Hopes & Dreams for Changes to Combat

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

16 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

Damage types are meant to help push players to use different strategies every so often, as well as meant to help different equipment choices actually feel different. For example, a piercing weapon like a spear or bow would be quite strong against wild animals, but struggle against mechanical enemies since they're made of metal. A mace would be really good against metal enemies since it can crush the metal parts, but might not be a good choice for confronting a bear since flesh and hide is squishy and can absorb the impact. For games with magic systems, it means playing a frost mage build will give you a distinct advantage against opponents that are weak to frost, but means you're going to suffer if you fail to account for enemies that are resistant/immune to frost damage. That could mean learning a couple of basic spells that do other damage, or it could mean using scrolls, potions, or buying a weapon specifically for that encounter.

For a Vintage Story context, I would still expect the player to be able to take pretty much any standard weapon into most encounters and still be able to win. It's just that they might struggle with some encounters more than others depending on their choice of equipment.

Something like this is fine for an MMO or an RPG where your expected to work alongside teammates with diverse kits, or carry a diverse set of weapons on you yourself. However, in VS you run into a problem, where if the stats are designed like you mentioned, and you can comfortably take a weapon into most encounters, then the whole idea of damage types seems pretty negligible to begin with. It basically just comes down to 'pick the enemy you don't want to fight, ok here's the weapon that has the best stats against them' in a game as simple as VS (combat wise). The alternative forces this situation where you need to have a diverse set of damage to be able to confront a variety of situations, or you need to swap weapons depending on the encounter or trip your making. While I think this is fine to a certain degree, I think it needs to come alongside the rest of what I've mentioned, where it needs to reinforce new playstyles and new situations made possible by various weapons, which are then enhanced by damage types if the devs so please. I still don't know if they add enough in that situation to warrant coding it in, but I could see a situation where it works out. If more of the system comes down to focusing on the damage types and resistances, it's assuredly not going to make combat much more interesting imho, and in fact, I feel like it's much easier to add this system in a way that makes it either annoying or unnecessary. 

[Bruno Willis]

12 hours ago, coolAlias said:

As a kind of out there idea: since combat seems fairly important when progressing the story in VS, what if each class had a different fighting style, sort of like an old-school beat-em-up side-scroller (think Streets of Rage)? Or, since we already have the clockmaker, more of an RPG take on differentiating how the classes approach combat - the clockmaker could be a master of artificial minions, the hunter would specialize more in ranged combat, etc. Lean into each with actual combat mechanics beyond a few stat bonuses.

I really like the idea of, even if they're not mechanically different, each class having different animations for things, as well as different ways of interacting with things. I could see a situation where each class has one unique attack among all the possible attacks they make. 

I love the idea that your blackguard friend actually always tears flimsy doors off their hinges, and the tailor minces around carefully, never breaks the flimsy door, etc. And then they feel different to play, like the hunter has really long strides in their animation, the malefactor moves faster crouching than others, sees better in darkness but the daytime world is colour-graded in a noir style (just subtly). I'd even like it if classes with shortsighted were actually shortsighted in game, but in an aesthetic way. I played as a clockmaker with my brother - hunter - and my computer was way weaker than his, so he spotted the bears way before me: "Look at that mountain over there, that's sick!" "What mountain?" "It's just over there" "Where?" It was really fun.

Basically I want someone to go "Uh, I'm just going to play hunter this playthrough, I'm sick of malefactor" and then get a real surprise at how the game feels. "They live like this?!"

[williams_482]

2 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

Something like this is fine for an MMO or an RPG where your expected to work alongside teammates with diverse kits, or carry a diverse set of weapons on you yourself. However, in VS you run into a problem, where if the stats are designed like you mentioned, and you can comfortably take a weapon into most encounters, then the whole idea of damage types seems pretty negligible to begin with. It basically just comes down to 'pick the enemy you don't want to fight, ok here's the weapon that has the best stats against them' in a game as simple as VS (combat wise). The alternative forces this situation where you need to have a diverse set of damage to be able to confront a variety of situations, or you need to swap weapons depending on the encounter or trip your making. While I think this is fine to a certain degree, I think it needs to come alongside the rest of what I've mentioned, where it needs to reinforce new playstyles and new situations made possible by various weapons, which are then enhanced by damage types if the devs so please. I still don't know if they add enough in that situation to warrant coding it in, but I could see a situation where it works out. If more of the system comes down to focusing on the damage types and resistances, it's assuredly not going to make combat much more interesting imho, and in fact, I feel like it's much easier to add this system in a way that makes it either annoying or unnecessary. 

