Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)
Obsidian’s 10th Extra Life Anniversary

Combat - Immersion v. Simplicity

Shevek
 Share

Combat - Immersion v. Simplicity  

76 members have voted

  1. 1. Reach

    • All melee weapons attack a single target one unit in front of attacker.
      28
    • Some weapons should be able to attack both one unit imediately infront of the attack and another unit behind that.
      43
    • There should be weapons with "donut" reach. In other words, they can attack 2 units away but not one unit immediately infront of them.
      27

  2. 2. Arc

    • Weapons should attack immediately infront of the attack only.
      14
    • All weapons should be able to attack in an arc motion (with an aquired ability) should the player choose to and thereby hit more than one target.
      10
    • Certain weapons should be able to attack in an arc (with an aquired ability) and others should not (depending on weapon type).
      62

  3. 3. Physical Damage types

    • There should be piercing, slashing and blunt damage weapon types (depending on size, shape or weight of said weapon) and related resistance and immunities on monsters, armor, etc
      38
    • There should be piercing, slashing and blunt damage weapon types (depending on size, shape or weight of said weapon) and related resistance (but not immunities) on monsters, armor, etc
      39
    • All weapons should be of a uniform damage type regardless of size, shape or weight of said weapon.
      3

Recommended Posts

eimatshya

eimatshya

Posted
Posted

I like the concept of reach in turn based games, but I don't think it will work very well in a realtime with pause system due to how hectic their battles tend to be. Unless using a weapon with reach applies some sort of zone of control, I don't think it will be a viable tactic in in RTwP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nikolokolus

nikolokolus

Posted
Posted

Reach seems incredibly difficult to code and we have no idea what the limitations or capabilities of the game engine might be. But I do like the idea of weapons that are used to clear an area; two handed swords were frequently employed in historic battles for just this purpose. I also like the idea of sword-breakers, saps, and other types of defensive or non-lethal weapons making an appearance in the game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ieo

Ieo

Posted
Posted

While I appreciate weapon differences and feel they add to realism.... I must warn against making the combat system--both magic and weaponry--overly complex. It is possible for mechanics to overpower setting and story, and I expect most people coming to Project Eternity expect a good balance.

 

I already play an MMO, and MMOs have weak story but (in my experience) robust combat mechanics to the extent that combat mechanics in relation to gear and weaponry are the primary purposes/achievements for playing at all.

 

Fans biased towards either IWD or PST, polar opposites on the Big Three range, will come into PE with differing expectations as well. The target audience in PE probably cuts the broadest swathe across the IE games--BG seems like the best compromise--such that there are dungeon-romping folks with MMO experience and then PNP gamers more interested in PST type content. It's a bit risky. PE will need some good beta testing on both ends...

The KS Collector's Edition does not include the Collector's Book.

Which game hook brought you to Project Eternity and interests you the most?

PE will not have co-op/multiplayer, console, or tablet support (sources): [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Write your own romance mods because there won't be any in PE.

"But what is an evil? Is it like water or like a hedgehog or night or lumpy?" -(Digger)

"Most o' you wanderers are but a quarter moon away from lunacy at the best o' times." -Alvanhendar (Baldur's Gate 1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wombat

Wombat

Posted
Posted

Cain worked on MMO, before joining Obsidian, and, according to what he told at Eurogamer, he appears to be trying to make full use of his experiences.

 

From Lots more Project Eternity information and a tentative spring 2014 release date

Combat in Project Eternity will be real-time with a pause element, with an emphasis on tactical group warfare, not click-and-slash butchery.

"I like turn-based combat too," Cain remarked, when I told him I'd rather have that. "I like the tactics involved in the precise movement, orientation and use of abilities. But it can tend to be slow with a large party of character. Real-time-with-pause is faster and can feel more engaging, but I have found the abilities to be harder to use well. One reason for that is because many RTWP RPGs were made based on paper-and-pencil games that used turns, and their abilities were made for opponents that were not moving. I feel that RTWP can be an excellent combat model if the abilities are designed with respect to that model, and not converted from another system."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Luckmann

Luckmann

Posted
Posted

I am all for magical immunities, because spellcasters should have a relatively wide repertoire, or extremely powerful focuses; but immunity to certain physical damage types is horrible, ensuring that certain types of characters will flat-out not be able to take on certain monsters.

 

I am willing to go with massive resistances for some forms of opponents against certain kinds of weapons (as well as the opposite; skeletal undeads and the like could take extra damage from Blunt), but please, dear god, no immunities.

t50aJUd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gurkog

Gurkog

Posted
Posted

I am all for magical immunities, because spellcasters should have a relatively wide repertoire, or extremely powerful focuses; but immunity to certain physical damage types is horrible, ensuring that certain types of characters will flat-out not be able to take on certain monsters.

 

I am willing to go with massive resistances for some forms of opponents against certain kinds of weapons (as well as the opposite; skeletal undeads and the like could take extra damage from Blunt), but please, dear god, no immunities.

 

Attacking a metal golem with a dagger..... it may take a while to break it down.

Grandiose statements, cryptic warnings, blind fanboyisim and an opinion that leaves no room for argument and will never be dissuaded. Welcome to the forums, you'll go far in this place my boy, you'll go far!

 

The people who are a part of the "Fallout Community" have been refined and distilled over time into glittering gems of hatred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Umberlin

Umberlin

Posted
Posted

I am all for magical immunities, because spellcasters should have a relatively wide repertoire, or extremely powerful focuses; but immunity to certain physical damage types is horrible, ensuring that certain types of characters will flat-out not be able to take on certain monsters.

 

I am willing to go with massive resistances for some forms of opponents against certain kinds of weapons (as well as the opposite; skeletal undeads and the like could take extra damage from Blunt), but please, dear god, no immunities.

 

Attacking a metal golem with a dagger..... it may take a while to break it down.

 

Heh, pointed. :) I'd agree.

 

-

 

I do think there should be some immunities. Physical and Magical. When I play PnP and come across that 'one guy' that has to specialize evocation and use nothing but fire spells . . . I want him, so badly, to come across that thing that fire does nothing to. Just as I don't think a Wizard should over specialize and min-max I think the same of ranged and melee characters and their potential damage types. You should be preparing for combat, making use of a couple of weapon sets. You really shouldn't be able to go into combat with X weapon, that, for whatever statistical reason, is the best weapon and just bulldoze your way through.

 

The game should force you to prepare tactically and think on your toes tactically. Strategy and planning, thinking, should be the names of the game. Not rushing into a ominous room head first with an expectation to survive every time 'because'.

  • Like 1

"Step away! She has brought truth and you condemn it? The arrogance!

You will not harm her, you will not harm her ever again!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shevek

Shevek

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am all for magical immunities, because spellcasters should have a relatively wide repertoire, or extremely powerful focuses; but immunity to certain physical damage types is horrible, ensuring that certain types of characters will flat-out not be able to take on certain monsters.

 

I am willing to go with massive resistances for some forms of opponents against certain kinds of weapons (as well as the opposite; skeletal undeads and the like could take extra damage from Blunt), but please, dear god, no immunities.

 

I can see where you are coming from there. Immunities can be a bit too heavy handed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shevek

Shevek

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I can see what you are getting at. I think weapon abilities should be dependant on what they are. As an example, A claymore will crush and have a wide reach but a rapier will be fast and do bleeding damage based 'in front' attacks to one guy only.

 

I am a big fan of having as many factors as possible somehow change how a character plays. I have to admit, I do like the idea of weapon choice fundamentally changing how the character approaches combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...