Meaningful combat decisions

One of the main goals of any combat system is to have it feel exciting, and it usually does that by creating decisions that are meaningful to the outcome.

What do you think is a meaningful choice that would make you stop to think "Huh, tough call" ?

Follow up, is there a game that does this already? Or even just a game you find especially good at combat even if you can't explain why?

 

Throwing strategy and tactics out the window and assuming I'm already more or less engaged...

I've mentioned this before, but Mike Tyson's Punch-Out! gets is just about right. I get a dodge, a block, a normal attack, and a big swing / finisher. I can alter my stance to swing high with a modifier. All I would add to this is a deliberate cc/interrupt move. The stance swap might include moth a modifier attack (hold shift, etc.) and an actual weapon swap (a la gw2).

Obviously that game you didn't move. SotA will give you at least 2 dimentions of movement. So you kite and circle strafe a bit making the dodging more interesting.

I remember playing Ultima, Punch-Out, and simple online dial up games around the same time and imagining that I could some day play games online with the depth of Ultima but with the fluid graphics and real time combat.

 

I remember the "Jedi Knight" series as among the best of combat for me. The fighting was fast, furious and intense. The best thing about it, however, was you could play the way you want to play. You could approach the light saber combat as the aggressor, or fight defensively, try to perfect the counter attack or anything in between. All the opponents had their own strength and weaknesses but there was no "right" or "wrong" way to defeat them. The more you played the more you could hone your skills. It was a very satisfying experience to slowly master your own, unique style of combat.

 

1) Meaningful combat, to me, would mean things like affecting the duration, difficulty, outcome, or reward from combat.
Specificaly, this could mean if I wanted more difficult fights, longer fights, and as a result have the outcome be in question, and the reward be greater, I would enjoy that.
Conversely, if I wasn't in the mood for that type of play, if I wanted easier fights, shorter fights, and as a result, have the outcome be less unpredictable, and the reward less, I would like that option.

I've written about this before, but an incomplete & quick summary would be there's nothing wrong in dynamically adjusting the difficulty of encounters, provided you dynamically adjust the reward from encounters. The "tough call" in this case is choosing less difficulty vs. greater reward. I'd prefer not to brainstorm on "tough calls" with respect to the UI or indeed, anything not related to server-side mechanics.

2) Many persistent multiplayer online games, such as EQ2, EQ, DDO and WoW, have some similar mechanics. In particular, some let you consume content by choosing a difficulty ahead of time (easy, normal, challenging, heroic) and/or also have monsters who use tactics that are somewhat dynamic. If you increased the granularity of this difficulty choice to be per person, or per group, in the shared open world, I think that would be innovative. (rather than the choice being made only at the start of an instance, for example)
Typically, this behavior is limited to bosses or other 'special' NPC's, but with the computing resources available today, there is no reason why it can't be extended to all NPC's.

Having said all of the above, a consequence of more engaging combat is often that such combat is typically protracted beyond what the typical player is accustomed to. Fights seem "long", in other words. I don't mind this, provided the reward is commensurate with the effort put in place. But to fight a goblin for 5 minutes only to get a single goblin tooth, well, let's just say that might not go over very well if I need 100 goblin teeth.

 

Thanks vjek.

I think I should qualify tough calls though, what I mostly mean for tough call scenerios isn't something UI or server side, but something like "This armor makes me easier to hit, but more resistant to damage." or "Two handed weapons means no shield" or "Longbows go farther with faster reload, but are harder to hit with" or "a rapier wouldn't do as much damage, but it uses dex instead of strength for it's chance to hit".

Ways in which a meaningful change will happen to your combat style, but you're have to pick between one option, or another.

 

UO factions was very good since it also brought in faction based crafters. Having secured towns also gave you the right to place out guards, raise/lower tax and place traps inside cities that only affected your opposition.

 

Reminds me of d&d, which ultima was influenced by. Two handed sword did a lot of damage but were high encumberance and had a slow attack speed. Daggers were the opposite. All weapons, armors, spells had their own pros and cons. I don't see why that old school system couldn't still work in games today.

 

Hmmm.

I'll relate a story then, of going through the NWN official compaign in the past week, multiplayer, over the Internet, with three other friends. Two of them have never played NWN at all, and indeed are unfamiliar with DnD-esque rules, at all.

So I've explained to them the basics, and we've hacked and slashed our way to chapter 3 of 5, and they're starting to take note of different in-game mechanics like saving throws, will, fortitude, reflexes, immunities and so on.

