Do we really need a combat overhaul? What are your opinions on it?

[LadyWYT]

6 hours ago, rereretrograde said:

Dismemberment would be an interesting idea and add to the horror of the game.

The devs have already said they're not keen on adding gore to the game, since some members of the team have reservations about depicting that kind of thing.

As for myself, I don't like the idea, because not everything has to a gorefest that's thrown in your face. I don't like blatant horror games, and I don't like a lot of gore, and I know I'm not the only player that has these preferences either. Vintage Story itself also is not a horror game; it's a realistic survival game with some elements of eldritch horror in the background. The game, although niche, also tries to appeal to a somewhat general audience, and gore/horror tends to be a very specific demographic.

Likewise, splattering blood and gore everything is only good for an immediate shock factor and doesn't tend to stay "scary" because it desensitizes the player rather quickly. However, if the horror elements stay in the background and the details are left up to the player's imagination, then the scenarios are often much more frightening, and remain frightening for a longer period of time, since the imagination is quite often a more terrifying place than reality.

[Zaph42nd]

Regarding combat, one of the biggest gripes I have always had was the "weight" behind attacks, feels like animation timing and damage could be increased or adjusted to make hits feel more significant, it'd also help if enemies equally hit harder (but slower) to incentivize balancing your attack timings and blocking (you'd also need to learn how enemies attack and respond accordingly). If combat is more "weighty", I suspect it'll be a lot more satisfying to fight albeit I've always thought fighting is not the primary-solution to most of the encounters you'd have in VS (actually often times getting some distance works just as well, although some enemies and animals still chase endlessly which I feel like somewhat hurts that side of combat) so would also need some reworks to AI behaviors (e.g. losing pursuit of a fleeing player, set territorial behaviors, etc...)

[LadyWYT]

2 minutes ago, Zaph42nd said:

one of the biggest gripes I have always had was the "weight" behind attacks, feels like animation timing and damage could be increased or adjusted to make hits feel more significant

Not necessarily. The hitboxes and hit detection absolutely need work, as that's one of the main reasons combat feels so clunky right now. Damage itself doesn't need to be increased if hits can be landed more reliably; increasing player damage also makes enemies much less threatening, while increasing enemy damage can frustrate players more easily since there's not as much room for error.

As for adding more "weight" to attacks, that tends to be where sound design factors in. Currently, there's only one basic hit sound, and it doesn't really feel impactful. Shields used to have a similar problem, but were recently changed so that the blocking sound was more noticeable and affected by the shield's material(so metal shields produce a very satisfying metallic THUD when they block a hit). Adding a bit of extra detail to the sound of swinging a weapon or perhaps some metallic ring on impact(when appropriate) would help successful hits feel a lot more satisfying.

10 minutes ago, Zaph42nd said:

it'd also help if enemies equally hit harder (but slower) to incentivize balancing your attack timings and blocking (you'd also need to learn how enemies attack and respond accordingly)

This might help with some enemies, but I don't think every enemy needs to be that way. Not every enemy needs to hit hard or telegraph their attacks to the extent they can be easily dodged. Some enemies are going to hurt to fight, and the player will need to plan for that.

An active hit/block system can be very satisfying to play in many ways, but it can also prove to be frustrating if your reaction time isn't so good. If "character skill" is a factor it can also prove to be an unsatisfying system since it generally can't express a character becoming better at that skill over time. Compare Skyrim to Morrowind as an example. Skyrim's combat can be satisfying because the hit/block system is rather responsive and relies on the player's own skill rather than the character's stats, but as a result characters don't really feel like they're learning anything over time. In contrast, Morrowind can be frustrating at first since low character stats lead to a lot of misses and lower damage, but the system itself can be more satisfying in the long-term since you can actually feel the character becoming better at their job over time.

18 minutes ago, Zaph42nd said:

I've always thought fighting is not the primary-solution to most of the encounters you'd have in VS

It's good to have non-combat solutions for some encounters, but one drawback of the videogame medium is that solutions often have to be simplified since there's a limit to how many factors can be accounted for. The solutions also need to be at least somewhat engaging, and combat is typically the easiest way to accomplish that.

