Combat and damage.

[jimcrowley]

This project sounds fantastic but...... please tell me that combat - in what will be a 2014 PC game - is going to more than: "I hit you for 10 HP, you hit me for 12 HP, I hit you for 20 HP and now you are dead."

 

Please let there be some sort of, at least, primitive damage model similar, say, to Runequest, with the possibilty of persistant or permanent damage. So a heavy blow to a leg may reduce the targets mobility and a blow to an arm may disarm an opponent and so on. Very heavy damage may not be completely healable and thus a companion may have to be 'retired'.

 

Combat should be fun and exciting and full of options and choices but it should also be dangerous and carry potential long term risks.

 

The combat system in D&D, which seems to be the basis for the majority of computer -based fantasy RPG's, was, and still is, a great pen and paper game but the combat system on a PC should allow far more options, permutations and, dare I say it, reality.

[rjshae]

In the end, combat damage is all about resource usage. Some amount of damage can be repaired with the resources at hand: potions, spells, healing kits. How much damage do you want the party to incur before they have to retreat to a safe location and spend money to repair the heavier damage? Making the party constantly backtrack whenever they suffer a serious injury can make for a tedious game. Instead, players will simply choose to restore the game and run through the combat again. Yes a system that incurs specific physical injuries adds a nice level of realism, but it will be up the designers to balance that against the other game play goals.

[moridin84]

I'd be okay with the idea the people who are low heath wouldn't be able to fight as effectively or that you can take damage to an arm or a leg and be effected appropriately.

 

I'm against the idea that these things still affecting you after the fight, it's just a pain.

 

I'm completely against the idea of 'permanent' effects. That would just be a complete pain.

[jimcrowley]

In the end, combat damage is all about resource usage. Some amount of damage can be repaired with the resources at hand: potions, spells, healing kits. How much damage do you want the party to incur before they have to retreat to a safe location and spend money to repair the heavier damage? Making the party constantly backtrack whenever they suffer a serious injury can make for a tedious game. Instead, players will simply choose to restore the game and run through the combat again. Yes a system that incurs specific physical injuries adds a nice level of realism, but it will be up the designers to balance that against the other game play goals.

 

Of course any 'game' is a balance between realism and playability and too much realism can mire a game. However, RPGs are essentially stories and if I read, in a fantasy novel, that the hero has hit the villain for "2 hitpoints of damage" my immersion in that story is going to be pretty much gone. So why should I be happy with that in the context of a PC game?

 

To my mind the best combat system I have come across has been in Temple of Elemental Evil but, good as it was, there was no true damage system. Basically every character, NPC and monster fought equally well, with all or almost none of its' hit points, until, at zero points it became unconscious and, I think, at minus 10 HP it died. There was no variation to this, so after a while combat could become rather mechanical. Fortunately it was spiced up with other elements which went someway to keeping things interesting; for instance, taking potions in combat could provoke opporunity attacks from nearby enemies.

 

Damage recieved or given in combat combat is, or should be, as a result of getting something wrong or right. So if combat , in a 'mature' PC game is going to have any real meaning, it need sto have potentially bad consequences. Some damage should not be able, in every circumstance, to be fully healed. And, while in combat, damage taken should have possible negative effects, even if only for the short term of that actual combat, irrespective of spells potions or kits (which, from a realism perspective should really only be applied post-combat).

 

Without some form of damage system will a modern, gritty, mature fantasy RPG be any much different from playing Zelda?

[jimcrowley]

 

I'm completely against the idea of 'permanent' effects. That would just be a complete pain.

 

That's a great pun

 

But, surely that's the point. Characters damaged, low hit points; take potions , cast spells, use healing kit. Characters damaged, rinse repeat.

 

Character who you have forced to fight to the last hit point/massively damaged now unable to move as fast permanantly. Maybe you will be a bit more circumspect with combat.

 

Or just play Zelda.

[ravenshrike]

So basically you want to enable something like the critical hit deck.

[moridin84]

Of course any 'game' is a balance between realism and playability and too much realism can mire a game. However, RPGs are essentially stories and if I read, in a fantasy novel, that the hero has hit the villain for "2 hitpoints of damage" my immersion in that story is going to be pretty much gone. So why should I be happy with that in the context of a PC game?

 

To my mind the best combat system I have come across has been in Temple of Elemental Evil but, good as it was, there was no true damage system. Basically every character, NPC and monster fought equally well, with all or almost none of its' hit points, until, at zero points it became unconscious and, I think, at minus 10 HP it died. There was no variation to this, so after a while combat could become rather mechanical. Fortunately it was spiced up with other elements which went someway to keeping things interesting; for instance, taking potions in combat could provoke opporunity attacks from nearby enemies.

 

Damage recieved or given in combat combat is, or should be, as a result of getting something wrong or right. So if combat , in a 'mature' PC game is going to have any real meaning, it need sto have potentially bad consequences. Some damage should not be able, in every circumstance, to be fully healed. And, while in combat, damage taken should have possible negative effects, even if only for the short term of that actual combat, irrespective of spells potions or kits (which, from a realism perspective should really only be applied post-combat).

 

Without some form of damage system will a modern, gritty, mature fantasy RPG be any much different from playing Zelda?