In SP, damage types wouldn't add much, especially since the falx (at least under my proposed system) is going to be the best weapon or close to it against both rotbeasts and mechanicals, while remaining effective against animals. For day-to-day stuff in the copper or bronze age on, that's your go to and not much thinking is required.

That model would make the club into an actually useful object as an early-game falx alternative. My early game loadout would switch from spears to club + spears, mirroring the late game loadout of falx + bow. But the big benefit would come from MP and boss fights, where weapon/armor matchups could be significantly more impactful. 

I've seen people complain before that group combat on MP servers is really boring. Apparently it typically devolves into small mobs of steel plate clad seraphs wailing on each other with falxes until someone dies. More diversity in weapon types and armor effectiveness against those types would create an environment more like an MMORPG, where you have some rock/paper/scissor stuff going on that motivates more complex team tactics.

Boss fights also create a somewhat predictable scenario where the player can reasonably anticipate in advance and bring multiple weapons to, where different damage types could become more relevant. Perhaps there's a boss who is well armored and difficult to injure with piercing weapons, except at a few specific moments where vulnerable parts become vulnerable to damage specifically by high-sharpness thrusting weapons which can fit through small openings? Or maybe you get attacked by two small groups of "minion" enemies with different damage resistances, and the correct play is to take out one group as fast as possible with their optimal weapon before turning on the next group with a different weapon. Etc, etc. 

[LadyWYT]

4 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

I love the idea that your blackguard friend actually always tears flimsy doors off their hinges

Oddly enough it's the hunter who ends up breaking more doors than me. But this is also why using a crude door when playing with friends is a very good idea.  You just never know when the thing is going to fall off its hinges and it's almost always hilarious when it happens.

 

2 hours ago, williams_482 said:

I've seen people complain before that group combat on MP servers is really boring. Apparently it typically devolves into small mobs of steel plate clad seraphs wailing on each other with falxes until someone dies. More diversity in weapon types and armor effectiveness against those types would create an environment more like an MMORPG, where you have some rock/paper/scissor stuff going on that motivates more complex team tactics.

I think PvP is where damage types really start to shine. For a singleplayer setup, it's not such a big deal except maybe in the case of a proper RPG, since most games tend to favor allowing the player to pick whatever weapon they want and then stick to that. The player might struggle a little more on certain fights in that case, but they're probably not going to fail the fight entirely and need to retreat.

To cite some of my own gameplay as an example--I installed a mod for Skyrim that adds different damage types and resistances to various enemies and armor. A sword will take care of most things, even if you run into some resistance, but it's generally possible to power your way through, especially with the right perks. There are a few instances though where perks and enchantments won't really save you, and you'll need to invest in a proper counter. Dwarven centurions are highly resistant to slashing damage, so it's a good idea to have some sort of magic at the ready or otherwise bring a follower that can counter what you cannot.

Though regarding armor and damage resistance...I think for the player armor, a simple system such as what Age of Empires II employs would work rather well. Basically, different armors could be better at preventing certain status effects, but when it comes to the damage reduction itself, you have two basic armor rating--melee and pierce. Melee armor is how much damage from a melee attack will be prevented, while pierce armor determines how much damage from projectiles will be prevented. In AoE II, it works out rather well because you can have a unit with high melee armor that will be brutal in brawls, but easy to deal with at range. The huskarl's high pierce armor makes them highly effective at killing ranged units, but while they can hold their own in a melee fight they don't have quite as much melee armor and tend to struggle a bit.

4 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

Basically I want someone to go "Uh, I'm just going to play hunter this playthrough, I'm sick of malefactor" and then get a real surprise at how the game feels. "They live like this?!"

I mean, to some extent this is how it is now. You get used to playing a certain class, then switch for a while and get very confused when you're not hitting as hard as you should or you have way more food than you know what to do with. At least in my case, I tend to end up a little confused when playing Hunter/Malefactor, as the experience is very easy compared to what I'm used to.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

6 hours ago, williams_482 said:

In SP, damage types wouldn't add much, especially since the falx (at least under my proposed system) is going to be the best weapon or close to it against both rotbeasts and mechanicals, while remaining effective against animals. For day-to-day stuff in the copper or bronze age on, that's your go to and not much thinking is required.

