|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
New Mechanics
I've decided to start my blog focused on game mechanics and theories here, so as not to clutter the forums. This entry should look familiar to some.
The threat system is unrealistic, and games built around it will always have horrible balance issues. The tank's role in PvE makes them essentially useless against other players, because other players are not retarded AI. A large portion of their ability directed to threat generation just goes out the window.
What I think should replace this is a bit more autonomy; each player should be able to handle his own mob (or multiple mobs) solo in the fashion of his class. Or if grouped, the group should be able to take on 5 or more in one pull by working together. If we were going to make this a fantasy game (since we are all familiar), "in the fashion of his class" would mean the way the class would take on another player in a duel. The skills can all be the same for the classes we know, knights, assassins, rangers, clerics, etc. but the combat would not require that you fight one overly powered mob that could crush anyone but the tank in 4 hits, it would require that you fight multiple mobs that try to find an advantage or take out your group's weakest link.
As long as characters and NPCs can collide with each-other (allowing players to block and form defensive position), each class has some ability to impair the movement of their enemy (stun, snare, bash, charge, blind, etc), and each class has a "disaster control" ability (disappear, shield wall, lay on hands, etc) then anyone is fair game for the AI, because anyone is fair game in a real combat scenario. The NPCs can then feel more intelligent. I mean really, if you've ever fought in PvP, healers are the first target. So how can you respect an AI that doesn't try to win?
This system can work for any type of genre, fps, fanatsy, scifi, etc, and any kind of class you can think of is valid. There is no competition over group spots, it just takes a bit of planning to make the group work (you still have to have a healer most times lol).
Now I know some of you are thinking, "That sounds so unorganized."
My answer is this: Welcome to more realistic combat. The games that most of us have played, and most that are made into MMOs are high fantasy with the same classes reworked over and over. D&D, MUDs, UO, EQ, DAoC, EQII, GW, WoW, LotRO, L1, L2, Diablo, AoC, the list goes on and on. There are other games with other more interesting scenarios, more applications for roles in combat. This system that works with anything beyond this fantasy genre. Want to make the MMOFPSRPG of the future with evolving nanobots fighting? Think up any kind of combat you want and as long every class can affect movement and get out of a sticky situation, it will work. Its actually really simple, not too far from GW combat. It won't really shine until you see more games with roles that haven't been so ingrained into everyone's brains.
Now some of you might be thinking, "What about raid bosses and such? How will this system work with them?" Thats a valid concern. What I think will replace tank and spank as the "standard" raid strategy is some good ol' ancient battle formation; the phalanx. Or at least a defensive line of tanks holding the boss from charging the squishies. The "push" factor will have to be taken into consideration in mechanics (or perhaps tied to some player stat), as well as the range of attacks and whether those attacks can penetrate the defensive line. Many bosses in WoW have a "damage distributing" attack that would kill any player outright, but if two or three tanks are in range of it, the blow is divided among them. This might be a standard attack for many bosses to weaken the defensive line. I would also hope that many raid encounters involve successive waves of mobs and secondary objectives that utilize the skills of the other classes.
Overall I think you'll see I'm not being too creative here. All I said was:
-There should be no threat system
-Players should collide with each-other and NPCs
-Every class should be able to impair movement
-Every class should have a disaster control ability
-Push mechanics (especially for heavy melee — offensive: knockback, kick, bash, & defensive: block, intercept, shield wall etc.)
This shouldn't be too hard. The threat system is the core restriction of skill based play in most MMO games, and the primary reason for the boring repetitive AI.
The threat system is unrealistic, and games built around it will always have horrible balance issues. The tank's role in PvE makes them essentially useless against other players, because other players are not retarded AI. A large portion of their ability directed to threat generation just goes out the window.
What I think should replace this is a bit more autonomy; each player should be able to handle his own mob (or multiple mobs) solo in the fashion of his class. Or if grouped, the group should be able to take on 5 or more in one pull by working together. If we were going to make this a fantasy game (since we are all familiar), "in the fashion of his class" would mean the way the class would take on another player in a duel. The skills can all be the same for the classes we know, knights, assassins, rangers, clerics, etc. but the combat would not require that you fight one overly powered mob that could crush anyone but the tank in 4 hits, it would require that you fight multiple mobs that try to find an advantage or take out your group's weakest link.
