Last post I introduced an alternative fighting system for MMORPGs. This post I want to introduce another one.
Every combatant has a health bar and an energy bar. The energy bar always starts at 100/100.
Every second you gain 5 energy. All your moves consume energy and have an effect on the health or energy of your opponent or your own health. Since death is such an unpleasant thing in a MMOROPG, you don't die instantly when you are low at health, but rather take soul damage. You die when your soul reaches zero. Would that system be revolutionary?
Hardly. But, you might notice that it is almost identical to the system I presented in the last post. The gameplay is almost exactly the same. Everybody has three bars. One refills itself and they influence each other. But add auto-attack and remove the soul damage and you have the WoW-rogue system.
DP = Health
OP = Energy
Health = Soul
Did I trick you ? .. no. The system that was introduced in the last post is quite new. But that 'newness' is not in the gameplay. It is in the simulation-aspect! And, as you see, that difference matters a lot.
In fact, in this case, it frees the game designer from limitations. Does it make sense that moving forward reduces your health/DP? Within the old system: No. Within the new system: Yes.
Does it make sense that you can be healed from the brink of death (2 broken legs, one open head wound, left arm destroyed) several times during a fight? No. Does it make sense that a friend can motivate you with a battle cry and instill new hope and resilience ? Yes.
This is a classic example on how gameplay can profit by overhauling the simulation-aspect. The new system allows a lot more freedom, because OP and DP can easily jump back and forth during a fight. It makes sense that a rogue has ways to strengthen his defense. It doesn't make much sense that he can heal himself.
In the last decade, instead of changing the paradigm, MMORPG developers rather decided to ignore the simulation-aspect! Thus, warriors in WoW and Rift can suddenly heal themselves.
Why does it always have to be about fighting?
ReplyDeleteThe combat system ?
ReplyDeleteI think I had lot of posts lately about non-combat stuff like trade and travel .. And I would agree that a bit less focus on fighting would be good for the genre. But that's really off-topic now. ;)
I think there is a lot of potential for having a buffer for some classes. Some games actually have a second health bar that is like "shield" effect, basically regenerative health that you lose before you lose real health, keeps things going longer.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting if a game's "classes" were variations of simulation aspects. Different classes might work well with different simulation systems (all variations of a fundamental system).
I'd be interested to see roles/new classes that actually embody some of the aspects I think you're getting at.
Maybe a "tactician" or "strategy master": someone that has a different pace of battle or someone that is outside of the battle in a sense, marks the map, sets up areas that have different effects on the field, redirects things, etc.
Classes have lots of room to be like individual combat games on their own!
Gilded, basically I agree that players should be able to fulfill roles that play differently. I don't think this necessarily must be realizied with a classic class-system, but it is certaily a viable way.
ReplyDeleteThere is one problem, though. All the very different systems need to be able to work with each other!
That is a major reason for why combat is so little interactive in WoW. Outside of late-game PvP you rarely react to another player or mob. It would be too much work for the designers to also balance all effects that your energy has one his rage and his health drain has on your energy, etc.
It is still a goal of every MMORPG, of course, to offer diverse gameplay for the players.
Not at all off-topic! Maybe the true future of the combat system is in not fighting. Or at least not killing. For example, do you defeat an army of ten million people by killing ten million people or by killing a few, starving some more, and scaring the rest?
ReplyDeleteRPGs could benefit from more use of distraction, evasion, and bribery.
Klepsacovic, for that to work you would need massive death penalties. I'd love to try it some day. But until then ...
ReplyDeleteI was just going to write that OP/DP can be an essence HP/energy and you did it :)
ReplyDeleteAnyways I really quite like your ideas and they are very much in vein with what I was thinking regarding combat. It would work withing existing technological framework while could provide improved and more fun experience
Now what I think system needs is more specific design aspects
-How to make it engaging?
-How to provide good visual and sound queues ?
-How player skill would come in play and how much would it matter
-How would it work if play had to do combat 10 time per gameplay session? 100?
-How would it work with AI?
Thanks, Max.
ReplyDelete---
-How to make it engaging?
By iterations. Interestingly, the pure gameplay of such systems can be very easily tested with a prototype.
---
-How to provide good visual and sound queues ?
Hire good people and buy a good engine :).
---
-How player skill would come in play and how much would it matter
Highly interesting topic. I might make a post about it in the near future.
---
-How would it work if player had to do combat 10 time per gameplay session? 100?
Very important, too. For example you cannot make a game that requires killing by the hundreds and also make combat very stressful. The best solutoin is to offer diversity and combine it with reasonable incentives, I think.
---
-How would it work with AI?
A viable AI would be done rather fast, I think. A really good one could take as long as you want, I fear.
Where does player skill come in?
ReplyDeleteDesigning / tweaking the system so that the optimal move is a function of your OP, DP, Health, the time your opponent(s) can reduce your DP/HP to zero, whether you are fighting one or multiple foes, etc.
For instance, say an elemental caster has two main ranged AOE attack spells: fireball and snowball (or blizzard, cone of cold, whatever). Fireball does more damage but blizzard adding a slowdown (or OP penalty to moving). So if the mage is being chased down he would use blizzard to try to escape or survive until help arrives, but fireball if the enemies can't run down the mage (intervening terrain, tied up fighting others, casters/archers who don't need to chase you).
You could add secondary effects to further change the utility of the spells (and therefore make them better/worse in different scenarios): fireball could lay down an area of flames that burn people running through it (deterring melee attackers) while blizzard would block LOS for a short time (making ranged attackers ineffective until they came out of it, in which case your allies could ambush them as they came out of the snow.
Looking at Chess, you have a finite number of abilities (move each type of piece). Queen has more movement abilities than pawn, but it is the individual situation that determine which piece is the better move.
This type of combat would need to be slower-paced (maybe 1 button a second or two) to allow players to assess the situation and pick the right response (as well as confer with your friends over Vent). It would be more thoughtful and less twitch reflexy.
This system also allows for more horizontal progression, instead/in addition to just getting more max OP/DP/HP you would learn new abilities that are useful in different ways.