That model would make the club into an actually useful object as an early-game falx alternative. My early game loadout would switch from spears to club + spears, mirroring the late game loadout of falx + bow. But the big benefit would come from MP and boss fights, where weapon/armor matchups could be significantly more impactful. 

I've seen people complain before that group combat on MP servers is really boring. Apparently it typically devolves into small mobs of steel plate clad seraphs wailing on each other with falxes until someone dies. More diversity in weapon types and armor effectiveness against those types would create an environment more like an MMORPG, where you have some rock/paper/scissor stuff going on that motivates more complex team tactics.

Boss fights also create a somewhat predictable scenario where the player can reasonably anticipate in advance and bring multiple weapons to, where different damage types could become more relevant. Perhaps there's a boss who is well armored and difficult to injure with piercing weapons, except at a few specific moments where vulnerable parts become vulnerable to damage specifically by high-sharpness thrusting weapons which can fit through small openings? Or maybe you get attacked by two small groups of "minion" enemies with different damage resistances, and the correct play is to take out one group as fast as possible with their optimal weapon before turning on the next group with a different weapon. Etc, etc. 

This is still hammering my grievance with damage types. It's just a numbers game, it's literally just paying attention to weapon and enemy stats and picking the rock paper scissors matchup. That is unbelievably boring imo, especially compared to different playstyles that emerge from different distinct weapons that actually feel different to play with, and are better at different scenarios rather than different resistances. I'd like unique playstyles, not unique damage types, because the damage types doesn't actually change the game all that much, other than everyone has to be a generalist. In a team fight, it just comes down to making sure your team represents all damage types, and then focusing the rock-paper-scissors matchups you can win. Against a boss, it's no different than the current gameplay, other than everyone picks the right tools for the situation, and then wales on the boss the same way we do now. There's marginal amounts of forethought required to optimize damage, but past that point this doesn't encourage anything new. Besides, the devs said they wanted to keep their system distinct from CO, and I feel like the game should try to focus on creating more systems that work organically within VS for all members of the community. For the people who want the MMMORPG VS experience, they should join a server and go play with CO. For the people who want to build and still want a challenge of defending themselves from the onslaught of temporal monsters, there should be something that makes combat more dynamic or interesting when the combat happens. It should be a system that rewards thinking about the combat and gameplay, when you're in the moment, and using your tools effectively, playing around the terrain and enemy behaviors, rather than just recognizing their types and what weapon to hit them with.

[Crimeo]

I found it extremely concerning that all of the things listed in the announcement had nothing to do with drifters, which need massive overhauling. As in the fact that they are just kind of placeholder HP sponges (the least effortful way to code a ""hard"" enemy in any video game, period), instead of having interesting AI/tactical relevant/whatever. "Ah they're dumb as a bag of hammers, but I just have to hit them four. hundred. thousand. times" is not a fun enemy, and doesn't feel badass, it just feels like the game is cheating.

Overhauling that would be super welcome and awesome, but the release announcement exclusively talked about hitboxes, aesthetics, and armor customization... stuff that seems almost all multiplayer relevant. They didn't mention drifters once. Yes I know it said "And more" too, but not a good sign of where the focus is. Drifters should be like 80% of a combat overhaul, not something of so little importance that it doesn't even get listed.

Edited June 19 by Crimeo

[Chuckerton]

2 hours ago, Crimeo said:

I found it extremely concerning that all of the things listed in the announcement had nothing to do with drifters, which need massive overhauling. As in the fact that they are just kind of placeholder HP sponges (the least effortful way to code a ""hard"" enemy in any video game, period), instead of having interesting AI/tactical relevant/whatever. "Ah they're dumb as a bag of hammers, but I just have to hit them four. hundred. thousand. times" is not a fun enemy, and doesn't feel badass, it just feels like the game is cheating.

I definitely agree. It also doesnt really get much better as you get better gear because you tend to be fighting stronger drifters because you spend more time underground. In fact, i would even say the problem ends up branching over to shivers too, although they are interesting with their speed at least, but they can get stupid tanky too. Usually i would just play blackguard but the early game while solo is so brutal with them that i end up picking commoner and just turning off class-exclusive items. 

I generally like the idea of keeping combat simple...ish, but drifters need something to make them more interesting. 