In particular, one piece of armor came by that was one more AC, but (in their words) "had nothing magical about it". That was an agonizing choice for the Paladin. He wanted that 1 more AC, but he would have to give up some damage soak or magical resistance (I forget which). So, in that case, strictly from a gear-point perspective, there can be some "tough calls". Any game that adheres strictly to the something like NWN with respect to choices of effects on slots would likely do ok as a starting point. Some find those rules too restrictive, though.

I find the debates surrounding what equipment (weapons, armor, spells, skills) is better typically avoid the unpleasant realities of most persistent multiplayer online games. I'll offer an example. Typically, there is no downside, at all, in any way, to being a glass cannon in PvE. In fact, the more glass, the better. Ideally, if you can fight your target by starting the fight at max range, and then killing it before it reaches (or just as it reaches) your feet, you're full of win.

Where's the downside? Fights are as short as possible, and there's no risk. Even if you take one hit, typically you won't die in one hit, so meh, glass cannon all the way, baby! There is no tough call, because the decisions players make are almost meaningless. I've heard of several cases where the design is so poor in some persistent multiplayer online games, players have removed all their armor, turned off all their buffs, and done an entire instance of heroic difficulty content naked, with one storebought weapon in their hand. It took them maybe 20% longer in time, that was the "downside". Woooeee.

When player choices are rendered THAT meaningless, it's no wonder customers become jaded. Why used non-ranged combat at all, ever? Why should everyone attend to resistances and defense when 9/10 of your players are standing back nuking in absolute safety?

Unfortunately, with respect to SotA specifically, we don't know if gear will be procedurally generated, or if it will be handcrafted. We don't know if there's going to be a human-eyes sanity check done on gear before it goes into the loot tables, or if the RNG will churn it out and we'll end up with things like +INT, heavy plate with +fishing and -DEX, -STR on it.
Finally, if "player made" crafted gear is going to supplant generated/developer-produced gear, as has been outlined, we're going to have a very rough time of it indeed, when trying to find gear that is appropriate to even the slightest types of dynamic encounters.

 

I should also qualify the question some more then with:

While this is in realtion to SotA, don't limit yourself to that in terms of 'what are they doing?' This is strictly a 'what is your ideal'? Question. Even if it's not a 1:1 comparison (PrimeRib brought up Punch Out) it's still useful for the concept.

 

I usually find the tough choices in combat related to terrain, positioning, and routes. Basically asking myself, "Which way should we go? Where can I take the group so that we can pick off zerg stragglers?" or whatever. The important thing I've found is to not take too much time thinking and just pick one; adjust on the fly.

What I think you're asking for is more related to combat abilities. I honestly don't think about it in the moment. The second-guessing comes later, actually. "Should I have tried something different?" I have rotations I do because I have iterated on my strategy over a long time as I leveld up my character. The main question is, am I fighting one enemy or a group?

I see how you want to get people talking about player choice and control, and where the best examples of them can be found. I think the most interesting combat choices I've found have been in Age of Conan and The Secret World.

AoC had a combo system, which was the first time I'd seen something like that. I think Aion came out afterward? It had a similar mechanic. You basically did a base ability and it opened up a second tier above your hotbar with 2 finishing moves, (sometimes you could make chains longer), and you picked one based on the situation.

TSW is crazy. You have a multitude of weapons available, and they all work a little differently. You also wield two weapons at once. Anyone can use any weapon, you just pick it up and start using it. Additionally, you have a 'mana' bar which goes down as you use some abilities and 'charges' which are built up from other weapon skill uses. Certain weapon skills cause enemies to go into states which can be exploited by charged attacks for maximum effect.

 

Be careful what you wish for...

Spoiler: regarding my 'ideal' for meaningful choice

My ideal is a combination of several interconnected systems, not all of which are enumerated here.

In part, I want:

• Unique character paths between character milestones.
• A unique story, per character, based on unique paths.
• Unique per character recipes, for everything, including crafting, skills & spells.
• Unique character consumables for all spells & skills.
• Unique character phobias, fears, features, likes, and dislikes, all purely for flavor, involuntary emotes, social situations and reactions to/from NPC's.
• -- Every combat experience to be unique, even within the same species, region, and difficulty.
• The ability for my character to adjust their innate resistances and susceptibilities, on the fly, in combat, and have their opponent react to them, if they can perceive it.
• The ability for my character to adjust their stats, and resulting calculated stats, on the fly, in combat, and have their opponent react to them, if they can perceive it.
• The ability for my character to change their weapons or damage type, on the fly, in combat, and have their opponent react to them, if they can perceive it.
• The requirement that my character have to percieve and react to all of the above three things from their opponents, on the fly, in combat.

In other words, for combat, I want every feature there is in a "dueling deck" system, but entirely outside of the UI. I want to have to pay attention to massive changes in the pace, flow, and details of combat. I want to both create those changes and be forced to react to them.

