Crossfire Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CF: Combat proposal, reponses...
Wow. Lots of responses about the combat proposal! Nice to
see :) Unfortunately, there are too many for me to respond
individually, so here's my (long!) "group" response, sorted
by subject.
-b.t.
FATIGUE:
> IF you just do normal attacks, will you be hit by fatigue, or is it only
> normal attacks?
I would expect fatigue can be lost in 4 ways:
- making a 'special' attack
- getting hit in combat
- by casting incantations.
- moving with too heavy of a load
We could add the '5th' case of 'normal' combat too. I would
think that in this case the fp cost to be fairly low, something
like your movement fatigue cost+1. This would then make it
important for a player to not go around fighting 'fully loaded'.
Under this system, you can still do it, but its going to be a
very desperate/bad idea. :)
As for wizards casting spells (which was unmentioned before), fatigue
cost would be based on the spell being cast versus the caster's
level, I would expect a formula like:
fp cost = mana cost * (spell level/caster level).
So high level wizards need very little effort to cast the
lower level spells. If you run out of fatigue, then you are
too exhausted to cast a spell!. No fp cost would be assessed
for clerical magic.
> I would suggest a close connection between hp and fatigue. The "hp" are
> something silimiar anyway: If a character with 2 of 150 hp's left
For now, I would like to leave this (largely) alone. I prefer
the character losing fp equal to the hp (damage) for every
blow inflicted on the player/npc.
> I would suggest that Con be factored in along with physique experience for
> fatigue calculations. AFter all, a starting character with a 20 con should
Yeah, this makes sense to me.
REPAIRING ARMOUR/WEAPONS:
> The fact that the only way to fully repair magical armor is via the scrolls
> more or less means magic armor isn't really repaired (just recreated). This
> would seem to weaken the fighters viability some (or usefulness of items -
I would avocate that the magic value of the armour/weapon
*doesnt* decrease. Only the wc/ac value does. When the item
breaks, then we have just (non-magical) shards! but until then
the item retains its magical properties w/o loss.
> I favor multiple anvil types (or higher required smithing
Yes! this sounds good. How about sorting the repairs by
material so that you find in the shops:
"needle and thread" - repairs cloth, leather armour like
boots, gloves, shoes, girdles, etc.
"hammer and saw" - repairs wooden items like the small sheild.
"iron anvil" - fixes iron items like gauntlets, iron
sheilds, platemail, swords, axes, etc.
"enchanted anvil" - fixes adamantite items like ?? (artifacts?)
AND We could introduce new skills: "sewing", "woodworking" (carpentry?)
and "metalsmith" to handle the repair of various items (and co-opt the
weapon ident abilities currently handled by "smithery" which
we could eliminate). I suppose there might be a "bonesmith" and
or "stonesmith" skills out there for the trolls :). Would the
players have such skills!?
DAMAGING ARMOUR/WEAPONS:
> or weapon/armor damage, I would suggest using saving throw tables/code.
> After all, a wood club going against metal armor is much more likely to be
> damaged than a metal sword. Likewise, leather is more likely to be cut apart
> than full plate.
Yeah, this seems pretty good too. Here's a sketch of how we
could handle the weapon/armour damaging process:
1) assess whether weapon will damage the armour.
if not,
2) assess whether the armour damaged the weapon.
Formulae for determining breakage would involve a lookup
table modifier (Mod, see below) based on the 'main' materials
used in the armour, weapon items and the force of the blow
which is basically the damage inflicted by the weapon in that
particular attack (ie dam=RANDOM()%weap_ob->stats.dam):
Weapon (weap_ob) breaking armour (arm_ob):
% chance = dam * [ (2*Mod) - 0.5*(arm_ob->magic - weap_ob->magic) ]
Armour breaking a weapon:
% chance = dam * [ (0.5*Mod) + 0.5*(arm_ob->magic - weap_ob->magic) ]
So its clear that its easier for a weapon to damage a piece
of armour than the other way around. On the other hand, we
should make armour repair cheaper/easier to obtain than
weapon repair.
