Hopes & Dreams for Changes to Combat

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

I saw in the latest dev post that some members of the team are coming together to help improve the combat. I saw the 'armor wishlist' post and I wanted to express some similarly constructive hopes, asks, thoughts, or weird ideas for the future of Vintage Story's combat. I think everyone can agree that it feels very rudimentary and one dimensional right now, but I also think that it wouldn't require a massive overhaul to leave it in a fun state. In fact, while I'm not concerned that this is a risk, I think that too much of an overhaul, or too complicated of a system would end up making the combat just as uninteresting to most of the player-base as the current system is.

Generally, I feel like the direction most people take when solving this problem comes to overhauling the player's capabilities by adding more weapons, attack animations, etc. I think the player could use some extra tools in combat, maybe a different attack animation for each weapon if you were crouched that had different damage, knockback, cooldown, etc. I envisioned something like this for spears, where if you crouched and held still, the seraph could deliver a stronger thrust of the spear than if they were running around, giving the crouched strike improved pushback and maybe even a bit of a stun to help pin down and control specific targets. Besides some small additions or some new items to play with like some traps, I generally think the issue with combat more has to do with the limited interactions between enemies and players. A good example of this is with the shiver. Fighting shivers honestly doesn't feel too different from fighting drifters other than it happens faster. You don't deal with them much differently, it's just swing at them until they're dead, with some occasional chasing if they decide to run away. To me, improving the combat in this example has less to do with in enhancing the general tools available to the player, and more has to do with adding more interesting engagements with the shiver. It'd be interesting if there was some trigger for their stun animation, or for them running away, rather than just health or rng. 

My thought was to make it so if you hit shiver's in the head while their mouth is open, it would cause them to recoil in pain and curl up in the stun animation, giving more of a timing to fighting them, and larger group combat more of a tempo. It allows for moments where, if I'm amidst a temporal storm, I can stun the shiver, and make a decision on whether or not I need to finish the shiver now, or cut down other enemies since I'm no longer being rushed down. I believe it's consistent opportunities for those momentary decisions that will make combat most interesting. Ultimately, I think that improving combat is going to come down more to providing more contexts through which more diverse outcomes can emerge in combat. Whether that's adding more ways to trigger enemy behaviors like mentioned above, adding new items that can change the flow of combat, or even something more environmental, I can't really say for certain. 

Anyways, if anyone else has any other thoughts or criticisms as well, I'd love to hear them.

[DarkGold]

3 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

It allows for moments where, if I'm amidst a temporal storm, I can stun the shiver, and make a decision on whether or not I need to finish the shiver now, or cut down other enemies since I'm no longer being rushed down. I believe it's consistent opportunities for those momentary decisions that will make combat most interesting.

This resonates with me.

It does make me think that combat situations in the game are quite diverse, but the enemies between those situations are often the same.

Situations:

• Surface spawns of drifters and bowtorn. Usually lower stakes 1 on 1-2 fights.
• Fighting bells. Pick off a bell from outside its activation range, so as not to trigger summons or run right at it and prioritise killing it as fast as you can before dealing with whatever it summons.
• Temporal storm hordes. Dealing with an evolving fight, probably more than 1 enemy, probably tough.
• Spelunking. Maybe 1 tough enemy at a time if you are lighting the path as you go and progressing slowly, or possibly finding yourself in the middle of a group of tough enemies if you are just running into a series of dark tunnels with only a lantern in your hand.

Ensuring choices are interesting in all situations with all the same enemies will be an interesting challenge. I wonder if more enemy types or different behaviours depending on whether enemies are in groups/alone/higher tier will be important.

Edited June 17 by DarkGold
Improved formatting

[DarkGold]

How do you feel about parrying mechanics? I'm thinking about games where parrying is optional rather than necessary to kill enemies, but rewards higher skill and gives players a choice between a risky play (with a big reward if they time it right, if they time it wrong, the penalty is usually pain) or just playing it safe?

Also curious how people feel about things like more damage if you stab the enemy in the back/when they have their guard down. Backstabbing the enemy is usually paired with stealth mechanics, but not always necessarily so; it just really emphasizes positioning and has additional rewards if you stun or otherwise lock down the movement of the enemy. It also requires enemy movement to be very responsive by default, or else it's easy for the player to exploit the enemy's positioning.

I suppose a lot of these mechanics require the game to be very responsive to work in the first place. They might not be very viable on servers, but would work well in single player, and since Vintage Story supports server play, might not be strong additions to the game.

Edited June 17 by DarkGold
Added backstab thoughts. Added server vs single player thoughts.

[DarkGold]

What I said about servers and responsiveness makes me think about games like Final Fantasy 14. I think the kind of mechanics that they are employing to make combat interesting, but still allow the player time to react, rely on clearly telegraphed attacks with lots of time to move out of the way or letting players interrupt when an enemy is charging something up. The combat system is different, but the ideas might still work across genres.

I'm sure there would be other games with more applicable systems to draw inspiration from, this was just the first that came to mind when I thought about how other games solve the problem.

[coolAlias]

I'd like to see weapon variety matter more than just different damage and reach numbers. Each weapon class having a distinct moveset like in Dark Souls would be nice, although it'd probably look more like Valheim which would be fine.