[LadyWYT]

2 hours ago, Crimeo said:

I found it extremely concerning that all of the things listed in the announcement had nothing to do with drifters, which need massive overhauling. As in the fact that they are just kind of placeholder HP sponges (the least effortful way to code a ""hard"" enemy in any video game, period), instead of having interesting AI/tactical relevant/whatever. "Ah they're dumb as a bag of hammers, but I just have to hit them four. hundred. thousand. times" is not a fun enemy, and doesn't feel badass, it just feels like the game is cheating.

I think drifters are fine. They're simple enemies, yes, but every game is going to have a "basic" enemy, and drifters have a few more tools than basic enemies in other games. Drifters prefer melee attacks, but can throw rocks, meaning that players can't just sit on a pillar or other safe vantage point and shoot them entirely from safety. The crawling drifters are slower than their shuffling counterparts, but unlike the standard drifter, the crawlers can fit through one-block spaces. Tier 3+ drifters have much higher knockback on their attacks, which can easily send a player flying into a corner or over a ledge if the player isn't careful. And of course, while surface drifters die rather quickly to decent weapons, high rift activity can produce them in swarms, giving them a numbers advantage.

In any case, while more complex enemies are oftentimes more fun and challenging to fight, it's important to have some basic enemies in the mix as well to offer the player a break.

1 minute ago, Chuckerton said:

In fact, i would even say the problem ends up branching over to shivers too, although they are interesting with their speed at least, but they can get stupid tanky too.

Shivers I don't mind as they are, but in some ways I think they should have had a lower health pool as a trade-off for the increased speed and attack. The deepsplits are fine, since nightmare tier enemies are supposed to be terrifying monstrosities at all levels of play, and the deepsplit shivers seem to be a bit slower than their counterparts.

 

2 hours ago, Crimeo said:

the release announcement exclusively talked about hitboxes, aesthetics, and armor customization... stuff that seems almost all multiplayer relevant.

That stuff is pretty important to singleplayer as well. Part of the reason combat feels so clunky right now is how the hitboxes and animations are set up. It's quite easy to get swatted into a wall, or clip into an entity's hitbox so you can't hit it but it can still hit you(bears are really bad about this), or swing at a target and miss entirely because you moved your crosshair off-target before the attack animation finished playing. By fine-tuning hitboxes and animations, players will be able to dodge attacks and land their own attacks with greater success.

[Chuckerton]

5 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I think drifters are fine. They're simple enemies, yes, but every game is going to have a "basic" enemy, and drifters have a few more tools than basic enemies in other games. Drifters prefer melee attacks, but can throw rocks, meaning that players can't just sit on a pillar or other safe vantage point and shoot them entirely from safety. The crawling drifters are slower than their shuffling counterparts, but unlike the standard drifter, the crawlers can fit through one-block spaces. Tier 3+ drifters have much higher knockback on their attacks, which can easily send a player flying into a corner or over a ledge if the player isn't careful. And of course, while surface drifters die rather quickly to decent weapons, high rift activity can produce them in swarms, giving them a numbers advantage.

I think low tier drifters are fine. Higher tier gets boring. More health and damage, yahooo! The most boring kind of difficulty. Id prefer it being more variants of drifters spawn. Either a swarm of the lower tier basic ones in place of a high tier one, or instead an armored drifter, thats larger and has metal plates on it so its extremely tanky and persistent, though slow and with weaker attacks. The nightmare drifters look like the "damage" drifter already, with the sword hand, maybe it shouldnt have as much health in comparison to its current state. It would be tricky to not step into other enemies territory with other variants. Maybe having drifters as a more exclusively low tier enemy type and then introducing new rust world enemies. Maybe an enemy that can pull you towards them, or some kind of explosive lobbing one. I think more meaningful differences between variants of the rust creatures we already have would be nice too. Like bowtorns, maybe a variant that can fire much more rapidly, or a ballista variant. 

Anything that isnt JUST "more damage and health". 

[Crimeo]

7 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

I think drifters are fine. They're simple enemies, yes, but every game is going to have a "basic" enemy

By "drifters" I meant "every single time enemy outside of any bosses". Which ones of them are interesting or strategic? The tougher ones literally just get more HP and attack, that's it. it's like the old janky NES video games where you level up, and you run into "Ruby bad guy" instead of "sapphire bad guy" with just a palette swap

[Bruno Willis]

34 minutes ago, Chuckerton said:

The nightmare drifters look like the "damage" drifter already, with the sword hand, maybe it shouldnt have as much health in comparison to its current state. It would be tricky to not step into other enemies territory with other variants.