TABLE of modifiers, for 2 things 'attacking' each other:
ATACKING | DEFENDING MATERIAL
MATERIAL |
| Gls Org Ppr Cth Lea Bne Wod Stn Irn Adm |
------------------------------------------------------
cloth/paper| 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 |
leather | 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 |
organic | 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 |
glass | 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 |
bone | 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 |
wood | 2.2 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 |
stone | 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 |
iron | 3.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 |
adamantite | 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 |
------------------------------------------------------
In the above table I have added the (needed) material
type of "BONE" (which could incl. 'sharp' stuff like
'claws' and organic means something like 'muscle').
We could expand the table to include 'BRONZE' and
'STEEL', 'GOLD/SILVER', etc. if desired.
Remember the effects of 'damaging' are:
weapon: lose 1 wc up to maximum limit of original wc+magic
armour: lose 1 ac up to maximum limit of original ac+magic
Basically, when the ac+magic+orig ac is *negative* the armour
destructs. No subtration from the magic value is done.
Here's some examples:
* iron mace attacking wood shield, mace dam=10:
-chance to damage armour: 4%
-chance to damage weapon: 0%
* +3 iron axe attacking +1 wood shield, axe dam=10:
-chance to damage armour: 18%
-chance to damage weapon: 0%
* +1 iron axe attacking +4 bone shield, axe dam=10:
-chance to damage armour: 0%
-chance to damage weapon: 0%
and so on...you can see that having those magical bonuses
*really* helps.
BLEEDING/STUCK IMPALING WEAPONS:
> I would submit that a weapon can be stuck even if armour
> does not exist. Consider a spear (especially barbed) stuck in
Yes, I agree.
> Also, what did you have in mind as far as weapons being
> stuck, particularly non-wielded weapons such as arrows and
> thrown spears? Perhaps to add them into the inventory of
> the victim in a way alike to "cursed", unremovable until
> ripped out (extra damage) or with medical skill?
Yes. Exactly what I was thinking!
ATTACKMODE==>ATTACKTYPES:
First off..After giving it a little thinking time, It seems
that the "attack modes" are best handled as just new
"attacktypes". Therefore, ANY attack can be classified as
impale, chop, bash, etc. This would make it *very* trivial
(just edit the spellarchs) to add these new attack types to spells.
For example, we could add the "bash" attacktype to a "fireball"
spell so that the target may be blown back by the initial impact.
as another example, magic missle might have an "impale" attack.
> How about dig type attacks against (golems, living statues,
> earth elementals) and their ilk?
Sure. But, heh, how do you get a victim to stay still long
enough to "dig" it? :)
I see "dig" as an attacktype that will occur only when you
make a special attack versus an "empty" square, OR a breakable
wall, OR cast a spell with the dig attacktype that 'detonates'
in that square (eg the "bomb" spell would leave a crater!).
ATTACK MANUEVERS:
> In Omega, any physical attack (i.e. one delivered by weapon) is delivered
> over one of three attack lines: high, medium, or low. Blocking is also
> constrained to those levels. If a monster attacks high while you're
> blocking high you have a chance to block the blow. To change the way you
> attack and block, you use the F command, within which you get to arrange
AND
> Idea: Let the player set one or two parameters:
> two: Aggressive - Defensive, Melee - Technical OR:
> one: Aggressive - Technical.
My first response (from playing omega) is that this isnt much
fun in the long run. Once you have figured all of the monsters
out, it amounts to just a formality before you fight.
On the other hand, I think you (both) are right to point out that
there are different objectives/manevers for every combat. Therefore,
I would like to introduce the concept of "attack manuevers":
An attack manuever would be the way in which you are using
the weapon. Manuevers would include:
- swing : swing the weapon in an arc
- stab/thrust : forward in/out quick motion
- parry : use the weapon to *exclusively* parry attacks
made on the wielder
- feint : fake an attack at an area so as to open
up another one. High fatigue cost, but more
likely to succeed. Fp cost of attack mult
by 1 1/2.