Speaking of Valheim, having enemies be weak or resistant to different damage types would add a layer of strategy to weapon (and perhaps armor) choice.

All of the Zelda games, especially the 3D ones starting with Ocarina of Time, would be great sources of inspiration for engaging combat mechanics. Enemies have learnable attack patterns, weaknesses, and sometimes very specific strategies required for defeating them that all work together to keep combat interesting.

[DarkGold]

A video on slow combat design:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZHeexEa5ok

Something I didn't consider is that I don't think we currently have a dodge or back step in Vintage Story. Something we do see in most action combat games, I think (Valheim, Zelda, most that come to mind).

[DarkGold]

28 minutes ago, coolAlias said:

Speaking of Valheim, having enemies be weak or resistant to different damage types would add a layer of strategy to weapon (and perhaps armor) choice.

I like this idea in principle, but there are 2 troubles with weapon or armor strategy in the game at the moment:

1. Inventory space: carrying multiple armor and weapons eats it up.
2. In games where you are making these choices, you are usually tailoring it to the areas/enemies you are fighting. At the moment, the enemy variety in VS isn't so high that you aren't often fighting all possible enemies at once (besides choosing between hunting animals and fighting monsters).

I don't think either of these problems are unsolvable, but they'll require looking at other systems to really make everything work together nicely. It's great that the whole next update will be tackling combat, because the implications of the changes will likely be far reaching if they want to make bigger changes like this.

[coolAlias]

11 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

I like this idea in principle, but there are 2 troubles with weapon or armor strategy in the game at the moment:

1. Inventory space: carrying multiple armor and weapons eats it up.
2. In games where you are making these choices, you are usually tailoring it to the areas/enemies you are fighting. At the moment, the enemy variety in VS isn't so high that you aren't often fighting all possible enemies at once (besides choosing between hunting animals and fighting monsters).

I don't think either of these problems are unsolvable, but they'll require looking at other systems to really make everything work together nicely. It's great that the whole next update will be tackling combat, because the implications of the changes will likely be far reaching if they want to make bigger changes like this.

Absolutely. I was assuming greater enemy variety would be part of all this, but that's not a given.

If / when more enemy types are added, they would need to have specific conditions or locations for spawning so players could plan ahead.

For example, locusts already spawn exclusively around their nests, so if I find a bunch of nests, I could choose to push on with perhaps suboptimal gear or head home to grab the right tools for the job.

[LadyWYT]

5 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

Something I didn't consider is that I don't think we currently have a dodge or back step in Vintage Story.

We do, it's just a matter of sprinting and getting the timing of the action just right. However, it's a rather overpowered action at the moment, since the player can sprint indefinitely and moves at the same speed in any direction. In reality, moving forward should be the fastest action, while moving to the side should be slower and moving backwards should be the slowest action. Not every action needs to use stamina, but having some sort of stamina meter to govern how long the player can sprint or perform quick movements would help push the player to consider certain actions more strategically. When the meter is full, the player can sprint or make quick movements to dodge certain attacks, but if their stamina is low then their movements may become too sluggish to dodge effectively, and they may not be able to make a hasty retreat.

I think Valheim's system worked sort of like that, but I think that might be a little too complex for what Vintage Story should be. In Valheim making attacks and blocking attacks would both consume stamina, if I recall correctly, and I think it's probably better to allow the player to attack and block freely, and only add resource cost to quick movements.

58 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

How do you feel about parrying mechanics? I'm thinking about games where parrying is optional rather than necessary to kill enemies, but rewards higher skill and gives players a choice between a risky play (with a big reward if they time it right, if they time it wrong, the penalty is usually pain) or just playing it safe?

Parrying would be a good feature to have as a defense for those times when you need to carry something other than a shield in your off-hand slot, though it would definitely be an action that you have to really nail the timing in order to make use of. I would also say that blocking with a shield will generally be the safer choice, since a shield will soak up at least some damage while a parry will really only work to prevent specific kinds of attacks. That is, you can block a charging beast or hit from a very large creature, and possibly still walk away from the encounter(albeit with injuries), but you're not gonna attempt to parry that kind of incoming damage and still expect to live. For the attacks that parrying is very effective against, the player could probably avoid the damage since they're redirecting the attack rather than absorbing the impact; in this case, the player has a reason to forgo the shield and rely purely on their skills, since they can potentially avoid more damage overall as long as they get the parry timing right. Could make for some very fun(or very frustrating) PvP duels.

 

1 hour ago, DarkGold said:

Also curious how people feel about things like more damage if you stab the enemy in the back/when they have their guard down. Backstabbing the enemy is usually paired with stealth mechanics, but not always necessarily so; it just really emphasizes positioning and has additional rewards if you stun or otherwise lock down the movement of the enemy. It also requires enemy movement to be very responsive by default, or else it's easy for the player to exploit the enemy's positioning.

Critical damage and crowd control tend to go hand-in-hand, and it opens the possibility of playing sneaky assassin types as well as support characters that don't do much damage themselves, but lock down the battlefield to allow allies an easier fight. That being said...it's also pretty easy to screw up the balance of sneak attacks and crowd control--Skyrim stealth archer, anyone? 

