Let's settle this once and for all. Card combat, Good or Bad

This is the best news of the day and I hope it remains true! Thanks Chris.

 

That my friends, is what is up.

 

Which other polls?

 

What?

No randomness implies that luck plays a plays a reasonable part in the process. While I'm all in favor of some luck for some things that I can't or don't want to have control of (chance of hit, amount of damage) (and hey, picking a sword with a damage range is 'control' but its still 'random') doesn't mean I'm willing to cede control of my character over to the random elements. That I get a 'vote' in what skills I'd like to see come up is not the same as having control over my character.

That I may, or may not, get to cast that heal while my friend is bleeding out, isn't fun. That I go to attack the practice dummy and my defense skill is the first thing that pops up doesn't jive with what I want the character to do.

And at the end of the day, that's all I ask for in an RPG. The ability to make the character do something. The deck system takes a large chunk of that away from me right when I want to be most involved in the game.

Besides, since when is player agency in a Lord British game considered a dirty word? Isn't that what makes his games special? Or did I miss something?

 

Wow.......... that was really well written Freeman. I like it

 

And I like what you said...

 

The way I see it; for me deck based systems are not great. I prefer more certainty, a bit like UO being able to bind as many spells/skills as I have keys (probably about 60+ on my accounts). However SotA isn't UO, given the 3d element rather than asymmetric makes movement difficult if not impossible to control just with a mouse (freeing up those keys for the binds). So by its very nature you could end up having 10 spells (locked from 1 to 0) for convenience.......which is awful. The deck system kind of solves the issue by constantly flipping what you have access to so if you want, you can have far more abilities (albeit maybe not exactly when you want).

So R17 was awful for combat mainly (from my view) because the direction was taking choice away from players. R18 shows promise and I am actually quite excited because not only has choice been given back, but it looks to try and removed some of the randomness so you could actually be more likely to end up with the spell/skill not only when you want it but also where you want it in terms of bindings.

There is also less emphasis on stacking so although there are bonuses to stacking; it doesn't appear that it will be essential for players to stand a chance.

I haven't really tested any of it out (my main PvP partner in crime is from Germany and he has connections issues at the moment ) however on paper it looks like a good move in the right direction.

@Chris, great job!

 

Chances of recovery is like trying to predict the weather. Although Chris mentions things that show favorable signs. Forgive me if I keep some grumpiness around until I see something new.

 

That was very informative, thank you!

In terms of what the player thinks, I'll at least give you my own thoughts on Interrupt and Fizzle now. I'd be interested in hearing what others think too.

Fizzle & Interrupt
I think fizzle could be more interesting than it currently is. The current change is better, but I get the feeling it will mostly seem like I failed to press the key I wanted.

In Ultima Online (I knoooow) any mage would generally get 100% magery, and apart from the Gate spell, keep to 6th Circle spells or lower in PvP (And most of PvE unless they were casting from a safe location). This was the same situation, no one wanted to fizzle, so they used the spells that didn't. 7th Circle hardly ever fizzled either, so you did get the use of Flame Strike. But the point is, it was the same as this. If you failed, you lost the mana and instantly tried again. STILL, people didn't really use spells that fizzle.

I'd prefer something a little more interactive for fizzle chance, and it could mix in with interrupt chance too (which was something spells did in UO too).

Imagine if spells with a fizzle chance could be "Charged". Essentially you can hold down the spell to give it a casting time (or extend the existing cast time) with any additional cast time reducing your fizzle chance.

At the same time, make interrupt a cumulative effect. i.e. When you start casting, a certain amount of damage dealt over that time will interrupt the spell. Each time a spell is interrupted, the amount of damage required to interrupt you is increased until you successfully cast a spell.

Visually, imagine casting Fireball. Two UI bars appear, your Interrupt Bar and your Fizzle Bar.

Interrupt Bar - Starts empty, fills up as you take damage. You are Interrupted if it becomes full.

Fizzle Bar - Starts filled to your current fizzle chance (20% Fizzle = The bar 20% filled). As you charge the spell, the fizzle bar will drain down until there is no fizzle chance left (At this point the spell would automatically complete even if you're still holding down). You can stop charging early and risk the fizzle.

1. What is the purpose of the mechanic?
Fizzle and Interrupt become a mini-game of risk and reward.
- Interrupt exists to encourage the caster to avoid taking damage while using "larger" spells. Failure has the silver lining of increasing the chance of your next spell succeeding.
- Fizzle creates interesting in-combat decisions by having the caster decide between increasing the casting time for reliability or sacrificing the reliability for faster spell-slinging.

