Member Discussions

Ok.. I have an Idea for a new mud based on the SWR software, with a completely revamped combat system. So why don't I post this on The beginners forum? I want to gauge how hard this would be to code, and who better to ask than coders themselves. So here we go.

As we all may very well know, the original SWR 1.0 had the basic hit roll combat, and then separate skills you could learn as you went along. Well, I was thinking of splitting that up... ALOT! Say into 6 - 7 different styles. Hold on, before ya'll freak out on me, here is how I envision it.

Each style has a Maximum of 8 skills. Instead of using the hit-roll, it automatically would use a skill, or combination there of.

The beauty of this combat system would be the ability to mix and match. Although some skills would be shared between styles, the 'stratagy' for each would be completely different.

However, to do this, the LVLs would have to be removed from combat to accomidate for this, except this would remove some of the challenge from the game. So, borrowing from another MUD (Cowboy Bebop: Space Cowboy), the 'living stat' system would have to be implemented. For those of you who don't know, that system causes the stats to go down for you're character if you don't train them. Thus stats would have to be trained to a certian level before beginning training in certian styles. These stats would be different per style, and 2x for each (except for the basic, and perhaps another which is basically cheap fighting). I do feel, tho, that some minor changes would have to be made to the original concept (just timing and such).

This system would be the players ability to mix and match whatever skills they have adepted. An experianced player could come up with their own styles, thus making thing quite interesting.

Also, some skills (such as punch and/or slap) should change depending on weither or not a weapon is being held (punch = bash, ect., ect.). I have a feeling this would be one of the harder things to program.

I know this sounds like a PK MUD, and there would be much PVP action. However I have other Ideas about to handle that. I would greatly appreciate some imput here, and if you are interested please feel free to e-mail me.

Akira Oni

(Comment added by Razel on Mon Mar 7 16:50:51 2005)

"I do feel, tho, that some minor changes would have to be made to the original concept (just timing and such)."

I'm talkin the living stat system here.

> Also, some skills (such as punch and/or slap) should
> change depending on weither or not a weapon is being held
> (punch = bash, ect., ect.).

Wouldn't it be better to have a range of moves specific to each weapon? Eg a sword might have slash, stab, parry and pummel, while a shield might have bash and block, etc.

That is actually close to what I was thinking. However, limiting it into 3 groups: Hand 2 Hand, Blades, and Blunt objects. I don't know how much about the shields, since this is post terra-forming of other planets. I don't really know, perhaps something to raise chance to block for styles that require it. Like steel/titanium armbands. Please understand, this is about 200 - 300 years in OUR future.

And as for guns. They won't be usable in battles. Solely for sniping/pop shots. However, they will become much stronger.

> That is actually close to what I was thinking. However,
> limiting it into 3 groups: Hand 2 Hand, Blades, and Blunt
> objects.

Surely most blades and blunt objects would also be hand-to-hand weapons? And what about weapons that have both blunt and bladed parts, such as axes, spears and halberds?

> I don't know how much about the shields, since this is post
> terra-forming of other planets. I don't really know,
> perhaps something to raise chance to block for styles that
> require it. Like steel/titanium armbands. Please
> understand, this is about 200 - 300 years in OUR future.

Ah okay, I didn't realise it was futuristic - still, the same logic can be applied to futuristic weapon types. I'd also have thought that shields would be effective defensive weapons - riot police use them today, and some sort of futuristic energy-enhanced shield could prove effective even against guns and such.

> And as for guns. They won't be usable in battles. Solely
> for sniping/pop shots. However, they will become much
> stronger.

What's your roleplaying reason for not allow guns in battle?

"Surely most blades and blunt objects would also be hand-to-hand weapons? And what about weapons that have both blunt and bladed parts, such as axes, spears and halberds?"

True, there are many weapons that have both blunt and bladed parts. However, large weapons (Big axes and such) wouldn't really fit in in this world I wish to create. And a weapon with a blade still has a handle, which would still be used in battle. How ever, you bring up a good point, something I didn't think of before. What about staff-type weapons.

"and some sort of futuristic energy-enhanced shield could prove effective even against guns and such."

Yeah, this isn't Really that far in the future... in the greater scheme of things. And with the story line, most of science had been focused on Terra-forming/Hyperspace technologies, so Energy Shields still wouldn't be in the picture. However, weaponary wouldn't be as advanced either, and melee weapons haven't changed much in the last few centuries. Also, don't forget, blocking with a weapon is also possible, tho you may have to repair the weapon after.

In place of shields, Metal armbands could be made to take the place of them. If you don't know how this tactic has worked in the past, think Wonder Woman.

"What's your roleplaying reason for not allow guns in battle?"

Well, lets be honest. If I shot you, would you really be up for fighting? The weapons would be just like the guns we use today. Also, there is a whole Honor thing involved, that I just don't wanna get into.

