Suggestion about combat mechanism

[Mosquito---Slayer]

I have a suggestion about the combat mechanism which can possibly make the game a bit closer to real life. The point is that till now in all SW games the damage done by PC's is the same irrespective of how injured they are. Think of it, can someone who has just had his a** blasted by arcane blow wield the sword with the same power as someone who is fresh and raring to go?? This thing deserves a change, even if just for novelty value.

[Lilith]

This is one of those things that seems like a good idea but doesn't pan out very well in actual play. The trouble is that it creates a phenomenon known as the death spiral: if you start losing a fight, you're more likely to keep losing it, which encourages people to immediately reload as soon as they suffer any setback at all instead of trying to come back from it.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

No, actually I think you (or maybe I) missed a point there,

This phenomenon can be applied to PC's as well as that of enemies, this will ensure that the fights remain even.

The only change i guess is that the HP's will need to be reduced a bit for both PC's and foes (otherwise the fight's may get too long), That shouldn't be too hard??(I am no programmer).

[Randomizer]

It works well with fights with each side having the same numbers, but faced with a swarm as you get hit you have more trouble fighting, but they will have untouched foes. You will spend time healing just to be able to do significant damage.

[Necris Omega]

I'm inclined to agree with Lilith.

 

This leads to irrevocable lock down on one side or the other. Any advantages would become wildly magnified, and the distance between who wins and who loses would be way too great.

 

You may be able to kill me in a single attack with your sword, but I just Arcane Blew your arms off at a hundred paces. Now what're you going to do? Gnaw on me, or wait to be healed? If the former, I laugh at you. If the later, I just blow your arms off again. And again, and again, and again.

 

Unless you can counter-cripple me just as effectively as I can cripple you at the outset, even AFTER I've already just crippled you to begin with, how are you ever going to catch up to be any threat?

 

If you want to add daze/stun/weakness/terror penalties to massive enough damage effects that's one thing. I wouldn't mind it if Lethal Blowing off 80% of my enemy's health in a single swing of my Halberd invoked a fear effect. But constantly scaling effectiveness with health is just not a good idea.

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: cute Melnachion

I have a suggestion about the combat mechanism which can possibly make the game a bit closer to real life. The point is that till now in all SW games the damage done by PC's is the same irrespective of how injured they are. Think of it, can someone who has just had his a** blasted by arcane blow wield the sword with the same power as someone who is fresh and raring to go?? This thing deserves a change, even if just for novelty value.

The body is a wonderful thing. They just might.

I could see attacks causing an altered state, unconsciousness, or even instant death if they deal enough damage, but there isn't really enough of a correlation between health points and anything else to simulate real life.

[Slawbug]

Lilith is correct. There just isn't enough room for realism in this kind of combat system. I don't like it, but there you go.

 

The best way to get realism is to just say "okay, all my characters are super heroic and have immense resistance to system shock, blood loss, loss of limbs, etc."

[Kyronea]

The fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it has an underlying assumption that is simply not true: the more realistic, the more fun.

 

Obviously this isn't true, or else most videogames would cease being enjoyable. You're able to perform feats impossible in the normal world in all sorts of ways all the time in videogames, and removing that would remove a crucial element key to the enjoyability of it.

 

That's not to say that one can't do a system where there's penalties for things like limb injuries and not have it fun. Deus Ex, for example, had a particularly interesting health system that could simulate the sort of things suggested here, and it was a great addition to a superb game.

 

But for the combat system of the Avernum series, it doesn't fit. Given how often you face hordes of enemies far more numerous than your party, it's just not going to work, not for the typical person playing these games, those who do things like singleton Torment challenge runs not withstanding.

[Alorael at Large]

That little bit of realism could work in a fun system, but it would require a near-total overhaul of Spiderweb's combat system. You'd need to have meaningful ways to avoid damage without building an entire character around it. You'd need a recovery from shock system to go with recovery from damage. You'd need to rebalance the power of first strikes and speed.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is the big problem. The current combat system is serviceable. It's close to the cRPG baseline, so it's not going to drive anyone away. It works. Fixing it would be a huge amount of effort and a huge risk, and there's just not that much benefit in it.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

I will say i am disappointed, but yeah i see your point.

Anyway thanks all.

[Celtic Minstrel]

Originally Posted By: Kyronea

The fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it has an underlying assumption that is simply not true: the more realistic, the more fun.