I'd like to see drifters with rusty sword arms get longer reach to fit with their sick visual design. I think the current rust foes are great, but if we get a more fleshed out way to fight, it needs to be paired with more fleshed out foes. 

Ideas for alternate higher tier drifters:

• Alchemist drifters = drifters who lob bombs and give off a cloud of slightly damaging mist when killed (their chemical concoctions mixing).
• Lazarus drifters = drifters which "die" but don't de-spawn even when looted. Then they get back up again after a little bit. Have to be burned after being killed to get rid of them.

And a few little ideas for all drifters to add a bit of extra fun and spice:

• Tempting: holding up a rusty gear or temporal gear, then backing away from the player. Has a chance to spawn in a higher tier drifter nearby if pursued.
• Leading: if there is a bell nearby, the drifter gestures to the player and walks towards the bell, then pauses looks around and does it again. Once its finished the gestures, it goes back to normal behavior.
• Occasionally put out torches. They walk up to torches and nock them onto the ground, then stamp on them until it's dark. 
• Occasionally get up and start moving again after being killed (if they haven't been looted or burned). 

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

13 hours ago, Bruno Willis said:

I'd like to see drifters with rusty sword arms get longer reach to fit with their sick visual design. I think the current rust foes are great, but if we get a more fleshed out way to fight, it needs to be paired with more fleshed out foes. 

Ideas for alternate higher tier drifters:

• Alchemist drifters = drifters who lob bombs and give off a cloud of slightly damaging mist when killed (their chemical concoctions mixing).
• Lazarus drifters = drifters which "die" but don't de-spawn even when looted. Then they get back up again after a little bit. Have to be burned after being killed to get rid of them.

And a few little ideas for all drifters to add a bit of extra fun and spice:

• Tempting: holding up a rusty gear or temporal gear, then backing away from the player. Has a chance to spawn in a higher tier drifter nearby if pursued.
• Leading: if there is a bell nearby, the drifter gestures to the player and walks towards the bell, then pauses looks around and does it again. Once its finished the gestures, it goes back to normal behavior.
• Occasionally put out torches. They walk up to torches and nock them onto the ground, then stamp on them until it's dark. 
• Occasionally get up and start moving again after being killed (if they haven't been looted or burned). 

I feel like the serrated blade drifters should be able to break down doors. I also think it would be cool if the bell shivers would charge through large gates, and then start ringing afterwards so it feels like your base is actually under siege of sorts.

[LadyWYT]

5 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I feel like the serrated blade drifters should be able to break down doors.

Technically, monsters should be able to tear through a lot of things, but destroying builds is one quick way to produce a lot of frustrated players. It also leads to issues in ruins as well, since there are ruined doors that monsters could be messing with. That can render searching for them pointless, as well as diminish the concept of the place being untouched for decades.

 

5 hours ago, e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9 said:

I also think it would be cool if the bell shivers would charge through large gates, and then start ringing afterwards so it feels like your base is actually under siege of sorts.

Bellhead shivers only spawn deep underground, so they aren't really a threat to player bases unless the player turned off stability mechanics and built down near bedrock. That could change if they were allowed to spawn on the surface outside of temporal storms, but in that case you have a nightmare tier enemy running around wreaking havoc on players who don't have access to good weapons and armor yet.

[e8747e6c4e0ceedb55ae841fe9]

51 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Technically, monsters should be able to tear through a lot of things, but destroying builds is one quick way to produce a lot of frustrated players. It also leads to issues in ruins as well, since there are ruined doors that monsters could be messing with. That can render searching for them pointless, as well as diminish the concept of the place being untouched for decades.

 

Bellhead shivers only spawn deep underground, so they aren't really a threat to player bases unless the player turned off stability mechanics and built down near bedrock. That could change if they were allowed to spawn on the surface outside of temporal storms, but in that case you have a nightmare tier enemy running around wreaking havoc on players who don't have access to good weapons and armor yet.

If they came to the surface, I think they should have a similar spawn rate as the double headed drifter, functioning essentially as a boss. A normal temporal storm would end up feeling more like a raid. Also, by break down, I don't mean the block has to be destroyed, just that the pathway has to be opened for other monsters to return. Maybe afterwards players could take barely a board or two and a nail or two and fix everything, but it would take some time to do so it wouldn't be an easy thing to fix on the fly during a storm. I also don't think monsters should pursue breaking anything down unless breaking it down paths to a player, otherwise it should just ignore them.