But as far as the game it self goes. I think removing guns from the battles will enhance the realism of the game.

> > What's your roleplaying reason for not allow guns in
> > battle?
>
> Well, lets be honest. If I shot you, would you really be
> up for fighting?

Probably not, no - which goes to show why modern soldiers use guns instead of swords.

> The weapons would be just like the guns we use today. Also,
> there is a whole Honor thing involved, that I just don't
> wanna get into.

Well I can't really comment if you don't want to discuss it, but it seems a bit odd that everyone would follow a code of honour that put them at a huge disadvantage in a situation where their lives were at stake.

> But as far as the game it self goes. I think removing guns
> from the battles will enhance the realism of the game.

I can't say I agree. If there were extremely strict laws against guns, and using them resulting in a bunch of powerful mobs chasing after you, I could see a good in-game incentive for people to avoid them. Or if some special armour anti-kenetic armour was developed that made guns mostly useless, but didn't stop melee weapons (think Dune), I could also see why most people would use melee weapons.

But I don't see anything realistic about not being able to pick up a gun because it's "dishonourable".

"But I don't see anything realistic about not being able to pick up a gun because it's 'dishonourable'."

Please remember that not every planet would be completely hospitable, and some would have to be terraformed using domes. Think "Gundam".

I'm not saying that guns won't be useable by a long shot. I just really like the idea of someone using a gun in a fight. Using a gun would be more of an action that would be completely manual.

EX: Fire (weapon) (target)

Also, sniping would be it's own class, and you could possibly add a scope to you're weapon to add +2 to you're range.

The fighting system has been conceptualized on melee combat. Why don't you e-mail me from this point, since you seem to be the only on interested, and we could discuss this from there. There are alot of aspects of the potential MUD that I'm not really comfortable discussing of a public forum.

Why don't you e-mail me from this point, since you seem to be the only on interested[...]
Just because we don't post, it doesn't mean we aren't interested :P

Some on-topic feedback; if I were playing a character with nothing to lose, the authorities already chasing me, and people out to chop off my head, why wouldn't I be using any kind of weapon I could lay my hands on to defend myself with? I'd be using guns, grenades, caltrops (sp?), swords and all other things that would give me the upper hand, honour or no honour.

I realize you focus on melee combat, amongst other things from a "realism" point of view (based on your reply about the victim wanting to fight when shot). However, if you set the setting to a period in time where projectile (and, what do we know, perhaps laser) weapons have been developed, some people will resort to using them, especially the kind of people who can't tell the difference between mine and theirs, or simply doesn't care. Would you prevent me from roleplaying such a character?

Here's my suggestion:
"invent" a form of protection that leaves you immune to gunpowder based weapons. KaVir suggested a force field providing defense against ballistic attacks. Since you apparently want people to be able to snipe eachother, perhaps make it so that special bullets are needed to penetrate the shield, or special weapons (sniper rifles) which send out a laser beam on a particular frequency just before the bullet hits, causing the shield to be destabilized for half a second just where the bullet hits.

The thing is, if you don't make some kind of literary move to justify why gunpowder based weapons aren't practical, in a setting where they exist, the setting will seem inconsistent, at least to me.

So, you see, more people are reading this than you know...

Welcor

**'Some on-topic feedback; if I were playing a character with nothing to lose, the authorities already chasing me, and people out to chop off my head, why wouldn't I be using any kind of weapon I could lay my hands on to defend myself with? I'd be using guns, grenades, caltrops (sp?), swords and all other things that would give me the upper hand, honour or no honour.'**

Thats true. Perhaps I haven't quite explained my intent here fully. Guns, although they would be manual, would still be shootable if you wern't in mid fight. Grenades - Definately... I just like them too much. Caltrops - Thanks for that one man, that's one I hadn't thought of. Don't get me wrong, I'm really trying to consider all aspects here. However I'm really going for a certian feel to the gameplay. Somethin kinda like Sci-Fi meets Kung Fu Hong Kong Style in a RP setting that the players will create themselves (Politically speaking).

**'I realize you focus on melee combat, amongst other things from a 'realism' point of view (based on your reply about the victim wanting to fight when shot). However, if you set the setting to a period in time where projectile (and, what do we know, perhaps laser) weapons have been developed, some people will resort to using them, especially the kind of people who can't tell the difference between mine and theirs, or simply doesn't care. Would you prevent me from roleplaying such a character?'**

Actually, I wouldn't stop you at all. However, my whole point with the guns can simply be summed up like this:

It's kinda hard to line up ya shot with someone hitting you in you're eyes.

However, I also see you're point. Before, my original idea was to convert to H2H combat while holding a gun, however perhaps the guns could be used as blunt objects. This would cause a danger to everyone in the room, however, because the gun would have a certian chance of going off on impact, and.... ohhh, lets say something like a 75% chance of hitting something. Now, take that 75% and divide it up between the total number of players, mobs, and objects in the room.

In fact, lets take this a bit deeper:

Hand guns: 1.5% normal blunt damage (due to better control), with a 40% chance of misfire.

Rifles: 2x normal blunt damage, and a 20% chance of misfire, however can only use melee attacks (no throws or other such attacks).

**''invent' a form of protection that leaves you immune to gunpowder based weapons. KaVir suggested a force field providing defense against ballistic attacks. Since you apparently want people to be able to snipe eachother, perhaps make it so that special bullets are needed to penetrate the shield, or special weapons (sniper rifles) which send out a laser beam on a particular frequency just before the bullet hits, causing the shield to be destabilized for half a second just where the bullet hits.'**

As far as 'inventing' something... why not just use Kevlar materials for armor, then teflon coated rifle shells for the sniping? Those things seem to work just fine with ballistic weapons.... usually.

Please don't get frusterated with my hard-headedness on this subject, I really am trying to take you're advice into consideration, and use the ideas as well as I can without changing my overall concepts for the game.

(Comment added by Razel on Thu Mar 10 10:56:12 2005)

Also, by hand 2 hand, I mean bare handed. There WILL actually be advantages to fighting this way. My list of weapons is really growing, huh?

Bare Handed
Blades (Dagger's, Swords)
Blunt Objects (Tonfa [Night Stick], BaseBall bats)
Staff's/Long Poles (Steel Ru-Bar (5ft), Sapling Staff)
Guns

I'm really not sure that trying to combine these weapon types would be a good idea. For now, at least, it just seems like too confusing a process to even begin considering at this point in the game.

Recently I've been checking out the commercial online game that's been made free to play till the end of the year. It has a a pseudo futuristic setting too and there are martial arts, melee and ranged weapons available. What they did is balancing every kind of weaponry so it does not have an edge over any other. The result is all the kind of weapons feel the same, and instead of variety we got thousands of instances of the same thing with different names and every fight is just as exciting as watching a progress bar when downloading.

The essence of firearms is that they are deadly, they kill fast from distance away or close range alike. If you make guns work differently they wont be guns anymore. Give a man a cucumber, call it a Magnum and he still will be able to use it as a blunt weapon in close range.

Why not leave guns as they are but make them not so common? I can think of many ways of achieving that:
- limited, illegal, very expensive weapons
- limited, very expensive ammo
- firearms are damn loud, can be heard many rooms away, they can draw unwanted attention and hordes of guards/militia chasing you; Night patrols frisking people/Nasty consequences of illegal firearms possesion; metal detector gates at every corner of the city, police sirens wailing through the night, eh...

What we get most of the times is psi powers instead of magic, implants instead of gems, 'guns' instead of throwing stones.

You're very daring to try to make a mu* set in the future, I myself think even medieval is too technically advanced for me to create believable world set in.
But I wish you luck anyway.

It's kinda hard to line up ya shot with someone hitting you in you're eyes.

Not if you're going for realism. Hand guns are most effective at point blank range. Sawed-off shotguns are even better (and in your domed world there'd be little danger of misses puncturing the dome). Tazer stun guns and mace sprayers are other fairly low tech weapons that could be used in HTH.

Yeah, but point plank really kinda incurs being within 2-2.5 feet, not face to face. My problem with firing shots mid battle also come's from the fact that I'd be making the guns shot's alot more powerful than they stand now. Meaning, one shot from a pistol could take 50% life with a critical hit. A good sniped shot could deal a knockout. Going any further than this would be telling too much. If you can see here, that would make guns a definate asset, however a misfired shot is one heckuva risk. I wouldn't be changing how guns work, just how they fit in with the combat system.

Manitas, I see what you're saying. Actually, I do plan to keep things relatively balanced, however that's going the be by tweaking weapons so that Each type of weapon has it's own advantages as well as disadvantages. These would be in the fields of Attack Speed (lag time), Attack Strength, Parry/Block Aility, and Parry/Block Recovery Time. Also, some weapons would require two hands to wield them, tho few could be single wielded if you're strength is at a certian level. By keeping the balance by using both advantages as well as disadvantages, I hope I could keep the weapons unique without making one type uber powerful over another.

I also hadn't thought of Tazers or Mace... but that seems to be a common theme with me. Not exactly sure how I'd implement those, however they'd have to be in a class of their own, like grenades or caltrops.

(Comment added by Razel on Thu Mar 10 23:07:10 2005)

Also, to Mantias, the SWR codebase was built for Star Wars games, so doing the future thing isn't that much of a stretch. However doing the original story thing, yeah, that's got me wondering. However, this is just concept at the moment, I don't have the funds to get MU* space yet, and free space is almost impossible to find.

> Recently I've been checking out the commercial online game
> that's been made free to play till the end of the year. It
> has a a pseudo futuristic setting too and there are
> martial arts, melee and ranged weapons available. What
> they did is balancing every kind of weaponry so it does
> not have an edge over any other. The result is all the
> kind of weapons feel the same, and instead of variety we
> got thousands of instances of the same thing with
> different names and every fight is just as exciting as
> watching a progress bar when downloading.

Making all weapons balanced against each other is fair enough, but that doesn't mean they have to be the same, nor that all weapons have to be equally good against each other. It sounds like this game had the right idea, but just chose a poor way to go about implementing it.

> The essence of firearms is that they are deadly, they kill
> fast from distance away or close range alike. If you make
> guns work differently they wont be guns anymore.

True - IMO the trick is to balance them out in other ways, such as some of the examples you go on to mention, or some of the ways I suggested in my previous posts.

I remember once playing a Counterstrike game as the VIP, where the rest of my team had charged off and been killed. I sneaked around the map and killed three enemy snipers with my knife before escaping - the knife was an inferior weapon, but still very effective if you could get close enough.

> What we get most of the times is psi powers instead of
> magic, implants instead of gems, 'guns' instead of
> throwing stones.

From a game design point of view there's not a great deal of difference - however the big advantage of magic or psi powers is that they're fictional, so you can make them as strong or as weak as you like.

But when you're trying to create a 'realistic' mud based on a setting where certain weapons are stronger, you're going to run into problems if you want the weaker weapons to be equally viable.

Personally I'd favour some sort of anti-kenetic shield which slowed down bullets to a survivable level, or some sort of specialised material which worked the same way - in both cases it would reduce the effectiveness of guns while leaving melee weapons unaffected, and both could be explained away as side-affects of the technology used for space travel.

> Yeah, but point plank really kinda incurs being within
> 2-2.5 feet, not face to face. My problem with firing shots
> mid battle also come's from the fact that I'd be making
> the guns shot's alot more powerful than they stand now.
> Meaning, one shot from a pistol could take 50% life with a
> critical hit. A good sniped shot could deal a knockout.

Surely it should be possible to get an instant kill with a gun? If I point a gun at your head and pull the trigger, realistically speaking you're unlikely to survive (unless you move your head out of the way).

> Going any further than this would be telling too much.

I wouldn't worry about it - whatever you're planning, it'll almost certainly have been done before, and even if it were original people could just copy it the moment your mud opens. On the other hand, by discussing your features openly you'll get feedback which may save you a lot of time and effort later on.

My mud is fantasy, not futuristic, but I still have ranged weapons - eg:

The prisoner stands two hundred feet north of you.
You draw your crossbow from across your back with your right hand.
You grip the haft of your crossbow with your left hand.
You reach back and carefully draw a crossbow bolt from your case.
You crank back your crossbow and slide the bolt into position.
You raise your crossbow and take careful aim.
You hold your crossbow steady as you continue to aim.
You fire your crossbow at the prisoner, driving a bolt through his forehead!

With a few cosmetic changes to the above, I could have a pretty reasonable rifle, and the same approach could be used for other types of gun.

> Actually, I do plan to keep things relatively balanced,
> however that's going the be by tweaking weapons so that
> Each type of weapon has it's own advantages as well as
> disadvantages. These would be in the fields of Attack
> Speed (lag time), Attack Strength, Parry/Block Aility, and
> Parry/Block Recovery Time. Also, some weapons would require
> two hands to wield them, tho few could be single wielded if
> you're strength is at a certian level. By keeping the
> balance by using both advantages as well as disadvantages,
> I hope I could keep the weapons unique without making one
> type uber powerful over another.

Your goals are pretty much the same as mine, although I prefer to keep many of the above factors specific to certain moves rather than generic for the weapon (although some things, such as base reach, base modifiers, defence recovery time, etc, are based on the weapon itself, only varying based on the weapon's condition and wielder's encumbrance level).

For example, a sword thrust has greater reach than a sword slash, which in turn has greater reach than pummelling someone with the hilt. Equally, your opponent can block the hilt with their forearm, but not the blade - they'd need a weapon of their own to do that, or bracers, or a more specialised and complex defensive move (such as knocking your wrist aside).

I allow all two-handed weapons to be wielded one-handed, but the stat requirements to use them without penalty are higher, and many of the moves are more limited. A quarterstaff is a dangerous two-handed weapon in the hands of an expert, but as a one-handed weapon it's little better than a stick with a long reach.

Other weapons are designed to be used in combination with something else - a lance needs to be locked against a shield to be used effectively, for example, while tiger claws work extremely well as a pair. In most cases there's a choice - a trident works well two-handed, or with a net, the same with a katana and wakazashi or a rapier and main gauche. The weapons also work better or worse in combination with certain fighting styles, which is another factor that needs to be taken into account.

In some cases, the weapons require specialised talents in order to be used to full effect. Paired whips without Expert Whip Fighting become a waste of time, while a greatsword without Expert Two-Handed Parry will be unable to effectively defend against paired attacks, leaving the user desperately dodging and ducking.

The weapon selection and associated combat moves then lend themselves to very different styles of play. A berserker wielding a morning star two-handed will fight completely differently to a fencer using a rapier and main gauche, an armoured templar armed with broadsword and shield, a mounted knight with a lance, or an expert longbowman.

Ok, I think after MUCH head exploding, I finally get what you're talkin bout. At this time, to get my point across, I'm going to go deeply into how the system works (or would work). Please forgive me if I drone.

First things first. Like it's been stated by KaViR, weither he know's it or not, many of the idea's I use here have been borrowed from other games. These ideas will be recognizable by the tag with the games name on it.

Ok, with that said, one feature about this game will be that death will be perminant (SW: Legend of the Jedi), for the character at least. However, to counteract this issue, I was thinking that to kill another player (or even a mob) would have to be deliberate. Knocking them out would deliver exp, or even every hit scored delivers a much smaller amount of exp, but the wouldn't be killed unless a player with a blade impails them while knocked out, or shoots them with a gun while their in that same state.

The combat system could be broken down like this. In a normal SWR mud (I'm not really sure about the others, I don't normally do the midevil thing) the combat system works on the whole hit-roll theory. I'm sure that dosen't change much MU* to MU*. And each round, the player scores a hit.

I.E : [player] hits [target] for [damage]

The attack/counter-attack system would just play itself out this way.

PL1: [player] hits [target] for [damage]
MOB: [target] hits [player] for [damage]

Then special attacks come in. Lets take kick, for example.

PL1: [player] hits [target] for [damage]
MOB: [target] hits [player] for [damage]
*then*
PL1: [player] kicks [target] for [damage]

Special attacks are used outside of the round, in most cases. I know this seems almost ADD, but we'll get back to this in a moment. Before, I mentioned fighting styles. Honestly, this would just be 8 skills put together to be used automatically. For instance, if you're combat skills are as follows:

:Example:
punch
kick
bash
slap
backbreaker
throw (as an attack)
circle
knee

There is a 12.5% chance of any one of these attacks to work, and thus the rounds would be like this:

PL1: [player] [attack] [target] for [damage]
MOB: [target] [attack] [player] for [damage]

However, there is no block here, thus no chance to block or parry. However, if ya add in a defensive skill then there is a 12.5 percent chance of either blocking or dodging per skill, depending on the skill.

Skills, such as throws, would drop you're opponent, stopping them from attacking for one round (because they have to get up). Blocks might defend against the oncomming attack, as well as cause a lag of a number of ticks, perhaps skipping the players next attack. The more of these skills in a style, the more often they will be used.

Skills, such as dual wield and second attack, would take up attack slots. For an advanced skill, like 4th attack, you'de have to have already used 2nd and 3rd. One of these skill tree's might look like this:

:example:
punch
kick
bash
2nd attack
backbreaker
throw
3rd attack
block

Looking at this tree, you'de have a the already inplace 2nd and 3rd attacks, 50% chance of striking, with 12.5 chances of throwing and blocking.

So how do weapons come into the picture?

As the player's weapon changes, so does the attack that player uses. Not the skill set, mind you, but the attacks them selves. Lets take an attack like slap, for instance. When barehanded, a slap is but a slap. But the same motion with a blade would be flat_bash. What's a flat bash? Hitting the target with the flat side of the sword... yeah, not very effective... huh? However what would be the same motion be with a blunt object (like a baseball bat)? Head-Smash, right to the skull. So, as you can see, some weapons will be at a disadvantage with some attacks, some will have the advantage. However, with an attack like punch, it might work out like this. A blade might be forward_thrust, which is a potentially devistating skill, but with a high possibility of missing. Blunt objects might be something like forward_strike, which would just be hitting someone with the end of the weapon, once again... not very effective. In such a case, bare handed combat would hold the advantage.

Objects suggested, such as mace or caltrops, would work independently of this system.

Moving on to how weapons would work. For this example I'm going to be using swords only, but keep in mind, the implies to most weapons (there are even short staffs).

Weapons should work off four variables:

*Attack Strength - This stat would influence how hard a player strike in battle.

*Attack Speed - This would influence the number of ticks between a players attacks.

*Parry/Block Ability - Although it may be true that the chance to block is chosen by the number of skills used, be blocking ability (i.e: the chance a block will work)will be effected by this..