Non-combat solutions, I think, are better left to the realm of NPC interactions, as some sort of player reputation mechanic. The player's class and choice of dialogue/actions can influence how friendly NPCs will be, how easily they could be intimidated, and how cooperative they're inclined to be in general.

[Zaph42nd]

4 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Not necessarily. The hitboxes and hit detection absolutely need work, as that's one of the main reasons combat feels so clunky right now. Damage itself doesn't need to be increased if hits can be landed more reliably; increasing player damage also makes enemies much less threatening, while increasing enemy damage can frustrate players more easily since there's not as much room for error.

Fair far as hit-boxes and detection goes, I've noticed that too and it's especially an issue with swarming-type enemies (locusts), feels like something where sweeping-type hits may be better although I'm not sure how that'd get implemented. Damage increases more so would be supplemental, although I'm more favorable to damage-increases/scaling with tool-grade (metal age) and quality (tempering, durability, etc..), therefore incentivizing blacksmithing, upgrading your weapons, and quenching/tempering (which itself feels like it doesn't really contribute much to combat) since the current system doesn't have substantial jump ups (1-2 difference doesn't feel like it incentivizes making weapons in every metal-age).

6 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

As for adding more "weight" to attacks, that tends to be where sound design factors in. Currently, there's only one basic hit sound, and it doesn't really feel impactful. Shields used to have a similar problem, but were recently changed so that the blocking sound was more noticeable and affected by the shield's material(so metal shields produce a very satisfying metallic THUD when they block a hit). Adding a bit of extra detail to the sound of swinging a weapon or perhaps some metallic ring on impact(when appropriate) would help successful hits feel a lot more satisfying.

Definitely agree on sound design as a major needed addition, I think adding in an extra sound cue either from enemy response to being hit or an actual swinging sound would go miles to improve combat feel, while enemies already react somewhat to being hit (slight recoil and muted hurt-sounds) it's not really much.

16 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

An active hit/block system can be very satisfying to play in many ways, but it can also prove to be frustrating if your reaction time isn't so good. If "character skill" is a factor it can also prove to be an unsatisfying system since it generally can't express a character becoming better at that skill over time. Compare Skyrim to Morrowind as an example. Skyrim's combat can be satisfying because the hit/block system is rather responsive and relies on the player's own skill rather than the character's stats, but as a result characters don't really feel like they're learning anything over time. In contrast, Morrowind can be frustrating at first since low character stats lead to a lot of misses and lower damage, but the system itself can be more satisfying in the long-term since you can actually feel the character becoming better at their job over time.

Good points, I think active hit/block could be interesting but maybe not really suit for Vintage Story given that ranged weaponry would suffer (as in, you'd be missing out on a game system, kind of an issue with Skyrim too since "stealth-archer" is quite broken and not fun). Morrowind-style progression would be interesting but maybe a bit clunky since it'd require adding in more RPG-like systems that could feel a little out of place in the sandbox setting.... Conflicted on it but do think hit-box changes are a good start as is increasing weapon damages. 

[QueenGeeBee]

I just want combat to have the same complexity as farming or smithing. People like different aspects of the game sure, but I just want a system with depth and complexity that rewards engaging with it. Im not saying chivalry attack directions or dodge rolling, but i dont wanna sprint backwards while spam clicking on enemies.

[rereretrograde]

19 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

The devs have already said they're not keen on adding gore to the game, since some members of the team have reservations about depicting that kind of thing.

As for myself, I don't like the idea, because not everything has to a gorefest that's thrown in your face. I don't like blatant horror games, and I don't like a lot of gore, and I know I'm not the only player that has these preferences either. Vintage Story itself also is not a horror game; it's a realistic survival game with some elements of eldritch horror in the background. The game, although niche, also tries to appeal to a somewhat general audience, and gore/horror tends to be a very specific demographic.

Likewise, splattering blood and gore everything is only good for an immediate shock factor and doesn't tend to stay "scary" because it desensitizes the player rather quickly. However, if the horror elements stay in the background and the details are left up to the player's imagination, then the scenarios are often much more frightening, and remain frightening for a longer period of time, since the imagination is quite often a more terrifying place than reality.

that is fair enough, the eeriness of the game is definitely quite subtle. I am mostly just spitballing when it comes to what could possibly be in store for us when it comes to a combat overhaul, and I think it would have added to the dripping atmosphere this game has.