For Vintage Story, crowd control is probably the better way to handle it, since a crippled target is easier to damage. However, it should work both ways--the player might have options to lock down targets, but some enemy types could be built for the same tasks. I played a deepsplit shiver like this for VS tabletop thing--while the creature would absolutely do damage, my general strategy was to have it pick a target, grapple it, and thus lock down that character and prevent them from doing much of anything until the grapple was broken. Absolutely terrifying when you consider that shivers are also big enough to drag around most targets.

Critical damage probably only works for specific entities by giving the player a specific area that is difficult to hit but does more damage(like attacking an eidolon's eye rather than the creature's body). Stealth, I think, should be geared more toward going unnoticed by targets, and not critical damage. Going unnoticed already provides a combat advantage by allowing the player to get the first hit, or allowing enemies to get a hit or two in before the player can react. I don't think it really needs to be more complicated than that.

41 minutes ago, coolAlias said:

Speaking of Valheim, having enemies be weak or resistant to different damage types would add a layer of strategy to weapon (and perhaps armor) choice.

Maybe, but I also agree with @DarkGold here--inventory is going to be a concern and players aren't going to be keen on trying to carry around a weapon for every occasion, essentially. I think it makes sense to give some enemies more or less resistance to specific types of damage, but overall the falx should be the king of monster-hunting, and players will probably enjoy being able to pick a weapon they enjoy the flavor of rather than always having to do the math on the weapon they actually need, if that makes sense.

Armor though...yes, the armor type should be a definite factor in which types of damage and injuries the player can effectively resist and which they'll be more vulnerable to. In this case, the player's choices are a little more interesting, since more protective armor tends to be heavier and can restrict certain movements(like the ones needed for archery), while lighter armor can grant more freedom of movement but have more serious consequences if one gets hit.

1 hour ago, DarkGold said:

I suppose a lot of these mechanics require the game to be very responsive to work in the first place. They might not be very viable on servers, but would work well in single player, and since Vintage Story supports server play, might not be strong additions to the game.

I think it would be fine on servers, providing that one has a good connection to said server. Players with connection issues are more likely to get frustrated, though that's kind of a given in most scenarios involving connection problems.

[DarkGold]

15 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

However, it's a rather overpowered action at the moment, since the player can sprint indefinitely and moves at the same speed in any direction. In reality, moving forward should be the fastest action, while moving to the side should be slower and moving backwards should be the slowest action. Not every action needs to use stamina, but having some sort of stamina meter to govern how long the player can sprint or perform quick movements would help push the player to consider certain actions more strategically. When the meter is full, the player can sprint or make quick movements to dodge certain attacks, but if their stamina is low then their movements may become too sluggish to dodge effectively, and they may not be able to make a hasty retreat.

Agree, overpowered at the moment. But it really raises the question; if sprinting is how the player currently chooses to engage or disengage with combat, do we want that taken away? I like being able to just decide "nope, I don't want to fight right now" and leave.

I agree that it's very hard to design combat around that though. But putting a limit on sprint means getting to chapter 1 story location will be harder. Such far reaching impact!

Do we need some sort of difference in movement between drawing/sheathing weapons, so the player is slow with them out, fast with them sheathed?

Edited June 17 by DarkGold
Added thought on sprinting and story location. Added thought on drawing/sheathing weapons.

[LadyWYT]

2 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

Agree, overpowered at the moment. But it really raises the question; if sprinting is how the player currently chooses to engage or disengage with combat, do we want that taken away? I like being able to just decide "nope, I don't want to fight right now" and leave.

Oh I'm not suggesting that it should be taken away, just that it might be a good idea to introduce a resource for quick movements like that so the player needs to think a little more carefully about what they're doing. Basically, the player can sprint around for a while before they run out of stamina and need to rest for a few moments to recover, or they can use chunks of stamina to dodge incoming attacks. However, moving at full sprint all the time might not be the best idea, since encountering a tough opponent at low stamina means the player wouldn't be able to dodge effectively or run away. Likewise, dodging several attacks within a short time might mean the player takes no damage, but also has no stamina to retreat if they decide the fight isn't in their favor. In most scenarios though, the player is likely to be starting the fight at full stamina, so they can fight or run as they see fit.

The Vigor mod is a decent example of how a stamina mechanic could work. I would also add that by practicing certain actions consistently, the player could decrease the stamina cost of things like sprinting and dodging, allowing them to do more of those actions before they need a proper rest, provided that they stay in practice of course.

12 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

But putting a limit on sprint means getting to chapter 1 story location will be harder. Such far reaching impact!

For sure, however, in some ways I do think it's a little more interesting, as well as realistic, to need to stop for a rest or rely more on walking rather than just sprinting everywhere and calling it a day. That being said, it would make mounts a more attractive choice, since a mount could run faster and longer before needing a rest. And if mounts are easier to acquire, the trip isn't going to be as rough(plus the player will appreciate having the saddlebag space). In regards to foot travel, it would certainly make setting up campsites and outposts a more valuable investment, since you couldn't just sprint day and night to reach a destination.

