[crossfire] Project: Slow down combat

[Nicolas Weeger]

Hello.

I'm concerned no one replied already, but well...

>   This actually has some other dramatic effects - large area of effect
> spells are less useful (if the room only has a few creatures, the spell
> only hits a few, and not a dozen).
>
>   But this also would reduce treasure income quite a bit (probably a good
> thing).  I think exp of monsters would have to be adjusted - maybe not the
> first and second level monsters (where killing them slower menas it takes
> longer to gain a level - not a problem given how quickly one can gain the
> low levels), but when you start to get into mid and higher levels, if the
> monster count is reduced by a whole bunch, the exp for them maybe should go
> up - dunno.  We can sort that out as things get adjusted.

Maybe large area spells will be used for fast monsters, so you're sure to hurt 
them? Or for monsters less powerful than you?

>   Right - in my times there, I was basically thinking of fighting a
> creature of roughly the same power as the character.  If a level 50
> creature wants to go kill some orcs, then yeah, I'd expect him to move
> through them quite quickly (he will hit all the time, and most likely, his
> weapon damage will kill one each blow).

*node*

>   I'm just thinking that at low levels, having to take 30 seconds to kill a
> creature would be a bit extreme - one reason is most maps are just monster
> heavy, but another is that at low levels, characters typically have fewer
> options (you don't have a choice of weapons, rods, spells, to choose from,
> so the character really has limited tactical offerings.)

I think a reasonable delay would be 5 to 10s, depending on the monster. Of 
course, a big boss could take more time.

>   Right - especially given the games scale.  If you figure that for most
> indoor maps, each space is 5', the current system is such that a character
> can swing a sword 2 times in the space it takes him to run that 5'.  That
> seems unreasonably faster, and this is a low level character.  So having
> weapon speed be below movement speed, when one thinks about the scales
> involved, wouldn't be that unreasonable.

Scale is another issue - the world itself isn't that well scaled in the first 
place ;)

>   True, but at the same time, this wasn't a totally maxed out fighter -
> this was a human warrior.  I think a half troll or half orc barbarian would
> actually have even higher numbers than that.  And actually, at low level,
> it really doesn't make a difference - all classes are going to be level 1
> in 1 handed combat - the things that really would change are the stat
> bonuses.  I think right now that stats are actually too important for many
> values, and would like to go more like a 3rd edition AD&D system, where the
> bonuses are linear - that also allows effectively unlimited stat values,
> since it is now a simple formula.  I'm not sure if that is something to
> talk about as this point or elsewhere.

*shrug*

>   Making monsters have the same effect as stats on players makes sense
> (right now, the meanings for monsters is completely different).  If nothing
> else, that actually simplifies the code.
>
>   The issue with skills gets trickier, because I may be making a monster
> and say 'I want its wc to be -3'.  However, it may not be obvious what
> level weapon skill that corresponds to, etc.

Yes, so maybe this isn't that a good issue :)
Or we rely on items, armor and such?

>   Certainly for stock monsters, one could update their treasurelists to
> give them the various skills, and perhaps even add some hooks into the
> magic system to denote what level the skill is (just like there is a way to
> denote how magical the item is).  But I'm not sure if that makes things
> more complicated than necessary.

Makes it more messy, I'd think....

>   One thing I think will be useful, and can be determined somewhat by
> playing, is what ac/wc/damage/hp creatures should have to be a challenged
> to players. Right now, that is somewhat guesswork I think, and I have a
> feeling a lot of monsters are not good challenges/balanced because certain
> of those attributes are out of whack (monster never hits, or hits too
> often, etc).

That is the hardship of balancing a game :)

>   Yes - increase maxhp helps, but I think the maxhp of players would have
> to be increased - I thought that might be controversial.
>
>   The harder part here I think may be balance.  For example, at first
> level, 1 or 2 goblins should be a challenge, and if I go into a round and
> am surrounded, I should really die.

Agreed.

>   I suspect the problem with spells right now is that most spells do a lot
> of damage, relative to how many hp players have.  The reason is pretty
> simple - in order to be able to kill monsters, it needs to do this damage -
> otherwise, you'd need to cast a hundred spells, and that really isn't very
> feasible.
>
>   So if the hp disparity between players and monsters is sorted out, and we
> say it is reasonable to cast 10 spells to kill tough creatures, that means
> it would take 10 spells to kill a same level player.  That to me is quite
> reasonable.

Could be. Of course if too big level difference, one hit kill :)

>   I think if hp is adjusted, grace and mana would have to go up also. 
> Simply because if creatures have 50 hp, and we say the target is 10 spells
> to kill a creature, a player will need to have the grace/mana to cast those
> 10 spells.

Possibly, yes, else you run the risk of making spells harder - unless they are 
compensated later on with really powerful things?

>   Some spells may need less casting - ones that are more selective, like
> holy word perhaps.  Also, if the monster count is reduced, that changes the
> spells one might want to use - if you don't have gobs of monsters, cones
> and exploding balls are less useful, and things like bolts and bullets
> become more useful.

*nods*

>   The typical breakdown is usually something like blunt, slashing, and
> piercing.
>
>   Other than the changes to the weapons and armor, it really is just adding
> another attacktype.  As you mentioned, support was added for discrete
> damage types, so nothing should be needed there.
>
>   I note that armor would have to be updated here - thus, certain armors
> may be good against certain attacks but not others.  This adds a new mix of
> things in. But it does require a bit of archetype changes.

Yes, of course, but we're talking of redoing the whole combat system in the 
first place ;)

>   I have a feeling that the advanced combat patch is probably so out of
> date that other than looking for ideas, it wouldn't be very useful.
>
>   that said, general concepts, like I should be able to disarm opponents,
> or parry them, etc, are valid ideas.  I think before, combat was so fast
> that the advanced combat stuff didn't work out very well, because you just
> didn't have time to try those different maneuvers.

*nods*
Let's just take the time this time :)

>   I agree - I almost wonder if we should do this, and perhaps some of the
> other things on the vote before trying to balance everything - it may not
> make sense to try to balance it after this, and then balance again after
> spell changes, then balance again after ...

Yes, I think too we should change many things before balancing correctly. 
That's a long shot, of course, will take time :)

>   But I think we should try to come up with what base values for different
> levels are, so you can basically say 'a level 50 creature should have ...
> to be competitive'.

Possibly...


Nicolas
-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de 
l'aléatoire !]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20070917/d38cf31a/attachment.pgp