[Desync_82]

Melee combat needs work since it's just hacking away with better materials and especially the shield that is too large and is more a liability than a defence.

But also ranged combat or the act of hunting with ranged should be more worthwhile.

A simple bow with anything better than a crude arrow should effectively one shot smaller game. Because most of the time animals eat the damage and scoot of in the bushes almost never to be found again. Perhaps the hunter class get an added tracking effect to know where there are animals or where the shot animal is hiding at?

Because how the game is now, hunting results in that the animal has endless stamina to outrun a hunter, I literally starved of hunger once trying to keep up with a boar, so we have to dig killing pits and lure them in, chase them in a corner and pepper them with arrows, or I have to burn off a whole area so the new animals spawn without any bush to hide in and harvest the burned victims.

And for the rust world enemies.. well just have a good enough amount of ammo because they'll keep coming and the surface ones drop nothing exciting, best to avoid it completely.

In short I'd go for:
make hunting animals a bit more realistic and fulfilling and perhaps give namesake class an edge for it.
make different ranged weapons also feel a bit more specialised:

- slings get a stun effect (getting hit by a good sized rock really disorients you at the very least): better sling: more accuracy and range, harder rock: longer stun.
- bows get a bleed or have an area specific: headshot twice the damage.
- spears get a slow (try running around with a metre long stick in your body)

In general the combat now works but it isn't the most exciting part of the game and any skill doing it feels not rewarding enough. The only useable skill for now is just not getting hit or you'll burn satiety and time/bandages to recover but it's very plain in the act itself. That's why people resort to efficient killing pits or closing off mining halls to avoid it completely.



 

Edited July 17 by Desync_82

[Rezerkity]

I'm not as interested in a combat rework as much as I am interested in the rework of mechanics surrounding it.
I feel Vintage Story fails to inform the player about certain mechanics sufficiently, or fails to deliver these mechanics in ways that are fun and rewarding to engage with, as opposed to simply being friction points that detract from gameplay with little potential gain.

 

Temporal Storms are unrewarding and frustrating as I've had multiple experiences with a strong enemy spawning right next to me, and oneshotting me in the second temporal storm of the year, and even if I struggle to kill things, I generally don't get more than perhaps a rusty gear, and a few bits of flax string. They interrupt whatever my plans were, punish me for straying from my base and going on excursions, and are unrewarding for the risk they carry.

Temporal Storms just need a rework in general. I can live with having to trek back home when I'm warned of one incoming, you're given plenty of warning for that. But enemies spawning on top of me sucks, and even with the armour I can get on year one, it's not going to help when a Corrupt Drifter spawns in my house on top of me, and going outside means I face about 5 other enemies at once in the dark. Even surviving all this isn't particularly worthwhile due to the best case of loot being a couple of gears, and possibly a temporal gear if you're quite lucky (although it serves little purpose early on anyway).

 

Sanity can designate a surface area as unstable very arbitrarily, which functions as a "hey this area is cursed and if you build here you'll lose sanity over time" but has no purpose - this area isn't any more rewarding than others due to the risk, it's just a random area selected to be uninhabitable.

Sanity shouldn't make random patches of low sanity areas, it adds absolutely nothing to the gameplay, and is just an invisible punishment towards newer players learning the mechanics, and players who get bad luck with really pretty areas they want to settle in. Beyond that sanity is overall a feature without much content at all anyway.

 

Damage tiers are explained as "low tier armour is less effective against high tier damage", and there's no mention ingame as far as I know of the fact that enemies can hit different part of your hitboxes. So if you have full Steel Plate armour on your chest and legs, a bear hitting you in the head will deal full damage and possibly kill you from near full health. This is such an important mechanic that isn't explained, and it makes Improvised Armour potentially not protect a new player at all, leaving them confused as to why their armour didn't even take damage when they got attacked.

I feel that the guidebook could do a better job of explaining armour only protecting one part of you, whereas in virtually all other games, including ones in the same genre, armour tends to be a general 'take less damage' instead of a 'take less damage ONLY if hit here'. I know it makes sense if you think with real world logic, but this is a videogame.