the opponent was attacking, you could see a small region on their body (because you are clicking on their localised area, and not just moving the mouse around blindly) which is more vulnerable and harder (because of size and oppertunity) to hit.

quote: Original post by Ingenu

What kind of battles are you looking for ?
Realtime battles for FPS, realtime in 3rd personn view or turn based ?

3rd person is the way that I am thinking of it, though it is not Iso, and you are generally always facing your characters back, as your character faces forward towards the enemy.

quote:
Since I do think it''s for realtime, how much ''arcade'' should the game be ?
I mean is the battle an important part of the gameplay or just a requirement in certain circumstances ?

Believe it or not, but this system is designed for realtime. The only reason that it is NOT arcade is because you have easier controls without the pointless key combinations (hard to remember). It is a bit arcade in the sense that you have attack combinations and are required to fight in real time. This system is supposed to be difined so that the player must become involved in the effort of fighting, and it also reduces the number of enemies that the character can face at once. The better the actual player is, the more enemies they can easily face (though, there is obviously a limit). I think that this system makes the player value their battle more, and makes them think about thier involvement in the game.

quote:
The answers of those questions are really important to the design of the final battle system.

For a FF like it would be different than from a Zelda like.

I still hesistate on the value of battles and arcade vs strategy in my game.
Do the player control a party or only his character ?

Would like to have some more details please.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

In my game, the player ONLY controls their character. Though, they can ''ask'' their NPC companions to do something. This way, the player is one character in the game, and also can have a party. It is a trade off that I like

I hope that explains things a little better

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers'' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche