Combat Stances and Styles

[Crusty]

Anybody think this could be a good thing to add for Project Eternity?

 

The closest parallel I can draw in Obsidian games is KotOR 2 and how the game had Lightsaber styles.

 

Except, expand on the concept because the end result in KotOR 2 wasn't all that great.

 

Have a larger range of bonuses and penalties that cover more aspects of combat. For example, a Fighter may choose to utilize a "Pugilist" fighting style, in which they are prohibited or carry massive penalties when using a weapon, and struggle when swamped by multiple enemies. But their ability to dodge melee strikes and hit single targets for criticals is greatly increased.

 

I think if we expand the concept of formations as discussed here, it would work well in combination with fighting styles, especially if the two mechanics intermingle (formations may benefit and add extra bonuses from having the party using a fighting style that suits it).

 

You could have a "no fighting style" to work with as the default and have a couple of basic styles to start off with depending on your class. Then as you explore the gameworld and the story, you may pick up new fighting styles and develop them through interaction with NPCs (trainers and the like). Possibly even fulfilling certain combat conditions against enemies, or reading from libraries or ancient tomes. This would give the player and party the feeling that they are learning and discovering new fighting styles on their own.

 

It would add a little more flair to character development IMO, and it would give the player and party more tactical options especially if enemies were to utilize fighting styles too.

 

Ultimately, some visual feedback to indicate the different fighting styles would be nice, but probably not worth the extra effort.

 

So, Yay or Nay to fighting styles? Any ideas or suggestions to go with it?

 

(Keep in mind that just because I say fighting styles, doesn't mean that it's only for fighters. Every class ought to have their own styles and stances, or ought to draw from a universal pool of styles and stances.)

Edited October 4, 2012 by Crusty

[metiman]

What is a stance? How can combat have a style? I have not played KOTOR2.

[Ieo]

What is a stance? How can combat have a style? I have not played KOTOR2.

 

I haven't played KotOR2 either, but this sounds very much like stances popular in MMOs. I think DA:O had something similar too.

 

A stance in that setting basically allows/disallows certain skills or applies additional effects to skills.

 

Examples:

http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Stance

http://www.wowwiki.com/Stance

[metiman]

I see. So they are sort of like different combat modes. I don't think I like that idea. Seems very console-ish. That sounds different from a fighting style though. A fighting style sounds more like different schools or styles of martial arts or something like that.

[Ieo]

I see. So they are sort of like different combat modes. I don't think I like that idea. Seems very console-ish. That sounds different from a fighting style though. A fighting style sounds more like different schools or styles of martial arts or something like that.

 

I see them as two different things (having actually played games with stances). IMO, a style or whatever, like in the martial arts sense, should be something added through character development as a specialization and not in a "fluid toggle" space the way stances are usually implemented.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ieo

[Crusty]

I was thinking more like this, I haven't played WoW or MMOs in general, so I'm not familiar with how they do things.

[Ieo]

I was thinking more like this, I haven't played WoW or MMOs in general, so I'm not familiar with how they do things.

 

Ah. Crossed definitions for 'stance'. So that's more like the 'martial art' sense, though to be clear, the "style" you're talking about for lightsaber would be parallel to a complete martial art "style" (like Praying Mantis), while the forms listed are the specific 'movement' collections.

 

Semantically, a "style" in PE would basically just be the specializations under Fighter (or more appropriately Monk). Forms would then be the collection of skills specific to that specialization. I don't see any particular need for further granularity in that respect, especially given how much breadth of choice we're supposed to have within the base classes.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Nor do I, especially given that the devs said something about positioning in combat will be important in PE in the last Kickstarter-update. Positioning the party is something that I always enjoyed immensely in IE-games, and too some extent in NWN1 and NWN2 as well.

[TrashMan]

Hmm...perosnally I think your character should automaticly assume different stances (and by that I mean use different combat animations) based on his skill level and the opponent.

 

He might go from a high guard stance to a half-swording stance whne facing an opponent in heavy armor. Battle endsu p looking more realistic and active, without the player constnatly clikcing to change stances.

[Jarmo]

I'd like different fighting styles (swashbuckler, duelist, samurai), but it's probably not a good way to spend resources. Maybe for PE2?

But I would like some basic style/stance/mode/whatevers, to the tune of defensive/normal/aggressive and see them have a visual difference.

 

But then I'd also like to see aggressive style push the opponents away while with defensive style you'd take a few steps back now and then.

(But then I liked NWN chaotic combat and it doesn't sound Eternity is going to be like that.)

Edited October 4, 2012 by Jarmo

[TrashMan]

This is, in real life swordfighting, duelists change the stance constantly.

It makes as much sense as directing each sword blow.

 

I really see no need for more than the standard ToEE options..except maybe the agression level (so in addition to fight defensively, you have fight offensively). That is the only way for the whole thing to have more sense, as there are stances that are aimed more toward waiting for the enemy and then counterattacking and stances that are aimed more at you striking first.

 

Eitehr way, sword combat should be less like Star Wars twilring/dancing.

[Aldereth]

From Update 15 description of fighter class, they are implementing stance. It sounds like a selection of different combat mode like many MMO which I think add to the tactical depth of playing a fighter class and make them less boring than just move them to the front and use as meat shield. I loath how many MMO make these fighters (tanks) into a game of agro management. I mean, holy christ, how is that heroic? It sound like there is a kind of "tank stance" that is kind of like that. I hope they would develop the other stances to be viable and interesting when working with other classes in the party so that we won't just use the fighter for their tank stance.

 

I think the standard one hand, two hand, sword & board and (annoyingly common) dual-wield are in by default. I suppose specialization in the form of adding bonuses to hit rate and damage would not be a resource sink to implement. But if resource allow, I personally would like to see a probably rarely done before system where different weapon would give different moves and tactical effect, I can only recall the pole arm can strike 1 tile behind opponent in Ultima and Wizardry. So, we won't see the situation of everybody using the weapon with the best trade off between damage, and speed in which case has always been the long sword or Katana. PS:T went so far to take away any sword in the game, which is more making a statement than addressing the core of the issue -- there is not any point to use anything else.

 

I mean think about this "hidden" resource sink, cRPG developer for over 30 plus years gave players selection of weapons, sink all these resources into making art, models of the weapons and incorporating these model in the PC's avatar for all these weapons and most of it is basically wasted.

[el pinko grande]

I like the idea of stances, assuming that by stances we mean martial arts. I like the idea of there being different schools of fighting that melee classes can draw upon depening on what abilities they've bought.

[drgonzo]

This is, in real life swordfighting, duelists change the stance constantly.

It makes as much sense as directing each sword blow.

 

 

Eitehr way, sword combat should be less like Star Wars twilring/dancing.

 

Hell yeah, fladda ma strong fladda ma strong!

 

[Osvir]

Crane stance:

 

Tiger stance:

 

The Witcher utilizes stances well (I also found this thread on Page 16 btw, doing a summary thing of the Gameplay Category).

[mstark]

 

 

Crane stance:

 

Tiger stance:

 

 

Sorry for going slightly off topic, but the second stance is a cat stance (aka. ready stance, or empty stance) with combat ready hands. In traditional animal and elements kung fu, a tiger stance doesn't exist, the 8 traditional stances being: cat stance, horse stance, crane stance, dragon stance (Kai Leung Ma lit. trans. unicorn stance), bow stance, kneeling stance, low sitting butterfly stance, and single leg stance.

 

There are, however, a lot of Tiger techniques in traditional kung fu, here's one executed in a bow stance:

 

 

http://www.kung-fu-f...rClawBianca.jpg

 

 

 

Though I suppose some translations of Chinese may refer to a cat as a tiger. The name of the stance comes from how a cat can leave one of their paws out in front, without putting weight on it, allowing them to easily take ground forward if needed; ready, but not committing to a full aggressive stance. The front leg in the stance emulates the cat paw by having little to no weight on it, making it a "false" or "empty" leg.