As long as characters and NPCs can collide with each-other (allowing players to block and form defensive position), each class has some ability to impair the movement of their enemy (stun, snare, bash, charge, blind, etc), and each class has a "disaster control" ability (disappear, shield wall, lay on hands, etc) then anyone is fair game for the AI, because anyone is fair game in a real combat scenario. The NPCs can then feel more intelligent. I mean really, if you've ever fought in PvP, healers are the first target. So how can you respect an AI that doesn't try to win?
This system can work for any type of genre, fps, fanatsy, scifi, etc, and any kind of class you can think of is valid. There is no competition over group spots, it just takes a bit of planning to make the group work (you still have to have a healer most times lol).
Now I know some of you are thinking, "That sounds so unorganized."
My answer is this: Welcome to more realistic combat. The games that most of us have played, and most that are made into MMOs are high fantasy with the same classes reworked over and over. D&D, MUDs, UO, EQ, DAoC, EQII, GW, WoW, LotRO, L1, L2, Diablo, AoC, the list goes on and on. There are other games with other more interesting scenarios, more applications for roles in combat. This system that works with anything beyond this fantasy genre. Want to make the MMOFPSRPG of the future with evolving nanobots fighting? Think up any kind of combat you want and as long every class can affect movement and get out of a sticky situation, it will work. Its actually really simple, not too far from GW combat. It won't really shine until you see more games with roles that haven't been so ingrained into everyone's brains.
Now some of you might be thinking, "What about raid bosses and such? How will this system work with them?" Thats a valid concern. What I think will replace tank and spank as the "standard" raid strategy is some good ol' ancient battle formation; the phalanx. Or at least a defensive line of tanks holding the boss from charging the squishies. The "push" factor will have to be taken into consideration in mechanics (or perhaps tied to some player stat), as well as the range of attacks and whether those attacks can penetrate the defensive line. Many bosses in WoW have a "damage distributing" attack that would kill any player outright, but if two or three tanks are in range of it, the blow is divided among them. This might be a standard attack for many bosses to weaken the defensive line. I would also hope that many raid encounters involve successive waves of mobs and secondary objectives that utilize the skills of the other classes.
Overall I think you'll see I'm not being too creative here. All I said was:
-There should be no threat system
-Players should collide with each-other and NPCs
-Every class should be able to impair movement
-Every class should have a disaster control ability
-Push mechanics (especially for heavy melee — offensive: knockback, kick, bash, & defensive: block, intercept, shield wall etc.)
This shouldn't be too hard. The threat system is the core restriction of skill based play in most MMO games, and the primary reason for the boring repetitive AI.
Total Comments 4
Comments
-
![[PhiberOpticks]'s Avatar](/forum/customavatars/avatar3867_2.gif)
I think you've got good ideas, but the only way I see the aggro system being outdated is by totally advancing the game engine itself. Terrain is the next level of combat design. Collision detection is a must. Damage should be determined based on the point of contact (both in where the blow lands and how the attacker is positioned in relation to the victim) as well as the stats of the attacker.
Another place that needs to be visited is the way PCs engage the environment. Physics need to be vastly improved and the character models should have set degrees of movement in all their joints so that when they run into certain terrain, their bodies react accordingly. Let's say that a person goes from running on a plain to trying to run up a steep slope. When the make contact, their bodies should adjust to realistic standards. You'd probably use your hands and engage the environment on all fours. This would leave you open for attack and you would not be able to attack in this position.
Another matter of consideration is that when you attack, your motions must be suited to your posture. You are granted a certain attack range based on where you wield your weapon and the degrees of motion that that extremity grants you to use that weapon. If your target is outside that range, then you should not be able to attack.
I wouldn't expect this to be visited till it's about time for Crysis 3 or 4, though.Posted 10-16-2008 at 12:18 AM by [PhiberOpticks]
![[PhiberOpticks] is offline](http://www.aionsource.com/forum/images/AionSourceV4/misc/blog/status_offline.gif)
-
Having new ideas and trying the current MMO's style of play is always great, but getting the general mass to accept the changes and having to deal with the initial bashing of people not liking this or that spawns another issue.
The ideas seemed to be geared toward melee classes and mechanics, so how will ranged classes or casters benefit from this as people who like to stay in the back do not want to get up front and personal. As in almost all wars the melee are always in need of fire-support, archers, tanks, air support, etc. So, these mechanics would work best if in the open world, not crowded, closed spaces basically instances.
I really the idea of being independant when in group situations as it really tests the limits of your ability and having to decide on priorities with your members whether to support or heal. Phalanx tanking is really nice idea to use as it also put a lot less stress on having one tank, but getting the people who knows their classes and having to gear, basically rely on them for the bosses is another whole story. But a lot people also have problems trying to multitask, so the idea is really suited toward certain people, not the general mass.
Collison detection is must for me also, but maybe on mobs it would take effect, as it's really annoying to having collision detect work against you....say you're really hurt bad and there's no healer within range of you and you want to fall back and recover, but you can't because your group has made a wall perventing mobs and you from moving behind them.
Though I understand things like getting knockdown, stunned, dazed and suffering penalaties for it with varying degrees of realism as if any of those things happened realistically, you're really screwed. In some battles, especially melee, you don't think, you rely on instinct and whatever training you had and let your muscle memory do the job, as thinking causes hesitation in that split-second, ending with you on the ground, unless you're a really, really good fast thinker.
Yes the current mob AI is lacking and leaves much to be desired, but I don't want to have perform epic manuvers or battle it out for more than 1-2 min. per mob, may not be a problem once you reach endgame, but thats really straining and even more boring early on. I really expect major overhaul of mechanics and gameplay, but most companies are afraid to try new things nowadays as it can backfire on them so the thing on their minds always has been and always will be...money and maybe customer support second.Posted 10-16-2008 at 04:08 AM by Ecco
Updated 10-16-2008 at 04:11 AM by Ecco -
Thanks for the comments guys. I agree that the engine and physics of the game must be quite different from the systems that most MMOs employ at the moment, but I feel that the level of realism that you are describing Phiber, while awesome, may not be entirely necessary to get something like this to work. I tried to describe something that would actually be possible with the software that is out there now. I think if the game is designed from the very first moment with these ideas in mind, it would be possible to create.
However, sacrifices will definitely have to be made; the point is to make the experience "feel" realistic while keeping the calculations and network traffic as simple as possible. Also you want to keep the controls simple, so the game is easy to pick up. I heard that AoC's combat was quite complicated with all of the options available (I haven't played), this is something that should be avoided. More and more decisions that involve physics ultimately amount to more buttons on the keyboard. In reality, when you make decisions about positioning your body, those decisions are not conscious ones. Yet, when you put those decisions into a game, the player must think and choose consciously. This is something that has to be done with care, otherwise the player becomes overloaded with choices that don't really matter.Posted 10-18-2008 at 04:34 AM by Shmak
-
Well the only reason I'm speaking in terms of achieving realism is because that is the direction where the industry is heading. Game immersion is being done through visuals more so than narrative.
Of course the AI cannot be too difficult. But again, realism. Not everyone you find will be a brilliant tactician. Most of the time, you do run into people who fight poorly.
I believe there is a certain Law that states that the right answer is usually the simplest one. And since this is a law of reality, that should mean that often the most realistic answer is the simplest one. When you play CoD4, your health is indicated by the red flashing and blurriness of the screen on top of a fast beating heart. It's realistic and it's a simple way of conveying important information.
And part of the reason the aggro system is affective now is because the AI uses a simple principle, "Which guy is more of a threat?"
Okay, now the doozy. The complicated part comes from having to evaluate these concepts. In terms of Cod4, there's still some sort of health meter that evaluates damage dealt based on the weapon and where it hits and it also regenerates at a certain rate. As for the Aggro system, this has to do with balancing. Skills used by players generate a certain amount of threat points and then whoever generates more threat points is the main target. But figuring out how threatening a skill should be is an issue and requires a good amount of time to balance.Posted 10-19-2008 at 12:50 PM by [PhiberOpticks]
- Join Date May 2008
- Posts 288
- Blog Entries 2
-
-
Blog Categories
-
Recent Comments
-
Recent Entries
-
Recent Visitors
-
Archive
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 AM.