[DarkGold]

22 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Basically, the player can sprint around for a while before they run out of stamina and need to rest for a few moments to recover

But do you know how persistent bears can be?! If their stamina also runs out, as long as I don't round the corner on a fresh one, it should be ok though.

Visions of rounding the corner, completely out of breath, seeing a fresh bear, the horror. Sure this happens too often for comfort.

Edited June 17 by DarkGold

[DarkGold]

6 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

And if mounts are easier to acquire, the trip isn't going to be as rough(plus the player will appreciate having the saddlebag space).

Agree, if these got moved forward, this wouldn't be a problem either, but I imagine part of putting them after the first journey is to get the player to experience it on foot. And so the player has time to afford it. Big design change if brought forward, but possible.

[LadyWYT]

39 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

But do you know how persistent bears can be?! If their stamina also runs out, as long as I don't round the corner on a fresh one, it should be ok though.

Visions of rounding the corner, completely out of breath, seeing a fresh bear, the horror. Sure this happens too often for comfort.

They can be somewhat persistant, but as a general rule I've not found it difficult to outrun them with a few moments of sprinting either. Though I do think it's fair to say that if situations like this did prove to be a big problem, creature AI could be tweaked so that bears will charge a player but not necessarily pursue. In that case, the player can still run away, even if their stamina reserves aren't entirely full, but if they were careless and pushed to the point of exhaustion upon encountering the bear then they're probably in for a rough time.

 

38 minutes ago, DarkGold said:

Agree, if these got moved forward, this wouldn't be a problem either, but I imagine part of putting them after the first journey is to get the player to experience it on foot. And so the player has time to afford it. Big design change if brought forward, but possible.

I do agree that the Archive is designed the way that it is currently in order to push the player to make one trip on foot before they get a mount and ride around everywhere. That being said, acquiring a mount is similar to animal domestication--not an easy thing to do, even with the recent adjustments to creature tameness. So I would still expect going by foot to be the most expedient option for the first chapter, but players who want to acquire a mount first shouldn't experience that much of a delay. In some ways, that time delay can work in the player's favor--while they work on catching and taming a mount, they could also be working on better gear or stockpiling better medical supplies or other consumables. Newer players could be nudged toward focusing on surviving the winter and improving their skills as they work to tame the mount, meaning that they'll be able to handle the challenges in the Archive more easily.

When it comes to chapter two, it definitely makes having a mount a more attractive option for travel. Currently, you can cover the distance on foot in about the same time as you can on the elk, partly due to the fact that if you're on foot you don't really need to make a detour around dense forest or rough terrain. 

[Bruno Willis]

15 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

Besides some small additions or some new items to play with like some traps, I generally think the issue with combat more has to do with the limited interactions between enemies and players. A good example of this is with the shiver. Fighting shivers honestly doesn't feel too different from fighting drifters other than it happens faster. You don't deal with them much differently, it's just swing at them until they're dead, with some occasional chasing if they decide to run away. To me, improving the combat in this example has less to do with in enhancing the general tools available to the player, and more has to do with adding more interesting engagements with the shiver. It'd be interesting if there was some trigger for their stun animation, or for them running away, rather than just health or rng. 

My thought was to make it so if you hit shiver's in the head while their mouth is open, it would cause them to recoil in pain and curl up in the stun animation, giving more of a timing to fighting them, and larger group combat more of a tempo. It allows for moments where, if I'm amidst a temporal storm, I can stun the shiver, and make a decision on whether or not I need to finish the shiver now, or cut down other enemies since I'm no longer being rushed down. I believe it's consistent opportunities for those momentary decisions that will make combat most interesting.

I 100% agree with this assessment. This is my wish-list for foe changes:

• Drifters: More mischief than malevolence. I'd like them to beg for food if you are carrying food, rather than attacking. I'd also like them to be somewhat passive, sometimes just swinging at you once as they walk past, but also have a special attack which only triggers when you turn your back on them, where they rush over and shove you (think about caving). I'd also like to see drifters pick up and throw locusts at you, if there are locusts around.
• Bowtorns: If they fall over onto you as they die, it should hurt, a lot. Also, maybe a mechanic where, if you can get close to them while their back is turned and right click them, you've got a chance to grab onto their arm stumps and aim them like an arbalist. 
• Shivers: I love the o.p.'s suggestion. I'd also like to see shivers climbing (slowly) and hiding in wait up high.
• Locusts: Have a chance to cling onto you, slowing your move speed but not dealing damage. The move speed reduction would add up for how many were clinging to you, and they would have a chance to drop off at random and keep attacking. (also could let pet locusts cling to you as a light source). 
• Bears: More likely to warn you or swipe you once than actually attack, except in winter when they'd sneak around and murder you. Also, bears should eat any meat you were carrying on you if they kill you.
• Wolves: Scared of fire, and will back away if you point a torch at them. The ones behind you won't though so watch out. 

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

4 hours ago, coolAlias said:

I'd like to see weapon variety matter more than just different damage and reach numbers. Each weapon class having a distinct moveset like in Dark Souls would be nice, although it'd probably look more like Valheim which would be fine.