If that system were in play, then gear & character choices naturally follow that would require a huge range of coverage, with respect to possibilities. Or, to play in a group that is specialized by character, but covers the same range to a greater depth.

 

@vjek

Along the lines of 'outside of the ui', could you qualify that?

For example, I understand you don't want to be looking at the skill bar the whole time, but if you landed a solid blow and 'Devistating blow' or 'Critical Hit' flashed above the opponent for a second, would that be good or bad?

 

What I mean is... I want to be reacting to my enemy, not reacting to a UI mini-game.

Put all the optional bells and whistles you want on it, particle effects, throbs, big text, little text, flying icons, whatever. Let the player customize how much and via what mechanism (textual, particle effects, audible) they want their combat feedback, and move on to letting me react to it.

I'm perfectly content with seeing relevant combat details fed into my optic and/or auditory nerve(s) at whatever pace I want, so I can react as quickly as possible to determine the outcome of combat.
What color, how big, what style, what location, and for how long? My choices, please.

If an opponent is changing something (verbal, non verbal, rummaging, standing upright, ducking, animated, non animated) the skill to perceive those changes, along with the preparation and experience to react to them, those to me are meaningful combat choices. Even something as simple as quick non-opaque flashes, outlines, or colored +'s and -'s, very brief, might be all that's necessary for some people to catch and see their opponent is now very resistant to melee, or slashing, or cold. So they switch to ranged, or piercing, or heat.

Initially, maybe you can't see this at all until you have familiarity with your combat target species, race, type, or location. Maybe you need to invest skill points into certain perception abilities to determine weaknesses as well as strengths. Perhaps those choices are mutually exclusive? Whatever, at least you are making the choice yourself, or can, through playing the game more, become "better" at it via a specific mechanic.

Also, such a system goes a long way to alleviate complaints about "cookie-cutter builds", for either PvE or PvP.

 

Hear hear!

 

With respect to melee combat, I would like a system that is a bit more sophisticated than 'mouse button 1 = hit with right hand weapon' and 'mouse button 2 = block'. The problem is it is hard to implement that with a keyboard/mouse interface. What is really needed it something like an XBox Kinnect system, but I don't think SotA wants to get that adventurous.

It may be that the card system SotA has in mind may turn out to pretty cool, even though I have my reservations. In spite of my reservations, I'm willing to see what they come up with. In the meantime, I think I will wait a bit to see what that is before I indulge in a lot of speculation that probably will have nothing to do with SotA. We already do enough of that around here, given the relative vacuum in which we operate when it comes to actual SotA game design.

 

It's one thing to whack away at something until it pops. It's another thing to defeat something while inflicting the least amount of damage as possible.

If you're a crafter/gatherer, you'd probably want to preserve the creature's parts while you whittle away at it's health. If you want leather, you probably shouldn't be slashing at the deer with an axe or sword because it will result in less useable hide. Swinging a mace, on the other hand, might break off the antlers. If you're not using the most efficient method to kill the animal, then you are running the risk of more damage to yourself, or even giving it enough time to make it's escape or get in a lucky shot. This might not be a big deal for smaller animals, but if you're going up against the higher-end with rarer resources, you run the risk of getting yourself killed. In PvP, or even when fighting NPC sentients, you might be an honorable fighter. You might want to dispatch your foe without actually killing them. This might earn virtue (or save you from losing virtue).

The idea is that you might have to change your strategy to reduce damage done to the creature you are fighting. It might be to cause your damage in a certain way. It might also require that you play the defensive until you get the change to inflict a non-killing knock-out blow. If you start taking damage, do you keep going as you were, or do you give up and go for the kill in any way possible? Or do you run and try again later?

 

I like this. Using an arrow would likely be a good solution for crafters who want do to as little damage to animal hides as possible. Poison would work well, but say it renders animal meat unuseable. (Or poisoned!)

Building on such a suggestion would be the possible mechanic of specific hit detection boxes; headshot, eye socket, heart, lungs, legs, arms, etc. Some are insta-kill, some reduce target stamina, snare them, so on.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and add decapitation & dismemberment.

 

Mass Effect has 'twitch' type combat enough to satisfy that type of Player, and forgiving enough to satisfy a slower-paced Player. It customizes your items [4 icons you can map to keys]. Mass Effect isn't an MMO; you can pause the game, so ... you can't exactly compare it, but still. It takes skill, and you have to prepare ahead of time, not really during combat [still the 'random' factor is not involved beyond the RNG].

[There's a lot I'd completely toss out of video games, just as an aside.]

