On the subject of combat: my (possibly overly complex) take

[Theishiopian]

I've seen a lot of people chip in with ideas on how combat should work, so I thought I would throw my hat into the ring. The following is how I would implement melee combat, and may or may not work for the game. Its designed to be different from other games while still being intuitive.

In most games, attacking is done by clicking. Whether or not theres any delay or animation does not change that fact. While simple, I feel we can do better. In real life, an attack is a continuous action, not one initiated then let go. A better approach, one I've seen suggested before, would be to drag the mouse across the screen to swing your weapon. This is a good start.

The thing that makes melee combat intense in real life is that getting a strike in is actually rare, and usually ends the fight. Strikes are often parried or blocked, and the one strike that does manage to get through usually is enough to disable or kill your opponent. Thus, for a realistic combat system, we need two things: strikes are easy to block, and deal large amounts of damage. Most ideas for combat systems that I've seen do involve the former, but usually as just another predefined action, essentially just another click. 

The idea I have is that attacks are performed by dragging, as previously discussed, but attacks that intersect nullify each other. This folds attacking, parrying and blocking into one action. As for how to implement this, I would use a technique I call slice planes. Basically, whenever you hold down the mouse button, you get the ability to drag a line on your screen. Once you release your click, an invisible plane is created in front of the player, angled along the drawn line. The wider the line, the larger and therefore faster the swing, as it has more time to accelerate. If an attack plane intersects with another, both attacks are interrupted. The weapon would be animated in a swing using the center of the drawn line (translated from screen space to world space) as the fulcrum and the length of the line would be used to calculate the angle. The acceleration of the swing would be a linear curve, with lighter weapons accelerating faster. The faster the swing, the more damage is done.

The consequences of this is that the percentage of successful attacks goes way down. To compensate, the damage of weapons would be significantly buffed. A single swipe from a sword should be enough to kill you, provided its at close enough range and isn't blocked. This makes sword fighting a lot more intense, as now combat is no longer a battle of attrition, but is rather a battle of wits.

The next idea pertains to how damage is calculated. Contrary to the way most games are designed, better materials don't necessarily mean more damage. The damage done by a weapon is more a function of how much force it delivers. This in turn is determined by how heavy the weapon is, as well as how sharp it is. Thus, heavier weapons, such as ones made out of lead, should do more damage. However, just because a weapon does more damage doesn't make it better. A heavy lead sword would be slow to swing, giving the defender more of a window to block, and the softness of lead would mean the sword wouldn't last very long. And the lower a weapon's durability gets, the duller it is and therefore the less damage it does. This would compound with swing speeds, meaning that heavier materials are better suited for bludgeoning weapons like maces, while lighter materials are better for slashing weapons like swords. 

Obviously, this isn't a completely game ready idea. It would need a lot of refining, as well as different systems for piercing weapons. I just wanted to get the ideas of dynamic swinging and weight based damage out there for discussion.

EDIT: I should have clarified that a target inside of a slice plane wont take damage until the weapon is mid swing, to give the defender a chance to block. I need sleep

[Erik]

These are some interesting ideas, but I'll give some honest feedback, where problems may arise.

I agree with the lethality of combat argument, people should need to block to survive, it would make combat much more active, exiting and often quicker.

As for the weapon dragging idea, there are a few problems. The main thought of combining defense and offence is innovative, but it really pushes for aggressive play as there is no reason for players not to attack, as they only defend oneself by attacking. This ultimately turns from what should be tactical and reactive combat into fast attack spamming.

But that are not the only problems with the dragging mechanic. If I understand correctly, when you mean line length instead of width, that longer drawn lines translate into faster swings. While I like the elegance of weighing windup time against attack time, the windup of weapons would be almost instant, as drawing a line across the screen doesn't take any time.

A small problem with your vision of intersecting lines is, that any lines the players would draw would theoretically intersect. One thing that needs to be taken into count is the direction of the lines. Opposite directions should block each other, not intersecting lines. Problem is, ultimately the direction doesn't decide who will do damage, the attack speed does. I think it's very likely, that with your system, the player with the fastest would always be on the offense, while the other player will always be at the defense, making combat into a waiting game for the first player to win. One way to fix this, is using small staggers, so the tides turn every time.

But the biggest problem with your system is, that while it may create a very interesting, simple and compelling combat system, it isn't fit for first person gameplay, doesn't play well with the camera. The player can't freely look around while drawing an attack, which will make the system feel very clunky. This also limits movement. Fixing this is very simple, but almost impossible to do in Vintage Story: Locking the screen onto the target (Like in Zelda games or Dark Souls). This makes the camera control itself, allowing for easy movement, dodging, etc. But target locking also limits you immensely and only really works in open flat areas, which there are almost none, in a game where the player needs to jump every two meters.

Onto your weapon differences: Light, fast weapons would always be at an advantage, because one hit kills and they are much harder to block. Damage still needs to be a factor to make it somehow work, so the player should at least be able to sustain 2-3 hits, to make a damage difference worth something.