Speaking of Valheim, having enemies be weak or resistant to different damage types would add a layer of strategy to weapon (and perhaps armor) choice.

All of the Zelda games, especially the 3D ones starting with Ocarina of Time, would be great sources of inspiration for engaging combat mechanics. Enemies have learnable attack patterns, weaknesses, and sometimes very specific strategies required for defeating them that all work together to keep combat interesting.

I like Zelda as an inspiration much more than dark souls or valheim. As someone who loves dark souls, I don't think this game is complicated enough mechanically to allow for 'movesets' even, which is why I place more emphasis on some subtler changes in animation that mostly come down to the timing of attacks. Similar to a game like zelda, this essentially boils down to having a basic charge attack, or one extra move per weapon that has a niche situation where it's more optimal than just flurrying your sword.

I further prefer Zelda's style of combat because Zelda often utilizes creative enemy design, and distinct items to create fun combat situations, rather than arming the player's weapons with complicated move sets. For this reason, I think that have a few more items that are combat related would be more interesting than, say, adding clubs, maces, etc. Referring to souls games, I think that I honestly would rather have a Sekiro style system, where your default attacks are suplemented with some additional tools on your belt that force new interactions from enemies. If you had fire crackers, flares, maybe if landing a headshot with stones stunned enemies for a time, different unique interactions with distinct items is more interesting than just having more weapons. This is why I prefer a Zelda inspired combat system over a Dark Souls one.

It's reasons like this that I honestly am not a big fan of Combat Overhaul, I think that the mordhau/chivalry style combat conflicts with the game's more casual style enemy and player design, and organically integrating a system close to CO's style of combat require a tremendous amount of effort to restructure the flow of the game that I don't think the devs should undergo.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

11 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

I 100% agree with this assessment. This is my wish-list for foe changes:

• Drifters: More mischief than malevolence. I'd like them to beg for food if you are carrying food, rather than attacking. I'd also like them to be somewhat passive, sometimes just swinging at you once as they walk past, but also have a special attack which only triggers when you turn your back on them, where they rush over and shove you (think about caving). I'd also like to see drifters pick up and throw locusts at you, if there are locusts around.
• Bowtorns: If they fall over onto you as they die, it should hurt, a lot. Also, maybe a mechanic where, if you can get close to them while their back is turned and right click them, you've got a chance to grab onto their arm stumps and aim them like an arbalist. 
• Shivers: I love the o.p.'s suggestion. I'd also like to see shivers climbing (slowly) and hiding in wait up high.
• Locusts: Have a chance to cling onto you, slowing your move speed but not dealing damage. The move speed reduction would add up for how many were clinging to you, and they would have a chance to drop off at random and keep attacking. (also could let pet locusts cling to you as a light source). 
• Bears: More likely to warn you or swipe you once than actually attack, except in winter when they'd sneak around and murder you. Also, bears should eat any meat you were carrying on you if they kill you.
• Wolves: Scared of fire, and will back away if you point a torch at them. The ones behind you won't though so watch out. 

YES this is what I'm talking about, this is tons of fun. I especially love interactions like the wolves being afraid of fire, or the bowtorns hurting when they fall over. I think if that's the case though, the bowtorns should not be able to run as fast as they do. Seriously love the wolf interaction, I'm surprised this isn't already some part of the game considering the game takes heavy inspiration from the long dark. I also love the idea of drifters being more like bandits that maybe want to take things from you, more than stock enemies, but I definitely think that the higher level drifters should be more aggressive, otherwise lore locations and temporal storms would be paced a little weirder. Maybe the drifters become more aggressive in groups, thinking they can all take you head on and loot your corpse or something, but alone or in small groups they're more neutral.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

5 hours ago, DarkGold said:

How do you feel about parrying mechanics? I'm thinking about games where parrying is optional rather than necessary to kill enemies, but rewards higher skill and gives players a choice between a risky play (with a big reward if they time it right, if they time it wrong, the penalty is usually pain) or just playing it safe?

Also curious how people feel about things like more damage if you stab the enemy in the back/when they have their guard down. Backstabbing the enemy is usually paired with stealth mechanics, but not always necessarily so; it just really emphasizes positioning and has additional rewards if you stun or otherwise lock down the movement of the enemy. It also requires enemy movement to be very responsive by default, or else it's easy for the player to exploit the enemy's positioning.

I suppose a lot of these mechanics require the game to be very responsive to work in the first place. They might not be very viable on servers, but would work well in single player, and since Vintage Story supports server play, might not be strong additions to the game.

In terms of the games responsiveness, it seems like the devs are very aware of that problem and that's why they're starting with hitbox and possibly hit registration changes first so any more complicated systems aren't competing with weird network jank. As for parrying mechanics, I'd like a simple mechanic where timing a crouch with the shield guarantees you'll get the full damage mitigation on the shield, but I don't think the game should have a stagger system. I'd mostly like a better defensive option to exist for running around unarmored, one that maybe isn't the most consistent but will give you just the small amount of sustain you need to end a fight quickly when you're exploring, or when you get caught by surprise during a storm or in a cave.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

3 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Oh I'm not suggesting that it should be taken away, just that it might be a good idea to introduce a resource for quick movements like that so the player needs to think a little more carefully about what they're doing. Basically, the player can sprint around for a while before they run out of stamina and need to rest for a few moments to recover, or they can use chunks of stamina to dodge incoming attacks. However, moving at full sprint all the time might not be the best idea, since encountering a tough opponent at low stamina means the player wouldn't be able to dodge effectively or run away. Likewise, dodging several attacks within a short time might mean the player takes no damage, but also has no stamina to retreat if they decide the fight isn't in their favor. In most scenarios though, the player is likely to be starting the fight at full stamina, so they can fight or run as they see fit.