2. Does it succeed in it's purpose?
- I believe Interrupt would benefit from a cumulative damage threshold as it adds three distinct changes from the current system.
(1. You can visually see how far away you are from being interrupted and come to gauge a spell's success chance in certain situations. This removes computer-based random chance and replaces it with skill-based combat decisions)
(2. The bar acts as a mini-game. It can visually relay this detail of combat back to the player, giving them highs and lows when close-calls succeed or fail)
(3. It creates a buffer for failure, so the player feels like they have been compensated when a spell is interrupted. In this case, the increased interruption damage requirement)

- I believe Fizzle would benefit here too as it opens up spells for all armour classes and creates another interesting mini-game. i.e. A warrior in full armour would have a high fizzle chance to whittle down, but would take less damage than someone in cloth armour when it comes to interruption. A full plate warrior would still come out worse off due to the extra time he must spend charging the spell.
A cloth-based mage on the other hand would have a much smaller fizzle chance but would be easier to interrupt. However, the entire process would be over quicker either way (And with far less charging also means less of an opening to actually interrupt)

3. Is the mechanic interesting and fun?
I would hope the examples above show why the mechanics would be interesting. They create a risk vs reward system, introduce visual indicators for the effects and make the randomness more controlled.

It also opens up the group dynamic. A mage stood at the back of his group can take the extra time to eliminate his fizzle chance without worrying about interruption. But if a warrior is dying, he may risk a far quicker cast heal with he possibility of a fizzle.

A mage who has started Charging a spell can also release it early if he comes close to being interrupted and risk the remaining fizzle chance. (Spells with a base cast-time would always need to channel for that time as a minimum, regardless of the key being released early)

It also introduces Charging as a mechanic. This could be later expanded to Channelled spells, and those spells would also have an interrupt bar.

The extra control over fizzling means the consequence of fizzling a spell can be greater. This would also mean some mages would choose to be interrupted when Charging a spell rather than risk the fizzle chance.

In the end, it would make interrupt and fizzle mechanics that mages need to manage rather than random elements of their combat.

 

Oh also, not sure if this is a bug, but will the combat ability icons that appear over people's heads be billboarded to face the camera? Seems odd that they don't right now.

 

I like the way they are implemented now. Making them always face the camera will turn it into an out-of-game UI element vs. a magic sigil that exists in the game, being projected by its caster.

 

It could still "magically" always be visible to everyone

In the end, it's meant to indicate what skill is being used

 

I really like these suggestions. It would make using magic more interesting!

 

I'm open to give R18 a shot, but just to clarify a few things. Random access to skills is random. Just because I invest in a skill doesn't mean it'll be available when I need it. That means reliance on tactical skills (ie, what you're hopefully doing to make skills more interesting in general rather than the vanilla "do X damage" or "do Y dot" vomitfest we have now) is shaky; if a skill cannot be relied upon to use in those few circumstances it's designed to be used in, then they will always be passed up for "100% useful, 100% of the time" skills (enforcing min-maxing in a system that was, as RG and you described it years ago, designed to dissuade min-maxing and cookie-cutter templates in the first place). How can I play how I want when the skills I invest in aren't reliably available to me?

Also keep in mind that we already have random factors, such as accuracy/evasion, fizzle chances, min-max damage. I understand R18 will make the inputs less random, which is nice, so I'll reserve judgment on that for now since a cure to this malady is in the works.

But to claim irony that someone is suggesting control over skills to better utilize a multitude of potential tactical abilities, completely opening up all combat skills for interesting mixing and matching, sounds like you're sore about his commentary. This sounds especially so when matched with a remark about his feedback "obsessing about randomness", which is one of the primary issues of the entire system (random skill availability to kill tactical gameplay, random inputs to focus attention on the hotbar, etc.). At the heels of about 4 months of threads aiming to make the system better - all of which Freeman and dozens of others spent hundreds of man hours pouring over and analyzing, paying backers and loyalist supporters each - it doesn't sound like you're open to much criticism.

 

Since R18 was the first combat scrum iteration which focused mostly on the dynamic deck, I'd say that R19 might be more where your preferences would get something new. Unless you wish to retry playing with the dynamic deck again...
So depending on your time/schedule, it might be better spent then than now.

 

I really just don't understand the point of the deck system. From a roleplaying stand point, why would a wizard be casting random spells? Or even just pulling stuff from a pool of spells?

 

And what are the plans for Locked Deck in the future? is it going to be rebalanced or removed from game?

 

Locked decks certainly need to be a viable option. As far as I can tell, locked decks exist because some people prefer them as a playstyle, and from this thread alone, I can see the overarching idea seems to be "Choice".

There wouldn't be much of a choice if locked decks remained unplayable.

 

I patched up last night and jumped back in. Then I almost fell asleep at the keyboard running around, waiting for cooldowns and HP/FP regen fighting two skeletons, then died to two Ruffians and went and played something else.

I'll give it another go this weekend. If they're working on combat features, even if it is just adjusting input issues, then it deserves a fair shot from me. I can't complain about how suicide-inducing combat is and then not try something new they put in.