Here comes the part, where I promote my own 15 page combat system for Vintage Story. It's very different from your idea, but has the same goal in making combat more reactive and deadly.

[Theishiopian]

The only part of our criticism I disagree with is the assertion it wouldn't work in first person. I think that if the interface was properly translated between screen and world space, combat would feel sharp and snappy. Other than that, all of these are valid concerns. 

As for dragging being instant, I envisioned it like the line is the path the weapon WILL take, not the path it instantly takes. Once a weapon has a path, it initiates a swing. 

Interesting point about light weapons. TBH, I only envisioned this for swords. Other weapons might need slightly different systems based off the same mechanic.

I actually did read your suggestion, and if I may offer some criticism of my own, I think its to complex. Ideally, offense and defense should both be possible using the same controls. 

I feel like both of our ideas are really just paths going to the same point, and that if we keep developing them, eventually some truly good ideas will emerge. 

[Erik]

11 minutes ago, Theishiopian said:

The only part of our criticism I disagree with is the assertion it wouldn't work in first person. I think that if the interface was properly translated between screen and world space, combat would feel sharp and snappy. Other than that, all of these are valid concerns. 

I didn't mean it would only work with third person, your system would only really work with first person plus target locking (If you misunderstood that, just to clear up possible confusion). How would this work, the player has to use the same controls to look around to do the attacks, how would aiming attacks even work? Do you align with your target, once you have drawn? For a system, where it is really important for players to see, which direction the enemy attacks, camera controls seem to be really bad.

In the best case, something like Mount and Blade would come out and that is very clunky while also only supporting really short drags, so you have to let go of your line length - attack speed relation. If doing it with draws being really short, you could let the player hold the attack button to "charge" his attack, resulting in faster swings, while releasing it would start the attack, in the direction the players mouse was moving when releasing the mouse. This would also allow the direction to be translated in real time to charging weapon, telling the enemy beforehand, where the strike will go. And best of all, this wouldn't require target lock.

23 minutes ago, Theishiopian said:

I actually did read your suggestion, and if I may offer some criticism of my own, I think its to complex.

What exactly was too complex? The system is about as simple as Skyrim to understand (when playing) and I really tried to make it not complex. My descriptions were just really detailed and got into a lot of the design and implementation. To be fair, the armor system is quite unusual, especially with my wording, so it is really hard to understand at first, generally my writing isn't really the best, so there may lie the issue.

27 minutes ago, Theishiopian said:

Ideally, offense and defense should both be possible using the same controls. 

This is definitely not a must. I thought about adding an effect like this, where weapons clash when a weapon enters the hit phase of a swing (the phase just before the hit where the attack can no longer be canceled by fainting) while another weapon is also in the hit phase, dealing stagger and stamina damage to both sides. This would be done to prevent uncertainty of which weapon hits first, if they are swung roughly at the same time, as only one weapon would actually hit, because of stagger. I ultimately decided against implementing it into my suggestion, because it caused some unnecessary complexity while not adding a lot and also buffing shield bashes a bit (They are attacks that are always in the hit phase, so they would almost always clash, although this could make for some really interesting situations).

Maybe I should bring this back into the system (It would ultimately be a small cool improvement), but the complexity is something that would come with it, and if my system is already too complex, it would make things worse.

[Theishiopian]

Combat systems using a plethora of different buttons has always been a pet peeve of mine. I like the idea of weapons clashing together, rather than having to be used in attack or defense mode. As for aiming, you aim first, then draw. 

In terms of complexity, I personally dislike any system with a stamina mechanic. I also dislike staggering, as a simple stun debuff would suffice as opposed to four different ways of staggering.

Please keep in mind, I don't hate your ideas, nor do I think mine are better. I would be fine with either. I just like iterating on different concepts, and I like the idea of weapon swings being more than animations. I also prefer combat systems to be as simple as possible, with depth being emergent from gameplay rather than from a myriad of systems. You have a different take, which is excellent. The more perspectives there are, the more good ideas there are.

[Balduranne]

1 hour ago, Erik said:

As for the weapon dragging idea, there are a few problems. The main thought of combining defense and offence is innovative, but it really pushes for aggressive play as there is no reason for players not to attack, as they only defend oneself by attacking. This ultimately turns from what should be tactical and reactive combat into fast attack spamming.

Metal Gear: Revengenance uses that and I couldn't stand the mechanic. 

[Theishiopian]

I'm unfamiliar with that game I'm afraid. Even if dragging proves impractical, all I really want is for weapons to clash with each other, rather than having to have an explicit block mechanic. 

[Erik]

11 hours ago, Theishiopian said:

Combat systems using a plethora of different buttons has always been a pet peeve of mine. I like the idea of weapons clashing together, rather than having to be used in attack or defense mode.

Understandable, but a combat system using only two buttons is pretty minimal, making things to minimal can confuse players.

11 hours ago, Theishiopian said:

 In terms of complexity, I personally dislike any system with a stamina mechanic. I also dislike staggering, as a simple stun debuff would suffice as opposed to four different ways of staggering.