The Vigor mod is a decent example of how a stamina mechanic could work. I would also add that by practicing certain actions consistently, the player could decrease the stamina cost of things like sprinting and dodging, allowing them to do more of those actions before they need a proper rest, provided that they stay in practice of course.

For sure, however, in some ways I do think it's a little more interesting, as well as realistic, to need to stop for a rest or rely more on walking rather than just sprinting everywhere and calling it a day. That being said, it would make mounts a more attractive choice, since a mount could run faster and longer before needing a rest. And if mounts are easier to acquire, the trip isn't going to be as rough(plus the player will appreciate having the saddlebag space). In regards to foot travel, it would certainly make setting up campsites and outposts a more valuable investment, since you couldn't just sprint day and night to reach a destination.

I think for dodging, I'd like something akin to 'GTFO' oddly enough. It's not at all a game you would normally think of in the same conversation as Vintage Story, but essentially when moving side to side, or backwards, if you hit space, instead of jumping you make a short side step. I like this better than the current panic jumps we have, and I also generally think that whatever combat develops in the future, it isn't one that should be heavily dodge-based. Dodges should exist to delay the inevitable, avoid a projectile, or a particularly dangerous attack, but it shouldn't be something you can consistently perform as to be totally relied upon. Similar to what I mentioned above for parrying, I think it's something that can assist in decisive moments of intense action, but as opposed to many other titles that feature dodging, it shouldn't be a mechanic that decides whether or not you win or lose a fight, I think that should come more from being able to navigate the situation, manipulate the environment, and position yourself well against an onslaught of enemies. Again, to compare to GTFO, while you can dodge to avoid specific attacks, if you want to survive combat, positioning well to avoid getting hit, and timing your sprints/managing your stamina is far more important since the dodge is somewhat limited. That's not to say it isn't useful, it's especially nice for dodging projectiles, but mastering dodging in the game is mostly a bonus. Mastering the dodge mostly means avoiding situational losses rather than it is giving you consistent wins like in souls titles.

Edited June 17 by e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9

[LadyWYT]

3 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Drifters: More mischief than malevolence. I'd like them to beg for food if you are carrying food, rather than attacking. I'd also like them to be somewhat passive, sometimes just swinging at you once as they walk past, but also have a special attack which only triggers when you turn your back on them, where they rush over and shove you (think about caving). I'd also like to see drifters pick up and throw locusts at you, if there are locusts around.

I don't think any of the monsters are really capable of eating food. Not that they have to be capable of eating it in order to beg for it, but it doesn't really make much sense. Likewise, making them more passive pretty much removes them as a threat. I wouldn't mind it if they perhaps had lower perception than other monsters, since drifters don't strike me as particularly intelligent, and thus weren't likely to notice players crouched/sneaking nearby. However, monsters should be creatures that are unnaturally aggressive.

As for the locust throwing--it's definitely funny, but also not really needed since locusts already have a spring attack. That being said, it does remind me of this mod: https://mods.vintagestory.at/drifterbombs

Not that drifters need to be tossing bombs, but...the mental image is hilarious, and if it were a rare occurrence for tougher drifters they would definitely be a more concerning threat. 

9 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Bowtorns: If they fall over onto you as they die, it should hurt, a lot. Also, maybe a mechanic where, if you can get close to them while their back is turned and right click them, you've got a chance to grab onto their arm stumps and aim them like an arbalist. 

I'm not sure the player should be able to aim them like that. They're animate creatures, unnatural and fairly large, and not likely to be forced into service like that without some intense struggling. And the time the player takes attempting to subdue it is time that the player can't react to other threats in the area.

 

13 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Locusts: Have a chance to cling onto you, slowing your move speed but not dealing damage. The move speed reduction would add up for how many were clinging to you, and they would have a chance to drop off at random and keep attacking. (also could let pet locusts cling to you as a light source). 

Locusts I would actually push a bit further in this regard, potentially. Or at least, add a clingy variant that accomplishes this idea, since the strength of standard locusts is numbers(which is more than enough). But instead of just weighing down the player, they would actively be drilling through whatever armor the player is wearing. They might not do much damage themselves, but the idea is to wreck the armor and leave the player open to more serious attacks, if the player doesn't deal with the locusts.

The problem is figuring out a good way to get the locusts off of yourself. You can't really see your own body outside of immersive first person mode, and you can't slam yourself against the walls to dislodge hitch-hikers either.

17 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Bears: More likely to warn you or swipe you once than actually attack, except in winter when they'd sneak around and murder you. Also, bears should eat any meat you were carrying on you if they kill you.