Call of Duty is a game MMO-shooter, not RPG, no icons we're searching for onscreen - can be mapped, or not .. but the point is that all Call of Duty is really known for is combat. It's completely equipment-based; a combat simulator. You can translate that into a medieval-style, but it is entirely twitch combat. 'Load-outs' [[definition: primary, secondary, and some random items are all you take into the fight; choose well from your pack before the battle, you can only choose between these [no penalty] during battle]] - this happens in Call of Duty.
[Don't scream at me, I know this isn't Mass Effect or Call of Duty -- but there's some good ideas out there, and 'Load-outs' is one of them.]
Example:
I ride up the hill on my horse [Yes, I know we don't have those yet] and I am here to fight some werewolves. Pre-mounts, any safe place will do for a load-out choice, [Yay for Recall Spell if you know it]. Episode 2, if we Players can now 'load-out' from the mount, awesome upgrade/update/news!

• Player A: Pulls out silver swords from pack and a bow with fire arrows, but Player A is not really good with the bow.
  • It turns out the werewolves got a troll, which Player A didn't see, but Player A is so bad with a bow that he may shoot his own eye out rather than be effective on the troll.
• Player B: Pulls out silver swords and a crossbow, and is skilled at all three.
  • Player B is awesome

Example with 'load-outs' incorporating the 'deck' idea:

• Player C: [Is a mage -- not 'class', we're 'classless', but the Player has chosen to be a pure mage.] Player C has decks built to choose from for 'load-outs'. Choose well!
  • First load-out choice is a 'balanced' mage -- pull out spells that are 'jack of all trade'
  • Second load-out choice is an 'artillery' mage -- pull out lethal attack spells, your defense is bad.
  • Third load-out choice is a 'control' mage -- pull out your 'crowd control' spells
• Load outs give a one character slot more choices in their character.
• Load outs give replay ability
  • Group sends out 'rogue-ish' Player to be a sniper at orc camp
    • Rogue-ish Player chooses load-out from deck to shoot arrows, which turns out to be a bad idea,...so...
    • Next time group attacks, Rogue-ish Player uses close attack load-out, with the plan to sneak up on and kill individual orcs, and group comes in when Player is noticed.
• Load outs give Players more of a rock, paper, scissors type of combat
  • Choices matter

Player choice matters! Yay. Exciting! Meaningful! What say you?

 

MY ideal? Armored Core. The first series, before AC2, before some exec noticed that the game had a large cult following and tried to mainstream it for extra profit.

The game was capable of single player and two player vs modes. You were handed a low quality 'stock' mech, paid repair and ammunition costs, and earned money by completing mission contracts. With your extra monies, you could buy better parts as and when they were released in the game storyline. All mechs had a 'fire control system' which attempted to auto aim the majority of your weapons, but the fps had built in accuracy issues, as well as varying degrees of ease of use. In versus combat, the path of skill was not in how well you aimed and fired, but in how well you dodged.

When Master of Arena was released, it marked the second full story expansion that added and added and added to the game, using the same save file from the original, such that every accomplishment, achievement, and item gained was both of value and was retained through multiple expansions. No matter how many credits you earned or parts you bought, though, you still had to put together a mech that worked, use the available space to give it weapons and armor, AND manage weight vs thrust vs carrying capacity vs armor vs payload vs firepower vs accuracy.

Once you HAD all that, you could attempt various tests and tasks, enter arena combat, or player vs player conflicts. The best player won. Not the best mech, because giving my carefully tuned masterpiece to a less skilled player resulted in a loss, taking over that same players less-than-ideal build resulted in a win. Some of the guys I hung out with had so trained their hands to that game that when watching someone ELSE play, their hands could be seen twitching out the move sequences happening on the screen.

At Anime Expo 2000, I entered the video game tournament because it had an armored core division. A decision on what could and could not be used in the tournament was handed down at the last minute the day before the competition, forcing me to abandon my carefully tuned mech design. I built something in an hour that was fast, had good range and staying power, and was within the rules, and won the tournament based on skill. In the final battle, my opponent agreed to my proposal that the last fight be done without guns, swords only. The result was an Anime mecha combat tribute that got a standing ovation from both the refs and the other players.

If an Armored Core MMO came out with paid monthly subscriptions, the requirement to stand in line all night to buy a physical copy, a requirement to only be able to play it on a gaming platform like the PS4 (which I do not own and do not currently plan to own), and it released the same week SOTA opened Beta, it wouldn't even be a tough call for me.

Customizing my character, collecting rare and obscure options that I can then decide the value of, combining them with other options to create something uniquely, or at least uncommonly, mine is why I bother to play games like this at all.

 

You know what I liked about Armored Core 1?

The jumping.

Spoiler

No, really, jumping and sliding felt totally natural in that game. I loved it.