Combat - Immersion v. Simplicity

[Shevek]

Here are a few questions. Other threads have asked similar questions but they have framed the questions in a somewhat biased way. This is my attempt to give the dev team some actionable data.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Shevek

[eimatshya]

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.

[NoxNoctum]

Ya reach was a really fun mechanic in ToEE but I'm not sure it would work in RTwP

[nikolokolus]

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.

[Ieo]

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...

[Wombat]

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."

[Sensuki]

Infinity Engine had reach

[Luckmann]

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.

[Gurkog]

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.

[Umberlin]

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'.

[Shevek]

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.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

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.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly

[Shevek]

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.