[crossfire] Project: Slow down combat

[Mark Wedel]

Yann Chachkoff wrote:
> Some short comments about all this...
> 
>> I'm concerned no one replied already, but well...
>>
> My brain is slow, and needs time to formalize thoughts :)
> 
> Shortly summarized (so that those who do not like to read a lot don't need 
> to): I am not convinced at all that you can isolate the combat system from 
> the rest of the gaming system. I'm also not convinced that tweaking the 
> current system a bit can provide a very good answer to the current issues 
> perceived by players.

  I'd probably disagree with that some.  One could certainly have a game system 
that didn't have a spell system and only did melee combat.  It may not be a very 
interesting game system or may have other issues.  and I'm not saying that 
should be done here.

  This isn't aimed at you in particular, as other people have also brought up 
similar points:  It would be constructive to bring forth/start a conversation on 
what the system should look like.

  The main reason here is to try and keep things moving and make forward 
progress.  Very easy to get into a situation where things are stated as not 
right approaches or bad ideas, but unless alternatives are provided, end result 
is nothing happens.

  My current thinking is that at some level, it is better to try things out, 
even if some may end up being the wrong solution, as some may end up being the 
right solution.  I almost think that now days, we sometimes get into too much 
discussion about varios things on crossfire (and I'm definitely guilty on that 
count) instead of just making the changes and seeing what breaks or who 
complains.  But that is a fine line.

  I'm certainly interested in seeing what peoples thoughts/ideas are on a grand 
unified combat and magic system (gucams?) would look like.  Putting ideas out 
there is never bad, even if not used.


> First, there is a problem of content. All the current maps were designed with 
> the base idea that "combats are fast and furious" in mind. It means large 
> rooms full of monsters in which the player runs and "harvest". Slowing down 
> combat would dramatically change this, and involve the complete redesign of 
> most - if not all - maps in which combat happens. This is probably the most 
> important issue in making combat pace changes, especially given that there 
> are not a lot of map-makers out there.

  I agree that a fair number of maps may need to be changed.  It certainly 
depends on how much slower combat is.  Some maps are already more or less set up 
with a fewer set of boss monsters.  Probably the biggest change on most maps 
will be removing some/all of the generators.

  But I also think that modifying existing content will be easier to handle/do 
than writing new content.  I can easily enough go into existing maps and remove 
some monsters/generators or make some adjustments.  However, for me to write a 
good map with good storyline, quest, traps, etc, that I'd be satisfied with 
would be a lot harder.

  And I think that as long as combat is slowed down, no matter how it is slowed 
down, these maps will need to get updated.  If you have thoughts on ways to slow 
down combat without needing to adjust/change maps, I'm more than interested in 
hearing about it.

> 
> Second, there is the problem of other combat skills - basically, spells. Those 
> were too designed with the idea of large-scale battles, with a single players 
> fighting lots of monsters at the same time. Cone spells, as well as 
> the "explosive" spells (like fireball) were obviously made with the idea of 
> damaging a lot of opponents in a single cast. If the combat pace is slowed 
> down, then it means the player will, on average, face less monsters at a 
> given time, and thus this will reduce the effectiveness of those combat 
> spells. The result will be that magic will get harder to use - and given that 
> it *already* is hard (try to play a spellcaster in the context of a 
> permadeath server if you don't believe it ! :) ), it would ultimately mean 
> changes in the magic system as well.

  As stated in other message, magic has to get redone, and I see doing it as 
part, or maybe shortly after, doing combat.

> 
> Third, archetypes will need massive changes - if the combat pace changes, so 
> does the game balance; and thus, the monsters and weapons characteristics. 
> Although some of such adaptations can be performed automatically by scripts, 
> I believe that "handwriting" will also be required to balance the result in 
> an appropriate way.

  I think the note about maps also applies here - I think most any change of 
system will require archetype changes.  Ideally, those are minimized (try to 
keep armor, shields, etc the same).  The number of archetypes isn't huge however 
- taking a quick look, there are about 30 armor types (plate, leather, etc ) - 
if those needed to be changed, doing 30 archetypes wouldn't take too much time.

  the monsters are a bigger issue, as a lot more of those.  But I think of the 
work, it is the maps that would be the biggest.

> 
> Finally, the whole mechanism of combat needs to be rethought, and not only its 
> pace, IMHO. Currently, melee combat is nothing more than "run into a 
> monster". There is no combat visuals, little tactics, and no real variations 
> between "melee techniques" - whatever the weapon or the melee skill used, it 
> is just a matter of "running into monsters". As a fighter, I'd like to have 
> to choose between various techniques, to have special hits, or simply to 
> enjoy seeing my character swinging its poleaxe all around orcs :).

  I'm certainly willing to read your thoughts on this, and as noted above, what 
other people want to see in a new combat system.  I don't think I ever said I 
didn't want to see peoples thoughts.

  What I've basically said is that I  want to try and keep the different pieces 
small enough so that they can get done in some sort of timely manner.  Really 
big projects are just really hard to do in the model in which we develop crossfire.