*Parry/Block Recovery - This is the extra time it takes to recover from a parry/block. Lag time from blocking would come from:

A: Attacker's Attack Lag
B: Attacker's Weapon Attack Lag
C: Defender's Blocking Lag Bonus (comes from p/b ability)
D: Attacker's P/B Recovery (This lowers lag time)

These factors would be combined within a weapon to make each weapon truely unique. However, combined with these factors would be the single handed, double handed system. This would work as follows.

Small Weapons: Smaller weapons would tend to be less powerful, but would tend to be faster with reactions. for example, lets take the combat dagger. Low on AT Power and B/P Ability, this small blade would be higher in AT Speed and P/B Recovery. However, the Japanese tanto would be lower in AT Power and Speed, and higher in B/P ability and recovering, making it an ideal defensive weapon.

Mid weight Weapons: These middle class weapons would be the more balanced of the weapons. A scimitar, for example, would have a slight advantage in AT Speed, with B/P Recovery and AT power close behind, but a marked disadvantage in the field of B/P Ability. In contrast, the rapier would have it's small advantage in AT Speed, however falls short in AT Power. These weapons, although well balanced, are in no way remarkable.

Heavy Weapons: These would be you're weapons that lean more t'words power, however without going overboard. This is also where the whole str thing becomes a factor. Wanna be the next Miyamoto Musashi? Train you're stats get two katana, and have at. The katana would be a weapon, possibly single wielded at 25 str, high in AT Power and P/B Ability, but low in AT Speed and P/B Recovery. A long sword, however, would be more suited to AT Power and P/B Recovery, with the AT Speed and P/B Ability suffering for it.

Double-Only Weapons: These overly large weapons repuire the strongest warrior to use both hands. Weapon's like the Wazikashi and the Claymore lean more t'words Power, but the other stats suffer. However, these weapons would have the ability to break thru defenses (with the right hit roll, of course).

If I haven't well enough explained this by now... you need to get you're head checked. By the end of this post (and after about two hours getting sidetracked on a MUD, 3 deletes, and doin alot of other stuff that I don't remember due to fatigue) I have been typing for 10 hrs. I'm hungery, I'm tired, please enjoy.

-_- *relieved sigh*

> Ok, with that said, one feature about this game will be
> that death will be perminant (SW: Legend of the Jedi), for
> the character at least. However, to counteract this issue,
> I was thinking that to kill another player (or even a mob)
> would have to be deliberate. Knocking them out would
> deliver exp, or even every hit scored delivers a much
> smaller amount of exp, but the wouldn't be killed unless
> a player with a blade impails them while knocked out, or
> shoots them with a gun while their in that same state.

Don't you think that rather counteracts your 'realism' requirement though? I mean, as I mentioned in my previous post, if I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, you're going to be dead. It would strike me as very odd if you just dropped on the ground unconscious, then got back up a few seconds later (unless the only type of ammo available was plastic bullets - and even then I'd expect to see the occasional instant kill).

> The combat system could be broken down like this. In a
> normal SWR mud (I'm not really sure about the others, I
> don't normally do the midevil thing) the combat system
> works on the whole hit-roll theory. I'm sure that dosen't
> change much MU* to MU*. And each round, the player scores
> a hit.

What you describe is a fairly typical approach, but not all muds are like that - if you want to create a strategic combat system, I'd suggest at least investigating the possibility of non-automated combat; instead of having "special attacks" that work outside of the automated exchange of blow, all moves would be entered manually. This allows players to control all aspects of their fighting, which means player strategy a much more important element of gameplay.

> However, there is no block here, thus no chance to block
> or parry. However, if ya add in a defensive skill then
> there is a 12.5 percent chance of either blocking or
> dodging per skill, depending on the skill.

Surely the chance of the defensive skill should depend on the person doing it and the defensive value of the move they're performing? If a swordmaster moves his blade into a parrying position, he should have a very good chance of defending himself against an incoming attack. Equally, a heavily armoured character should have a lower chance of dodging an attack than a lightly armoured one.

This is also where defensive recovery time comes into play - the swordmaster might be able to parry the one attack, but it's going to take him a second or two to get his sword back into position to parry a second, so until then he's going to have to rely on other defences (his main gauche? Ducking and dodging?). Or did I misunderstand what you meant before about defence recovery times?

> Skills, such as throws, would drop you're opponent,
> stopping them from attacking for one round (because they
> have to get up).

Hrm why would they have to get up? Surely lying on the floor should just put them at a disadvantage?

> Blocks might defend against the oncomming attack, as well
> as cause a lag of a number of ticks, perhaps skipping the
> players next attack.

Why would you need to cause lag? Surely the point of the shield is simply to block incoming attacks? A blocked strike is unlikely to be any slower to recover from than a miss, unless it's some sort of specialist defense, like...

The small goblin slashes at your legs with his shortsword.
You parry his blade with your main gauche.
You lock the small goblin's shortsword with your main gauche.
You drive your rapier over your main gauche and through the small goblin's eye, piercing his brain!

> Wanna be the next Miyamoto Musashi? Train you're stats get
> two katana, and have at.

Actually Miyamoto Musashi fought with Daito/Katana and Wakizashi.

> Weapon's like the Wazikashi and the Claymore lean more
> t'words Power, but the other stats suffer.

A Wakazashi is about the size of a shortsword - are you perhaps confusing it with a different weapon?

"Don't you think that rather counteracts your 'realism' requirement though? I mean, as I mentioned in my previous post, if I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, you're going to be dead. It would strike me as very odd if you just dropped on the ground unconscious, then got back up a few seconds later (unless the only type of ammo available was plastic bullets - and even then I'd expect to see the occasional instant kill)."

That's why I say slow recovery time. True a person would have to manually kill someone in the end, the stunned person would take FOREVER to recover. Perhaps it would be quicker if someone took pity on them and drug their sorry behind to the hospital. However, that's why I intend to take fireing a gun out of combat.

"What you describe is a fairly typical approach, but not all muds are like that - if you want to create a strategic combat system, I'd suggest at least investigating the possibility of non-automated combat; instead of having "special attacks" that work outside of the automated exchange of blow, all moves would be entered manually. This allows players to control all aspects of their fighting, which means player strategy a much more important element of gameplay."

Its been done. I'm into more stratagy than action. By creating styles with 8 skills, a player will have to put deep thought into what skills they use.

"Surely the chance of the defensive skill should depend on the person doing it and the defensive value of the move they're performing? If a swordmaster moves his blade into a parrying position, he should have a very good chance of defending himself against an incoming attack. Equally, a heavily armoured character should have a lower chance of dodging an attack than a lightly armoured one."

Actually, here in the future all armor will prolly be relatively light.

"This is also where defensive recovery time comes into play - the swordmaster might be able to parry the one attack, but it's going to take him a second or two to get his sword back into position to parry a second, so until then he's going to have to rely on other defences (his main gauche? Ducking and dodging?). Or did I misunderstand what you meant before about defence recovery times?"

I believe you did. By recovery times, I mean how long (in ticks) it takes the opponent to recover. If it takes too long, the player who blocked/parried my have time to begin their next attack string first.

"Hrm why would they have to get up? Surely lying on the floor should just put them at a disadvantage?"

It would put them at an disadvantage, having to get up. If they only have one attack, this could serious be a screw to them.

"Why would you need to cause lag? Surely the point of the shield is simply to block incoming attacks? A blocked strike is unlikely to be any slower to recover from than a miss, unless it's some sort of specialist defense, like..."

True, blocking would block their attack, but I'd like it to do more. Having to recover while blocked would cause the player to put that much more thought into how they play, and what weapon they choose.

"Actually Miyamoto Musashi fought with Daito/Katana and Wakizashi."

My mistake. I just had heard of him before, and looked up the info on the net, but didn't fully read up.

"A Wakazashi is about the size of a shortsword - are you perhaps confusing it with a different weapon?"

Yeah, I really did. I meant Nodochi (and only cuz I remember it from Bushido Blade).

I'm coming up with ideas and such for this game on the fly here. I really do hold this info for this site as valueable, so please keep the suggestions coming.

(Comment added by Razel on Sat Mar 12 19:46:57 2005)

BTW, I check this forum constantly, so expect answers within hours of posting.

Most people don't want realism in a game at all even though they say they do. They really want fantasy/sci-fi movie combat as reality ain't all that fun. Regardless they really might and so I've uncovered a few facts from the law enforcement entities (aka FBI) of a country called the US on the planet Earth circa 1990:

~85% of all gun fights involve handguns on both sides.
Less than .2% of all gun fights involve automatic weapons. I'm assumming from my own knowledge and common sense the bulk of remainder is primarily shotguns and not rifles.
~80% of gun fights involve unskilled amateurs at ranges less than 20 feet.
~40% of all gun fights involve ranges less than 8 feet.
~60% of all gun fights occur in rather difficult conditions, at night, running, etc.
The ratio of shots to hits is rather high. Approximately ~30 to 1. That didn't suprise me, as even supposedly well-trained police can't even hit the side of a barn chasing perps around at night.

Most hits ~60% are to the extremeties legs or arms. Hits to the upper torso and head with large caliber (.44 magnum) are almost always mortal or permanently disabling.

(Comment added by Tyche on Sun Mar 13 0:35:12 2005)

The big point is that close to half of all real gun battles are fought at ranges similar to those who would fight with swords and knife fights. Now this information is from civil sources, and probably would not apply to war or how our military chooses a fight.

*nods*

I see ya point.

At this point I'm planning a Sci Fi that could POSSIBLY be our future. However, although it's rooted in reality, its still Science Fiction. There is also room for story expantion (like planning for first contact with another race). But thats something to be saved for another board.