This. Every time I see someone suggesting a new feature for a game (mostly Minecraft) because it's "more realistic", I groan inwardly and point out to them that it's only a game and realism is (for the most part) not a desirable aspect.

[Necris Omega]

Originally Posted By: Celtic Minstrel

Originally Posted By: Kyronea

The fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it has an underlying assumption that is simply not true: the more realistic, the more fun.

This. Every time I see someone suggesting a new feature for a game (mostly Minecraft) because it's "more realistic", I groan inwardly and point out to them that it's only a game and realism is (for the most part) not a desirable aspect.

Wisdom too few game designers understand these days.

Realism can make a game better, but by no means does it do so by direct virtue of being "realistic" - Realism means bureaucracy, chores, and sinus infections. While it can enhance immersion, it's really a double edged sword in many respects.

I'll take my dual wielding bazookas, turbo rocket speed, so heavily armed his fillings are weaponized, everything explodes if you put your mind to it old-timey space marine over the clunky, lumbering, two weapon maximum, chest high wall hugging space marine any day.

[Slawbug]

What *can* make a game better is internal consistency -- internal realism, if you will.

[Lilith]

actually i'd put both "realism" and consistency under the umbrella of intuitiveness. some kinds of consistency or correspondence to real-world events can help cue players on how to respond to new situations, thus making the game more intuitive to play. but beyond a certain point they may no longer serve that function in any useful way and thus are unnecessary

[Slawbug]

yes, but don't make me link to that tolkien essay again

[Enraged Slith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

yes, but don't make me link to that tolkien essay again

If it's interesting, would you mind?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

yes, but don't make me link to that tolkien essay again

whatchu tolkien about slarty

[Slawbug]

http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/fairystories-tolkien.pdf

 

tl;dr version (relevant excerpts from wikipedia):

 

He emphasizes that through the use of fantasy, which he equates with fancy and imagination, the author can bring the reader to experience a world which is consistent and rational, under rules other than those of the normal world... Tolkien suggests that fairy stories allow the reader to review his own world from the "perspective" of a different world. This concept, which shares much in common with phenomenology, Tolkien calls "recovery," in the sense that one's unquestioned assumptions might be recovered and changed by an outside perspective.

 

A relevant flowchart that I put together six years ago is here. You may or may not appreciate it.

[Dantius]

So is this just Tolkien being pretentious? Or does he have an actual point? Because if it's just "creating alternate worlds gives us a lens through which to view our own", that's hardly a novel idea or unique to him, since I'm fairly sure Orwell made the exact same point before 1947...

[Slawbug]

If you think that Animal Farm, superb though it may be, was anywhere near the first use of allegory, you're crazy.

 

Tolkien's main point was that one of the things that makes a difference in whether or not "created alternate worlds" are successful is their internal consistency.

[Randomizer]

It the idea that a world with magic has rules just like our world, but the rules are different to allow magic. So a magic user will have limits on what he can do and those rules make things happen a certain way. No being able to cast a god-like spell to bail you out when things get tough.

 

The reader may not know what the rules are, but the writer should and make the story follow those rules.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

If you think that Animal Farm, superb though it may be, was anywhere near the first use of allegory, you're crazy.

Tolkien's main point was that one of the things that makes a difference in whether or not "created alternate worlds" are successful is their internal consistency.

No, but he does come to mind as a person who used highly successful allegory before that essay was published. Furthermore, he arguably created the most successful political allegory in modern history in his works, so I just picked him as someone who did it earlier and better than Tolkien.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

If you think that Animal Farm, superb though it may be, was anywhere near the first use of allegory, you're crazy.

Tolkien's main point was that one of the things that makes a difference in whether or not "created alternate worlds" are successful is their internal consistency.

did you just imply that tolkien's writing involved allegory

because i'm pretty sure that's one of those things that causes him to rise from his grave for the express purpose of egging your house

[Slawbug]

This is true, and I was about to reply to Dantius saying that before you replied to me saying that. Tolkien explicitly avoided allegory, but he did not avoid what he called "applicability." In other words, he rejected any notion that the War of Ring as a whole was particularly parallel to WW2, but clearly accepted the idea that the Scouring of the Shire was relevant to England of his day and age.

