A more interactive deck proposal

After testing the deck system with PvP over the weekend, the following thought occurred to me. I am playing a card game in which I see only my own cards, and I play those cards with little to no regard as to what cards have been played against me. What kind of a card game is that?

Consider a boxing match played in the same fashion. Left jab. Left jab. Feint right high and body blow left. Left jab. Left right combination. Right cross. etc, etc, etc.

Now I could do that with no consideration to the moves made by my opponent, but that would be a particularly stupid way to conduct a boxing match. If my opponent telegraphs a right uppercut, I might counter with a left cross and lay him out.

Perhaps a better way to handle the cards would be to induce a slight delay between when I drop a card and when the action takes place and to display that card to my target. My opponent would see my card, and have the opportunity to select a card in response. A defensive selection might serve to negate my card. Another card might offer him a damage bonus against me, or a chance to stun or stagger me. A poorly selected card might have the reverse effect against him. Other cards might be neutral, giving neither a bonus nor a penalty, but every card should have a counter (or more than one) that results in either a bonus or a penalty against a player.

Some cards might be pretty safe. A left jab, for example, has few counter punches, so if you were playing cautiously and feeling the other player out, a series of jabs would not open you to a lot of risk.

If however, you wade into the fight with a series of left and right round house swings, your predictability should allow a smart opponent to counter your attack effectively. Conversely, a not so smart opponent just might step into the punch and go down for the count.

This would add a great deal more interest to the game, and would make for a better card game metaphor. This might be hard to implement, however, and network lag would be an issue. Plus, if the lag between selecting a card and representing the action becomes to great, then you break the simulation.

There should be a counter, however, to spam attacks. A player that throws fireball after fireball, for example, might receive extra damage if a player counters with an ice attack, or a wind attack. If you are predictable in your attacks, there should be a way for other players to take advantage of that predictability and make a counter attack, possibly with devastating results.

If network delays makes it unfeasible to allow a player to actually react to another players card, then for the selected target, you could still display his card last thrown. Within short span of time, you could react with a different card as a counter. If you choose wisely, to are rewarded. If you choose unwisely, you incur a penalty. If the ideal counter card is not visible in your deck, then you can play a neutral card. If you only have cards that will penalize you, don't mash a card icon/button that time, and perform an auto attack instead when it comes up, after which you can play another card. Or if the fight is nearly over, you might decide to risk the penalty and make the attack anyway.

 

While I agree about defensive counters to attack types, I think the name "card game" is a big misnomer, because it's not about a card game at all.

In fact I would go so far as to say they should call decks "stacks" and cards "glyphs" and call it the Glyph System.

You only have to go over the forums on mmorpg or joystick to see uninformed people freak out about a notion of "card game" when it comes to combat without understanding it.

"Oh noes! All combat is is just a card game teh suck !!!"

I think adding a skill that increases the chance you get a type of card dealt out that is more suited to your current situation (ranged, anti-fire, anti-elec, melee, etc) would be cool improvement....

 

Well, in the current system, the nomenclature used does make combat a form of a card game. You have a deck. Cards are dealt at random. They disappear after a set period of time. You play cards to effect an attack, cast a spell, or trigger a buff. You can only select cards that have been dealt, and you can only be dealt cards that exist in your deck.

That, to me, makes the combat system a form of a card game. How can it NOT be a card game?

 

There are no real cards - it's just an abstraction. You don't trade actual card decks or find cards in the world. At least I don't think that's the intention. It's just a metaphor for how the spell system works.. You're right, currently there is no concept of competing against the other persons cards, or trumping them or flipping them, (i.e., you don't see the others cards and make a decision with your "hand" on what to do based on that) and I'd argue it should stay that way, not move in the direction of abstracting combat so it IS just a card game between 2 people... that is what scares people about the name in the first place.

 

I think it would be cool to have to do quests to find some of the more rare "cards" (abilities) instead of starting with a full deck. I realize you have to skill up (i think), but the cards are already there. *goes back to making skin mask* muhahahaha

 

Games have tried to implement interactive combat before with varying degrees of success. Age of Conan would allow you to block high, low, left, and right and your opponent would see a visual representation of that in the form of bracket symbols on your character. It was marginally successful in PvE, but in my experience a complete flop in PvP.

As it is now, we have a hot bar that isn't that much different from any other MMO hot bar other than icons appear randomly, and the number of slots and visibility of icons and persistence can be affected by skill selection, but there still isn't much action and reaction in combat. it's still just button mashing. The button mashing is now merely more random.

If I get an icon for the last attack made by my selected target and can then choose my next attack accordingly, wisely, foolishly, or neutrally, that adds a greater degree of interaction than I have seen from most MMOs.