 

Ultimately combat needs to be fun. Being randomly given a permanent injury is not fun.

[Althernai]

Please let there be some sort of, at least, primitive damage model similar, say, to Runequest, with the possibilty of persistant or permanent damage. So a heavy blow to a leg may reduce the targets mobility and a blow to an arm may disarm an opponent and so on. Very heavy damage may not be completely healable and thus a companion may have to be 'retired'.

Except that there are currently only 3 more companions in the game than there are companion slots (and that's assuming that we'll hit the 2.2M goal) which makes companions rather precious from both a story and a gameplay perspective. Think about Planescape: Torment which had roughly the same ratio of companions to party slots. Suppose Fall-From-Grace gets injured. Now, I rather like Fall-From-Grace and not only that, but she is the only healer in the game. I would personally do the obvious: reload. People less familiar with RPGs would probably play on and then come to the forum saying "I am at [boss fight about 3/4th of the way into the game] and this is just impossible." After half a page of posts, it would be discovered that 4 of the 6 party members have serious injuries and this player has very little chance of getting anywhere without reloading a save from 5 hours back.

 

I am not against some sort of injury that cannot be healed in the field (i.e. you need to go back to town) or effects like disarm, but mechanics that permanently weaken the player must be rare and tied to the story, not random things that happen in combat. I suppose they can put them in for one of the special modes (particularly the Trial of Iron one since there is no reloading), but it seems a lot of work for something that by its very nature cannot be used in the regular game.

[Wirdjos]

I am not against some sort of injury that cannot be healed in the field (i.e. you need to go back to town) or effects like disarm, but mechanics that permanently weaken the player must be rare and tied to the story, not random things that happen in combat. I suppose they can put them in for one of the special modes (particularly the Trial of Iron one since there is no reloading), but it seems a lot of work for something that by its very nature cannot be used in the regular game.

 

Assuming 'permanent' injuries (i.e. injuries that cannot be healed in combat or without something speical) are a part of the base game, all you would have to do is disallow the special healing event in Trial of Iron mode thus creating truly persistant injuries. That said, I would never use that mode because I find those type of injuries annoying and down right unfun.

 

I would be in favor of a system where first combat effectiveness is handicapped by low HP, then 0 HP incapacitates and when the battle's over the affected character gets up (having not actually died in the first place) and now has an injury that can only be healed by a special consumable or a temple priest. Let this happen to a character enough times, the character will start to distrust the player cause a reputation, or whatever system they use, hit. This would give us semi permanent consequences without IMO calling for a reload.

[Lysen]

This project sounds fantastic but...... please tell me that combat - in what will be a 2014 PC game - is going to more than: "I hit you for 10 HP, you hit me for 12 HP, I hit you for 20 HP and now you are dead."

 

I am fine with that. PE isn't a hack&slash game where you can cut off limbs like in Dead Space. Fallout also did that, yes, but it was turn-based, and PE will be real time with pause. I don't like the idea of injuries either (probably because it reminds me about Dragon Age).

[jimcrowley]

I think my poor wording has exagerated the importance I was placing on permanent damage. No, it should absolutely not be random and should only be a rare occurence , however produced.

 

I was more trying to indicate my dissatisfaction with over-simplistic combat mechanisms which add nothing to the narrative flow of the game nor to the decision process of the player. I want to know, for instance, that my principle fighter has been hit in the leg; that the resutant damage threatens to slow his movement rate in the current combat and that I need to keep that in mind in directing his next actions. I do not want read: my fighter has taken 5 hit points and has 25 hit points left, whereby the only real choice I have is to fight or not to fight.

 

Some good ideas around the question of damage and healing have been raised in this thread, particularly from Wirdjos. Very much the sort of thing I had in mind.

 

Also, in replying to Althernai, my understanding is that the 'party' can consist of up to six or seven members; that is not the total number available potential companions. I certainly hope not! That would be hugely limiting.

[rjshae]

Of course any 'game' is a balance between realism and playability and too much realism can mire a game. However, RPGs are essentially stories and if I read, in a fantasy novel, that the hero has hit the villain for "2 hitpoints of damage" my immersion in that story is going to be pretty much gone. So why should I be happy with that in the context of a PC game?

 

To my mind the best combat system I have come across has been in Temple of Elemental Evil but, good as it was, there was no true damage system. Basically every character, NPC and monster fought equally well, with all or almost none of its' hit points, until, at zero points it became unconscious and, I think, at minus 10 HP it died. There was no variation to this, so after a while combat could become rather mechanical. Fortunately it was spiced up with other elements which went someway to keeping things interesting; for instance, taking potions in combat could provoke opporunity attacks from nearby enemies.

 

The most enjoyable damage system I've come across was in Drakensang. Unfortunately that probably wasn't as widely played as it should have been. But I think it gave a nice balance between debilitating damage and hit point damage.

[Gurkog]

the injury system of Drakensang: the Dark Eye (i think that was it) had combatants being crippled quite often, but as long as the party contained some form of advanced healing ability, be it magical or skill, they could be healed rather easily outside of combat. Healing critical injuries had a really long cast time so it was impractical to use during many fights, but at least it was possible. If the party ran out of healing supplies and had no magical healer they would have to go back to town. I think that would work well for this game.