The stamina mechanic is the backbone of the whole system, as is the staggering. By removing stamina everything would fall apart, blocking would be way too powerful and combat would go on forever. Problems like jump running around would emerge, etc.

Splitting staggering into more types was a choice to empower designers and modders, having just one small and one large stagger would make some things difficult to design and limit any design decisions more than I would like. I originally tried having just three types of stagger, but that system had it's fair share of problems (You can still find it somewhere on r/VSSuggestions, in an older combat suggestion I made). The player won't be struck too hard by this complexity, as stagger is something rather passive and mostly intuitive. Stagger is also used in a lot of cases, where it would just be hardcoded limitations (like not being able to block again right after a block).

11 hours ago, Theishiopian said:

Please keep in mind, I don't hate your ideas, nor do I think mine are better. I would be fine with either. I just like iterating on different concepts, and I like the idea of weapon swings being more than animations.

I would have never assumed anything like that, we are just critiquing each other to improve our systems, so that both systems are better. None of these systems is worse, they are just different and some people may like one more than the other.

11 hours ago, Theishiopian said:

I also prefer combat systems to be as simple as possible, with depth being emergent from gameplay rather than from a myriad of systems. You have a different take, which is excellent. The more perspectives there are, the more good ideas there are.

Emergent gameplay is something wonderful, but painstakingly hard to archive. It's more prevalent in open world design, but I think it's possible in a combat system. But emergent gameplay needs different systems that can interact and mix in unexpected ways, so minimalism isn't really the way to go, rather having a bunch of possibly minimalistic systems. But one thing to watch out for in emergent gameplay is, that a clear meta doesn't establish, a set of optimal interactions to be exact. 

[redram]

The funny thing about this emergent gameplay talk is that the pvp combat of minecraft 1.7 **is** emergent gameplay.  You have a simple spam click-fest for the 'combat system' as created.  But the players use a bunch of unrelated systems in combat - lava buckets, rodding, obsidian traps, the various other traps people devised not even using redstone, but game mechanic quirks such as gravity block updating.  mlg water buckets.  The more situational stuff like TNT cannons.  None of these things were designed as combat elements but the players made them so.  I think it's arguable that by definition you cannot design a combat system with 'emergent gameplay' built in.

[Erik]

17 hours ago, redram said:

The funny thing about this emergent gameplay talk is that the pvp combat of minecraft 1.7 **is** emergent gameplay.  You have a simple spam click-fest for the 'combat system' as created.  But the players use a bunch of unrelated systems in combat - lava buckets, rodding, obsidian traps, the various other traps people devised not even using redstone, but game mechanic quirks such as gravity block updating.  mlg water buckets.  The more situational stuff like TNT cannons.  None of these things were designed as combat elements but the players made them so.

You're right, but it also has a clearly defined meta (at least in PvP), where people run-jump around, while placing blocks under their feet, often place lava blocks and eating golden apples when possible. TNT cannons and redstone traps are almost useless, although they are very fun to build and use. In the singleplayer, this emergent gameplay was much better, as there wasn't a clearly defined meta, but most things possible are still useless, mob-traps are the only useful thing in singleplayer that emerged from emergent gameplay and had nothing to do with the combat system.

17 hours ago, redram said:

I think it's arguable that by definition you cannot design a combat system with 'emergent gameplay' built in.

I think, systems can be designed to allow for very good emergent gameplay, like "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" or "Half-Life 2".

[redram]

17 minutes ago, Erik said:

I think, systems can be designed to allow for very good emergent gameplay, like "The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" or "Half-Life 2".

Never played, can't comment.

As for MC's combat, you actually *can* use any of those tactics against mobs in single player.  The fact is it's just not necessary in most cases because the mobs are dumb and weak.  But regardless my point has nothing to do with cross-pollination between pvp and single player.  My point is that maybe the more intricate and defined a combat system, the less liklihood it's going to produce anything that can be considered emergent, for whatever that is worth.  Not to say it can't be entertaining.

[Theishiopian]

Half life 2 is a perfect example of emergent gameplay. With just the gravity gun alone you can:

Cut enemies in half

block incoming fire

blow stuff up

 

[Theishiopian]

6 hours ago, redram said:

Never played, can't comment.

As for MC's combat, you actually *can* use any of those tactics against mobs in single player.  The fact is it's just not necessary in most cases because the mobs are dumb and weak.  But regardless my point has nothing to do with cross-pollination between pvp and single player.  My point is that maybe the more intricate and defined a combat system, the less liklihood it's going to produce anything that can be considered emergent, for whatever that is worth.  Not to say it can't be entertaining.

This. The simpler and more flexible a system, the more likely players can develop their own tactics.

On 8/4/2018 at 2:42 AM, Erik said:

I would have never assumed anything like that, we are just critiquing each other to improve our systems, so that both systems are better. None of these systems is worse, they are just different and some people may like one more than the other.

I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea