[crossfire] Project: Slow down combat

[Mark Wedel]

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> I'm concerned no one replied already, but well...

  Maybe everyone just agrees with my brilliant insights :)

> 
>>   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?

  If the change is such that large area effect spells are not so useful, that 
may not be bad.

  Larger effect spells, like fireball, will still have their uses.  If monsters 
are far away, things like fireball still quite useful (the cone spells have a 
more limited range).  Also, so long as each space of a big monster takes damage, 
large spells still have some advantage there.

  I'm sure these changes will require rebalancing of spells, but that is also on 
the list of things to do, so I'm less worried about spells right now, but just 
trying to keep it in mind.


>>   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 - scale isn't consistent.  But I'd say that even at the lowest scale, 
each square is probably about 5'.  Outdoor scale is much larger (each space 
being 50 to 100'?)  But my point being that given the scale, one could certainly 
ask if it is reasonable if one can attack multiple times in less time than it 
takes to move 5'.  If the answer is no, then that would certainly also hold true 
if the character is outdoors and scale is 50' per square.


>>   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?

  Right, but if when went the skill approach and wanted the monster to have a wc 
of -3, what level should its skills have?  One nice thing with the basic wc, ac, 
etc attributes is it is very easy - I want it to have a wc of -3, so I put 'wc 
-3' in the monster.

  That said, items the monster picks up can dramatically change things, in both 
armor and WC.  But then that makes things more interesting - not every monster 
is the same difficulty.


>>   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.  But if guidelines/a table is established, that helps out a great deal. 
If I know that a level 10 character has ac/wc/armor/dam if X, then I can have a 
pretty good idea of the stats the monster needs to be a good challenge.  And 
arguably, this shouldn't be that hard to figure out - as one plays the game, one 
records this information and sees what it is.


>>   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 :)

  that's always the potential.  However, it also depends on difference of HP 
based on level.  If say a level 10 character has 100 hp, and a level 50 has 500 
HP, that is only a difference of 5, so even then, unlikely 1 hit will kill a 
character, since target would be 10 spells for 500 hp damage (or 50 dam/spell). 
  That said, things like resistances, slaying, etc, can all mix things up.

  that one of the interesting things about giving characters more starting hp. 
If characters start at say 50, and at level 10 have 150, that is a 3 times 
improvement, so would still generally take 3 spells from that 10th level person 
to kill that level 1 person.

> 
>>   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?

  Maybe, but I think it would be very boring to play a mage in that case - cast 
a couple spells, maybe not kill anything with them, have to rest to regain mana, 
cast some more spells, etc.  One goal is to balance things such that mages and 
fighters are both fairly equal at all levels, so I think low level mages need to 
be effective.

  With the changes, it may be some different spells are needed - maybe 1st level 
firebolt and the like.


>>   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 ;)

  Right - I'm open to this, but would like to hear more discussion on this - do 
people generally think it is a good idea?

  I also wonder how much long term impact it has - it seems that at a fairly low 
level, characters will have weapons that do non physical damage (eg, fire, cold, 
electricity, whatever), and at that point, the distinction on physical attack 
types is lost.

  Maybe as part of this, all weapons that do extra attacktypes needs to be 
redone some, so that the damage of the attacktype is minor extra damage.  For 
example, that firebrand may still do mostly physical (slashing) damage, but also 
do some  amount of fire damage.  This greatly changes weapon combat, but once 
again, maybe not a bad thing.