Concern over Combat comment RG made,

Ok, Marthos, you misused Freeman's point there. If I have to choose weather or not to go into combat WITH leg sweep, that just does NOT translate to every single enemy suddenly not giving me any leg sweep opportunities. I've got a great imagination, but why should I have to use it to apologize for the game doing something illogical and insulting?

 

I share your concern. But I'm open to the idea that this might be a good system.

My first thought was "WTF, are we playing Magic the Gathering?" Having just burned through a horrible experience playing Scrolls, I've noticed that many games seem to be using "trading cards" and similar mechanics. I realize that one of the devs (maybe RG) has distanced the SotA combat mechanics from "cards" but the comparison still makes sense to me based on what little we've heard so far. Also, the AD&D 2nd edition spell system appears to overlap in my imagination of how this works.

Most gamers enjoy predictability and hate random events. Gamers want to control their environment. I use the last 20 years of gaming as my evidence. But it's difficult to know now if my (our) gut reaction to this new idea is because we're resistant to change or if RG has something very clever cooked up here.

For my part, I have come to believe that true balance in competitive gaming (and that's what this is about for most people, the ability to feel a sense of logical understanding of how the combat system works - why we win and why we lose) requires a "chess-like" design. Meaning that if you and I fight each other, you don't have a distinct advantage over me, and I don't have a distinct advantage over you at least from a rules (read design) based perspective. Just like if you play a real life game of basketball with someone, the out of bounds lines, the size of the ball, the adjustment of the rim, etc...that's the same for all the people playing the game. If you have that, you have a balanced game, it's playable, and the only thing that separates one side from another is "skill". This is normally practiced, and rarely inherited from birth. Thus real life games of sport are designed very well - as is the game of Chess.

Where random "deck population" fits into a balanced and fun game, I don't really know. It seems way too random and way too frustrating to be fun.

 

I agree, but where is this skill to be applied? I mean, if SotA comes with an IAR suit, a controller set modeled onto the handles of a sword and a shield, and I control the character by going through the movements, is that the ultimate evolution of player skill? What about skill in planning and building my character? In most MMO's, the real battle can be fought and won long before the characters met, as each player applied what they thought was a good plan, and only one of them was right. Of course, IN stat based MMO combat, I have frequently seen the skillful application of weird moves, risky tricks, and clever hiding/kiting make the difference between equally built characters. I think that in the case of someone who planned better, got better stuff, worked longer, and trained his skills higher, a distinct advantage should exist, it's deserved. If I step onto the court for a little B-ball, I have some natural advantages. I'm tall, I have long arms and legs. Versus a shorter player of equal skill and experience, I can be an intimidating foe. I should have an advantage, I was built better for basketball. If I go up against Kobe Bryant in some one on one, I still have a physical advantage (I am actually taller, he's not a giant, and I didn't get injured at all this season, or last) but his extended training and skill will smoke me. And he deserves that win, it's skill based.

 

I think sports are great to consider when talking about design of the game and core balance. The reason this works is because in sports there are boundaries and rules and everyone plays using the same baseline. So if Kobe Bryant were to play you in basketball, the rim would still be the same height, the three point line would still be the same, the ball would be the same, traveling would be called the same for you and for him. The game doesn't change just because he's Kobe and you're you. So the result would be based solely on player skill. That's why sports are so great, because player skill really matters.

But when talking about a video game I don't believe that the average person is looking for more pastimes where they're not good at something. I don't believe that they're signing up to make the professional SotA team in the Olympics. So with that in mind, I think any type of physical skill should be off the table. We shouldn't need to run and jump, swing swords or perform complex magical hand gestures. We should only need to use our minds when it comes to competition. That means no twitch mechanics. That means hot keys shouldn't help you win or make someone else lose. That means scripting shouldn't be an advantage.

When you take all of that out, you're really talking about mental skill, and that's something I'm all for. Again, I don't know where the randomness of the card deck stuff comes into play, I don't think it sounds all that good. But I'm all for systems that require less twitch and more thinking.

 

Like Goblin King, I'm not sure how the deck system would work with physical combat. As I have mentioned elsewhere on these forums, as a former Magic the Gathering player, I can see how the system would work for spells, but it does seem a poor fit for physical combat. There are too many possible combat maneuvers involved and skill progression does not seem to play a large enough role. Poor deck construction by those unaccustomed to this style of play would undoubtedly lead to many frustrated players.

 

To this day the pc RPG with my favorite combat system is Origin's Knights of Legend (Lord British is in the credits for support, I just noticed hehe)
I know SotA is aiming for a real time deck system and I like the idea but maybe a few elements of what made KoL's combat brilliant would be nice to retain.
If we could have different deck skills that target specific body parts and also have ''localised defense''. For example you could wear heavy armor with thin leather pants to facilitate dodging but then you'd be more vulnerable to a crippling leg shot. You'd have an Offensive (hack, slash, thrust) and a Defensive deck skill (back up, dodge, duck) each round. You'd swich those around anytime, your choice affecting the next round. This could lead to very strategic battles and bluffing. I'm clad in full plate but don't wear my helm as I want to have a decent vision to keep full accuracy. My opponent see's this and goes for the head. I knew he'd do this so I back up while lauching a sword thrust to the chest which he dodges and it goes on and on...

 

While I am actually with you in spirit here, as I am a natural plotter, and spend hours and hours finegaling my character design to be the best I can make, I think there is a place in SotA for twitch combat. If everything is based on our stats and build, then all the combats are just sitting back and watching the computer do the work. See other references to Final Fantasy, selecting your attack sequences, then going to make a sandwich. I think movement should be realtime and slightly twitch based, for those players who dislike an auto aim there should be manual fire control, and setting up your UI to give you fast smooth access to your desired powers, so you can use them when you intend to instead of hunt and peck for the all important keybind, should all factor in.

To return to my sports analogy, every character is born the exact same capacity. How we build and equip them determines what their "physical advantages" will be. How we PLAY them will be the demonstration of skill. I want my character to work better when I'm playing him than when I'm letting my buddy sit at my computer, because I am actually better at the game. You cannot have that without some degree of twitch combat.