 

Totally agree, I already brought this point up in my thread. Yet another flaw in the card system....

 

There are real cards, and you do collect them when you apply XP points in exchange for skill cards. You are buying cards with XP points.

 

What I mean is, there are no real cards in the game world. They're abstract, not physical items in the world you can get or obtain or trade. They just represent abilities you can do, like flame arrow. It's not because of the cards you have that you can do that ability for example....

Yes, but there is a fundamental reason for this, and that is because due to the network architecture and the vagaries of how multiplayer connections work (you know when people suddenly re-appear a short space away?) it is *very* difficult to correctly do the kind of fine tuned action and response correctly that you're envisioning.

I mean let's face it, even Skyrim the prototype fantasy game that everyone loves because of it's flashy graphics had a pretty poorly defined combat system when it came to "action and reaction" and that was a single player game without those problems...
Do you know of a game that was multiplayer and had that level of action and reaction you want to see in SoTa? Let me know because I would love to check it out.

 

I agree.

This is why I've suggested a system where you "left" skills were defensive and you're "right" skills were offensive and you generally had some set of counters.

e.g.:
<dodge>, 1= block / defense, 2 = counter / cc / interrupt, 3 = jab type attack, 4 = riskier, big swing attack

And for any given attack, one of the 3 defenses is usually the best counter and one is usually the worst. This leaves the attacker at something of a disadvantage because he's effectively showing his hand first in a game of r/p/s. But you're swinging back and forth and the defender is really the one paying for the mistakes.

 

There are no real swords either - they are are also an abstraction. SotA could be described as a card game with a visible interface. Play a card, and the interface responds with an action, which is pretty much exactly what is going on.

In my last paragraph, I cover the likelihood that network latency wouldn't permit true interaction, but never the less, the system could display the last card selected by my selected target, and before my next autoattack, the outcome of my next card selected could be affected by that card, positively, negatively, or neutrally. I think that could be easily achieved.

 

I think we need to move away from the "card or deck" name to the "glyph" name, as it is not truly a card game Owain... The term was used because nothing else close enough to its essence existed.. It is a dynamic action randomly generated from selective skills type of system. It is known as the Glyph system now. So, while constructive as you have stated it, I don't think we need to go for a true "card" mechanism such as the ones described.

I just read the first sentences and wanted to put out my thought before it was gone. I will read more now.

Edit: lol.. Trady.. If I had not typed this and posted it before I read your reply, I would have said "this guy just copied my comments and reposted". Man.. Same line of thinking..

Edit2: Owain, yes, it is still sorta button mashing but thats because it is in an early state... This system, when done and refined, making errors due to its randomness, will cost you the fight.. So, mashing keys will have a penalty system based on the opponetns desicions... Yes, it is more forgiving than the current system (in a way) but thats what makes this system so good for pros and casual alike.. This system has the potential for expanding the current constraints of the mold we know to something so open.. Not sure if you guys see it, but I see a potential change in the history of mmo combat gaming with this model. Lets hope it gets refined and done properly

 

No, now you are just twisting my words. That is not what I meant and you know it. I think moving in the direction of making combat even more like a card game than an abstraction mechanism for combat is a very bad idea.

The rest of your ideas are not so bad, in theory. They should just be implemented in the context of the skill tree, focus I assume.

 

A what ? lol

 

Hehe.. Trying to come up with something that can define it other than cards? It is not turn based, hence, dynamic? Action because... We are active? "Randomly generated" due to its deck feature? "Selective skills" as you need to select your skill tree points and then add it to your glyph deck? Lol.. Just saying..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

My point was that the whole thing is a simulation. At what level does the simulation start? It can be argued that the simulation starts as a card game that has a visual interface, which I think is an accurate description as far as the combat system goes.

 

How can you counter something at the right moment if u are being dealt random cards lol. The Whole system is crazy. Makes ZERO sense.

 

But... why do you want it to become more like a card game ? Who wants that ? We want to pretend to be mighty warriors and wizards right ? OR something... not like... Oh we have magic cards decks that control our characters destinies... thats not what I'm thinking anyhow...

 

How come when in real life when you get in a fight you forget to block a punch ? You know you have the skills to beat someone but sometimes you lose ? How do you explain that ? Theres' some giant PvP'er in the sky getting random cards dealt and he didn't lock a good skill or two Hahahah

 

It's not that I want it to become a card game, but if it's an accurate description of the interface, that is independent of my wants, isn't it? If I can the devs can use that to their advantage to design greater interaction into the game, I think that would be a good thing.