[Lilith]

tbh i only wrote that post to give all y'all the mental image of the horrific undead form of JRRT engaging in petty sophomoric vengeance against people who interpret his works in ways he didn't like

[Slawbug]

if only

[Lilith]

and he'd still be less creepy than CS Lewis

[Slawbug]

i'll see your CS Lewis and raise you one zombified GK Chesterton

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

tbh i only wrote that post to give all y'all the mental image of the horrific undead form of JRRT engaging in petty sophomoric vengeance against people who interpret his works in ways he didn't like

Originally Posted By: Umberto Eco

I think that a narrator, as well as a poet, should never provide interpretations of his own work. A text is a machine conceived for eliciting interpretations. When one has a text to question, it is irrelevant to ask the author.

Source

[Lilith]

that's pretty much why i like the mental image, yes

[Alorael at Large]

Zombie Milton will justify the ways of text to authors and readers. In groans, too!

 

—Alorael, who is pretty sure that while Tolkien's introduction asserting that there is absolutely no allegory (and, incidentally, you should pay for that book, y'know?) is entertaining, he's also pretty sure that it is rather inaccurate.

[Necris Omega]

... I'unno. I tend to attribute an author as having absolute authority on his own works. If he explicitly says there's no intended allegory in a piece, then anything a reader sees to the contrary is simply their own imaginations.

 

Even if it is easy to see how one could call the Lord of the Rings as an allegory, and that interpretation can be backed up to any extent, if the author himself says plainly, "no, that's not how it is" then I have difficulty disagreeing with him. If the author says "no" then you're just reading into things that aren't there no matter how convincing a case you can make to the contrary.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

Or you can say that everything is an allegory based on your life experiences.

The fact that I, the author don't realize or acknowledge the allegory, doesn't make it untrue.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Necris Omega

... I'unno. I tend to attribute an author as having absolute authority on his own works. If he explicitly says there's no intended allegory in a piece, then anything a reader sees to the contrary is simply their own imaginations.

Even if it is easy to see how one could call the Lord of the Rings as an allegory, and that interpretation can be backed up to any extent, if the author himself says plainly, "no, that's not how it is" then I have difficulty disagreeing with him. If the author says "no" then you're just reading into things that aren't there no matter how convincing a case you can make to the contrary.

(1) The idea that the author has absolute and unerring knowledge of all the influences that went into his or her own work hasn't really been a tenable position since the discovery of the subconscious mind.

(2) Even if (1) could be disregarded, people lie. Even authors.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Zombie A.E. Housman does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man.

[Alorael at Large]

Housman can justify the ways of Lucan to man, too.

 

—Alorael, who does give Tolkien more credit than many authors in analysis of his own work. He was, at least, an advocate for literary analysis. Not against the author's wishes, true, and he might have had his blindspots, but he was an English academic. And an English English academic.

[Dantius]

That's like twice the English as a regular academic! How could he hold it all in one body?

[Alorael at Large]

The English are not like you or I. They are made of sterner stuff.

 

—Alorael, who recognizes that most academics are not English at all given the diverse fields in which one can academize. And, of course, there are plenty of English academics who have room for only one English and one field of study.

[Necris Omega]

Tolkien was so English he garnished his meals not with parsley, but with superfluous 'u's...

[Slawbug]

ZOMBIE PHILOLOGIST DEATHMATCH!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

...wait.....

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

ZOMBIE PHILOLOGIST DEATHMATCH!!!!!





...wait.....

You don't get dessert until you finish the rest of your projects.

[Slawbug]

That was a joke. because

 

1) they're philologists, and

 

2) zombie deathmatch?

[Alorael at Large]

I once saw a man pedanted to death. It's a bad way to die.

 

—Alorael, who finds zombie (re)death well attested in the zombie literature. As a bonus, in this case the philology isn't really a handicap. Everyone knows even the most harmless become deadly as zombies. (Granted the catch is that they're not generally recognized as deadly to other zombies...)

[Kyronea]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

What *can* make a game better is internal consistency -- internal realism, if you will.

Indeed. Internal consistency is very much desirable, because it helps you enjoy a world far more more so than having one where nothing stays consistent would be.

[Harehunter]

The real trick is to present this internal consistency without making it so so complicated that it detracts from the 'reality'. Gene Roddenberry knew that when he produced his 'Wagon Trail to the Stars'. There was some pretty complicated technology used in his stories, but it was explained in detail only when understanding that detail was vital to the plot. When Kirk used a communicator, he just used it. How it worked was not important. Only when Spock was trying to explain the difficulty of changing its function, did we get a glimpse of that technology. The main point was to keep it simple so as not to distract the viewer from the story itself.