Edited November 5, 2012 by mstark

[Borna]

I´m all for this idea!

 

I´ve been practicing WMA (western martial arts) for a few years now and it would be beyond awseome to see my P: E character in a stance apropriate for the weapon he is using.

 

The thing is, historicaly acurate European medieval marshall arts have gained a lot of popularity over the past years, and we now now for certain how to properly use a hand and a half sword, how to fight with bucklers and "short" swords (for the lack of a better word), we now know for a fact that greatswords are NOT slow, we know how to fight with a halbred, a partisan, a scythe etc,... It is a real shame that modern games and movies continue to ignore these facts and persist on decades old missconceptions and myths.

 

So, technicaly, I don´t think it would be that big of a problem to incorporate this in the game. It would take a few more animations per charater. I love the idea of learning new fighting techniques throught the game. That way, on your first playthrough, you wont even know what fighting styles you will be using by the end!

Edited November 5, 2012 by Borna

[chabba990]

I think that introducing "Combat Modes" especially for the primary warrior/fighter class is incredibly important. Do not consider is as a distinct Fighting Style or Stance or something, however, it's more like the way you want to solve a problem. For example: we often see in movies or series, that cunning heroes can defeat opponents, merely with a "new method" of dealing with the foes advantage. I would suggest 3 main Modes for such a character:

1. Power Attack Mode: Increased damage amount in melée, but decreased to-hit chance (e.g. THAC0).
2. Defensive Combat Mode: Increased defense, but decreased damage amount.
3. Critical Strike Mode: Increased to-hit chance, but decreased defense.

Explanations:
Power Attack is the perfect "way" to deal with a group of weaker creatures, those creatures that the fighter can hit anyway, so an increased damage amount would finish them off sooner. (By weak I mean low Hit Dice creatures, which especially suggests low Armor Class and so on.) Those who played BG2 must know that it is very annoying for a high level fighter to spend time on lesser foes.

Defensive Combat Mode is feasible in two situations. First, if the fighter faces a lot of ranged attacks, and second, if he faces one powerful foe that has a good THAC0. (This is obvious in many cases, e.g. if one assumes this from a specific monster type ...)

Anf finally, Critical Strike designed against 1vs1 fights of two powerful tank characters, and it technically make the fighter a "glass cannon". That's why he should face more than one opponent at a time.

Furthermore, all these modes should evolve into more powerful forms. In BG2 we had High Level Abilities, that allowed somewhat similar options like Feats does in 3.E. So e.g. Defensive Combat Mode should be improved with Improved Defensive Combat, which decreased the penalties incured by the skill. Through this feat, one can choose Deflect Missiles, which gives extra bonuses (immunities) to missile weapons, and finally, Deflect Magic should allow supernatural or extraordinary defenses against spells and spell-like abilities.
The other Modes should also be upgradeable in a similar way. For example, Power Attack eventually should cause stunning, max damage, knockback, ... etc. And Critical Strike mode should also increase the chance of critical hits in the long run.

So the point is, that this would give a good flavour to the combat system, in a BG style game, and it would encourage people to play the figther once again. This would really give them a huge advantage compared to the other classes that cannot utilize the full potential of warfare.

[Lephys]

They're going to have things such as the Defender modal skill, as it stands, which allows the Fighter to engage 2 additional enemies (so 3 instead of 1 with a newbie character), at the cost of some offensive effectiveness. Personally, I like the style of that -- as something that actually changes how you're actively dealing with combat and how enemies can deal with it as well -- over modal abilities that simply raise and lower damage/effectiveness numbers.

 

Not that there's not room for both types in the game, but I just think it's good to have a nice range of both, rather than focusing too much on dragging damage/defense/resistance sliders up and down as the only means of altered modality for characters.