Bears I wouldn't mind seeing be a little more defensive than aggressive, in return for making polar bears specifically more aggressive. The reasoning there is a defensive bear will still be very dangerous, but will be a little easier for players to deal with, especially new players. Polar bears, however, are one of the few animals that take the concept of "people food" literally, so they would be inclined to stalk a player in order to get a good meal.

Also worth noting that bears enjoy a variety of food, not just meat, so if the player was carrying a lot of food the bear would be happy to eat most of it.

21 minutes ago, Bruno Willis said:

Wolves: Scared of fire, and will back away if you point a torch at them. The ones behind you won't though so watch out. 

Fear of fire could apply to many wild animals in general, not just wolves. Waving a torch might be a crude early game solution, but the player could perhaps have access to some kind of flare later. Flares could be better at spooking animals, as well as potentially used to confuse certain monsters.

 

13 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I further prefer Zelda's style of combat because Zelda often utilizes creative enemy design, and distinct items to create fun combat situations, rather than arming the player's weapons with complicated move sets. For this reason, I think that have a few more items that are combat related would be more interesting than, say, adding clubs, maces, etc. Referring to souls games, I think that I honestly would rather have a Sekiro style system, where your default attacks are suplemented with some additional tools on your belt that force new interactions from enemies. If you had fire crackers, flares, maybe if landing a headshot with stones stunned enemies for a time, different unique interactions with distinct items is more interesting than just having more weapons. This is why I prefer a Zelda inspired combat system over a Dark Souls one.

I'm not a fan of Zelda games by any means, but I do think they serve as a good example of what kind of combat is perhaps a good fit for VS. It's complex enough to offer the player some interesting options, as well as chances to improve their skills, without being so complex that the player is going to struggle to jump back into the game should they take a break for a while. 

 

9 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

In terms of the games responsiveness, it seems like the devs are very aware of that problem and that's why they're starting with hitbox and possibly hit registration changes first so any more complicated systems aren't competing with weird network jank.

The hitboxes are easily the biggest problem with combat right now. It's pretty easy to clip into the hitboxes of larger entities(like bears) and be unable to hit them, while they can still hit you. There's also been times that I've been standing right in front of an attacking enemy and somehow not been hit, despite the fact that there was no way the hit could have missed.

 

8 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I think for dodging, I'd like something akin to 'GTFO' oddly enough. It's not at all a game you would normally think of in the same conversation as GTFO, but essentially when moving side to side, or backwards, if you hit space, instead of jumping you make a short side step. I like this better than the current panic jumps we have, and I also generally think that whatever combat develops in the future, it isn't one that should be heavily dodge-based. Dodges should exist to delay the inevitable, avoid a projectile, or a particularly dangerous attack, but it shouldn't be something you can consistently perform as to be totally relied upon. Similar to what I mentioned above for parrying, I think it's something that can assist in decisive moments of intense action, but as opposed to many other titles that feature dodging, it shouldn't be a mechanic that decides whether or not you win or lose a fight, I think that should come more from being able to navigate the situation, manipulate the environment, and position yourself well against an onslaught of enemies.

Short steps backwards or to the side is all dodging really is. I do think dodging and parrying should be able to be performed consistently enough for the player to rely on as primary defense, but only if the player puts in the effort to master the timing, and only in situations where dodging and parrying would actually be decisive. That is, you're not going to parry a charging rhino or eidolon slap--you can try, but you'll learn pretty fast why that's not the appropriate action to take. Same case with dodging--you need to be both dodging in the right direction and be able to put enough distance between you and the opponent for the attack to miss. So you might be able to sidestep an arrow or small rock, or a surface drifter's swing, but you probably aren't going to dodge the sawblade arm of a nightmare drifter or a hail of projectiles fired at you.

So yeah, in the right circumstances, a well-timed dodge or parry could absolutely be the factor that determines whether you survive the fight or hit the respawn button. But that's also part of the appeal of such mechanics. It also feels quite satisfying when you finally master the timing enough to dodge and parry incoming attacks consistently.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

17 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Short steps backwards or to the side is all dodging really is. I do think dodging and parrying should be able to be performed consistently enough for the player to rely on as primary defense, but only if the player puts in the effort to master the timing, and only in situations where dodging and parrying would actually be decisive. That is, you're not going to parry a charging rhino or eidolon slap--you can try, but you'll learn pretty fast why that's not the appropriate action to take. Same case with dodging--you need to be both dodging in the right direction and be able to put enough distance between you and the opponent for the attack to miss. So you might be able to sidestep an arrow or small rock, or a surface drifter's swing, but you probably aren't going to dodge the sawblade arm of a nightmare drifter or a hail of projectiles fired at you.

So yeah, in the right circumstances, a well-timed dodge or parry could absolutely be the factor that determines whether you survive the fight or hit the respawn button. But that's also part of the appeal of such mechanics. It also feels quite satisfying when you finally master the timing enough to dodge and parry incoming attacks consistently.