These manuevers would appear as "buttons" in the stat-bar window.
You could select a manuver either by pressing a button or by
issuing the command 'use_skill melee <weapon> <manuever> (if
<weapon> is ommitted, current readied weapon is default).
Above the manuever buttons we would have a picture of the weapon
being used. Thus, if you are using 2 weapon skill, you see 2
weapon archs, and press the weapon displayed to toggle the
display of the manuever buttons, that show what your manuever is
on that weapon.
The attacktype (and effect) of the weapon is dependant on the
manuever. Consider the following table:
Attack | Weapon has attacktype:
manuever |
|Impale| Cut | Chop | Bash | Pick | Dig |Disarm|"None"
-------------------------------------------------------------
swing | ---- | CUT | CHOP | BASH | IMPL | DIG | ---- | norm
thrust | IMPL | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | DIG | ---- | norm
parry | PRY- | PRY | PRY | PRY | PRY- | ---- | PRY | PRY-
feint | IMPL | CUT | CHOP | BASH | IMP- | ---- | DSRM | norm
("pick" attacktype is for picks, war-hammers; "None" attacktype
is for things with no special attacktype like chair, magnifier.)
Now, the table entries mean:
norm 'special' attack is the "normal" attack
---- No special attack is allowed, perhaps we make less
than effective normal attack (?) IF some other attacktype
(that can use this manuever) isnt present in the weapon.
BASH bashing attack is made.
CHOP chopping attack is made.
CUT cutting attack is made.
DIG digging attack is made.
DSRM disarming attack is made.
IMPL impaling attack is made.
IMP- impaling attack is made, but with a less effective than
normal chance to hit (and even higher fatigue cost).
PRY parrying
PRY- parrying, but less effective than normal
So if you have a weapon with *both* the Cut and Impale attack
types (aka "sword"), if you use the "swing" manuever you will
make a cutting attack, if you use a "thrust" manuever you will
make a impaling attack. In the case of a "feint" we make
either an impale *or* cutting attack (randomly chosen by code;
in a feint, you can't be sure of what you'll get in this case).
EXTENDED WEAPONS:
> Hopefully an implementation flexible enough to handle more
> than one length (length 2 in your example) of weapon could
For now, weapons will only be "extended" (one addtional)
square) or not extended (normal). Having longer stuff
leads to serious implementation problems I dont want to
face. :)
> attacked square) weapons only, I would think that one could attack
>"knight's move" squares in this fashion, given that diagonal
Well, the main reason I would disagree with allowing this
is that it would be quite difficult to implement in
a straitforward way. How does the player indicate to the
server to make an attack in a "knights move" square? Other
attacks are just from trying to move into the square, seems
like something different would be called for here (since
you currently cant make a "knights move" as a player).
> and to "set" weapons against a charge.
> Someone charging would gain damage bonuses of some
> sort, someone charging into a "set" weapon would
> _experience_ said damage bonuses. Lines of set pikes. Ouch.
Yes! this sounds good. I would allow a "braced" player to
have "set" their weapon. This means no turning as well
for the "braced" player.
> It would be nice to be able to shuffle left/right
> (relative to your forward-facing direction) while maintaining such
> a weapon. Alas, we have only 8+center/here+up+down directions,
> and don't have "turn left/right" directions, which could allow
> simultaneously your sensible idea of having to turn with the
> weapon. Any thoughts as to how to have both?
>
> Perhaps diagonal directions could be co-opted. Directional
> movement would translate as "shuffle left/right", whereas
> movement to the left/right (relative to facing) would act
> as you specify. Or maybe the reverse seems more natural...
I like your "diagonal" scheme. Ill try to implement that.