I guess my biggest comparison to souls titles is that the dodge should not have I-frames and the dodge should not travel as far as the dodges in those games, instead it should only go a block or two and should have a slight cool-down so you can't spam the crap out of it. As for parrying, it should be only a defensive move, it shouldn't do anything to the attacking enemy, only stop you from taking damage imo. I agree with what you said though, I think before I emphasized too much that it shouldn't be relied upon too much, but realistically what you're saying makes more sense to me. If you're overwhelmed by an onslaught of enemies, being able to time parries is not going to give you an out, but mid combat, combined with effective positioning, parrying and dodges should be contextually right for discrete instances of damage to keep the fight going.

[coolAlias]

54 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I like Zelda as an inspiration much more than dark souls or valheim.

Agreed. I still wouldn't mind an extra move or two per weapon, whether that's with a secondary attack of some kind, different moves when chaining attacks, or some combination of both.

It doesn't need to have the complexity of Dark Souls, but even something as simple as a straight poke giving a bit of extra reach or stopping power (e.g. spear vs charging enemy), an overhead swing letting you bonk stuff on the head to perhaps influct stun via blunt force trauma, or a sideways slash to hit multiple enemies would be fine.

[LadyWYT]

16 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I guess my biggest comparison to souls titles is that the dodge should not have I-frames and the dodge should not travel as far as the dodges in those games, instead it should only go a block or two and should have a slight cool-down so you can't spam the crap out of it

I agree that dodging shouldn't be more than a block or two, since that equates to about a step. A roll would use more distance, but a roll is not a move you want to make if you can avoid it, since it's easy to mess up and leaves you more open to attack. I-frames I wouldn't worry about too much, really; if I'm not mistaken those tend to be more heavily abused by speedrunners and minmaxers, and not so much the average player.

As for the cooldown...that I'm not sure. I think a stamina cost might be more appropriate here. That way the player can spam the ability if they really want, but doing so will limit how much stamina they have to use for other things, like more dodges, running away, chasing enemies, stronger attacks, etc. Vigor handled stamina cost rather nicely, in that it would recover fairly fast under typical circumstances, but if you drained too much stamina from the meter than you would become a little sluggish and stamina would recover much more slowly until you took a proper rest. 

25 minutes ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

If you're overwhelmed by an onslaught of enemies, being able to time parries is not going to give you an out, but mid combat, combined with effective positioning, parrying and dodges should be contextually right for discrete instances of damage to keep the fight going.

Pretty much. Dodging and parrying are most useful when dueling an opponent that's a similar size to oneself. It can still be somewhat useful against an onslaught or larger opponents, since blocking partial damage is better than blocking no damage, but its usefulness drops off rather quickly.

For facing multiple opponents at once, the better tactic is probably to armor up with plate and use a shield, or perhaps a polearm/greataxe/greatsword to control the space nearby. You're still going to take some hits, but if you can make good use of the available space and effectively force the enemies into dealing with you a few at a time rather than all at once, you should be able to survive. Alternatively, this would also be a good scenario to use a scrap bomb or other AoE weapon.

Large enemies are going to be tough to deal with because they don't need numbers to make your life difficult. A large enemy will typically be stronger and have more health, potentially more armor as well. They can also have more reach, making it easier for them to hit you than it is for you to hit them, and that extra reach can make a big difference in a fight. Likewise, if they're much stronger than you are, dodging their attacks is going to be a better option than trying to parry or block, since both of those options require absorbing or redirecting the incoming attack force.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

I forgot to mention one extra thing that I've honestly thought about modding myself, I wish that the temporal and rusty gear necklaces functioned to attract or deter aggro for when you're fighting along side other players. The armor and class system seems to encourage having certain players kitted for melee combat and full plate armor, and other players in lighter armor equipped with ranged weapons, but as it stands the enemies will just totally ignore the armored player and b-line it straight for the archers, even while the melee player is wailing on the enemy who's focused on the archer.

I'd like the temporal gear necklace to attract enemies more, so they tend to focus on damaging temporal necklace wearers, and the rusty gear necklace is the reverse. That's not to say the rusty gear necklace would make you more stealthy or anything like that, and I think it should only work on monsters, not wildlife, but it's still annoying that you can't properly cover your lighter weight teammates in this game. It's especially annoying when you can't catch up to the shivers in heavy armor, so if you fail to divert their attention in a few hits, your ranged-focused allies are just screwed most of the time, unless they just decide to carry around heavy armor themselves which feels kinda cheap imo. It would be one thing if the shivers actually flanked us when were in a group, I wouldn't complain about shivers spawning behind us and attacking archers first, but it's something else entirely when enemies will run straight past the black guard in full armor just to destroy my friend playing the hunter.

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

The armor and class system seems to encourage having certain players kitted for melee combat and full plate armor, and other players in lighter armor equipped with ranged weapons, but as it stands the enemies will just totally ignore the armored player and b-line it straight for the archers, even while the melee player is wailing on the enemy who's focused on the archer.

Perhaps give the heavier armors a noise penalty, so enemies will notice those players more? Additionally, there could probably be some sort of check to make certain enemies prioritize attacking the closest targets, especially if those targets are actively attacking them. After all, it's difficult to ignore a big armored individual that keep poking you with a sharp object. The noise penalty also gives more trade-off to having that level of protection; you might be able to shrug off most attacks while wearing plate armor, but you'll also get more unwanted attention as well.