I'm not touchin on those statistics.

Sci-fi is often split into hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, although many authors do a fair bit of both. For example the works of Arthur C. Clarke primarily fall into the real of hard sci-fi, while things like 'Dune' or 'Star Wars' are very soft sci-fi, so much so I would label them fantasy. Generally though most near future or post-modern sci-fi works and games do fall into the realm of hard sci-fi, primarily because I think it's much easier to make plausible postulation of possible near futures.

Movie gun combat almost always violates Newton's third law of physics, even in supposedly 'factional' (as opposed to fictional) war movies. I don't mind though and I don't think most people do, after all entertainment is usually the primary goal in movies as well as games. Having a villian fly 15 feet backwards and through a glass window after being shot is quite frankly part of the 'fun' of gaming.

I myself much prefer traditional fantasy or historical fantasy to hard sci-fi in muds.

I found some more interesting info on ballistics and wounds:
Oddly, or maybe not, wounds below the ribs and above the pelvis, the general guts region are not often as mortal as wounds to the upper legs and pelvis region. I'm just guessing that maybe it's the absence of bones and richochet below the ribs, and the presence of the femoral arteries in the lower pelvis that are rather nasty. Although one would think with all the organs in the region mortality would be higher.

Even more strange, some people die from outright system shock after just one shot to the hand or foot, and conversely just as many have been known to keep going like nothing ever happened for 5 to 10 minutes after being hit 20 or more times... before suddenly dropping dead of course (perhaps a delayed shock or adrenal effect).

Wow... just... wow.

That's really need to know information *backs away slowly*

ROFL

This is actually in reply to the whole conversation but the screen is 'tabbing' the entries too far over and it just gets ugly so i'm replying here.

Anyways you seem to be REALLY adamant about not wanting to have regular gun fights in close range combat. If for some reason you are just morally against the various 'energy shield' concepts i have another.

Energy propelled guns that have a kenetic 'build up' effect before the bullets build up enough speed to pierce skin.

What i mean is explain away that either because of increased radiation levels in the future the chemical processes that allow gunpowder based explosions to happen is just hindered. In response new technologies were made for energy propelled ballistics. Hand held 'rail guns' of sorts. They launch the bullets out in an energy stream but the energy doesnt reach full potential till its traveled some set 'distance'. This effect happens almost instantly as far as humans percieve but it would have the in-game effect that all ballistics used within this safe-zone range would effectively ONLY do subdual damage. Like an energy version of a shotgun fired at close range would have the effect of a beanbag gun automatically.


And if you're thinking this idea is too far out you ALREADY said you want interstellar travel and this same kind of propulsion could be exactly what space freighters use to get their initial velocity boost during travel.

Its just an idea. use it or ignore but at least its one method to reason WHY you cant use guns at close range that has nothing to do with morals. And the radiation that prevents normal chemical explosions could be a side-product of some past experiemnt for developing this energy propulusion system. Maybe a research lab in texes went nova.

Seronis
icq 43442042
aim kindred321

Ok... ok. I can see how I can work this technology into my story line, but I'm not really sure how it would change my system. So if you would, please indulge me, and allow me to go deeper into how using firearms would work in this system.

I've already explained how I would want melee combat while holding a firearm would work with this system. Now please allow me to go deeper into how using that same firearm would work with a manual fire system.

[Close Range]

While in the room with the intended target, the player would (possibly) draw their gun. Then the command would prolly be something to the effect of 'shoot [weapon] [target]'. The chance of the bullet finding it's mark would depend on certian player stats (A.K.A aim). Damage would then be calculated on certian factors, such as gun type and target's armor.

Ex: Kurt fires his pistol at Sydney. However, Sydney is wearing bullet proof armor, so the bullet is mostly deflected, grazing her flesh at most.

Pistols would have a better chance of hitting at close range then Rifles. I know this dosen't seem to make sense, but I'm doing it this way to balance the gun types out.

[Long Range]

Due to the Sniping class I mentioned before, a player with a Rifle (with a scope) would be able to fire at a player from 3-5 rooms away, depending on ability. The accuracy would be alot lower, but the hits are alot stronger too. The command would be something to the effect of 'Snipe [target] [# of rooms] [direction]'. Of course, one could only snipe in a straight line. However, sniping would be a little more anonymous, and there would be rooftops in certian cities would be prime for this sort of work.

Armor piercing Ammunition would be available, at a higher price, for these long range weapons. This would make being a sniper a lucrative, even if dangerous, in game career.

>Pistols would have a better chance of hitting at close range then Rifles

I'd be nice if you'd stop doing things merely 'for balance'. There are a billion other ways of balancing things than arbitrary modifiers and such. That said, a pistol DOES have a greater chance of hitting at close range than a rifle. With a rifle, it is incredibly hard at close range to aim at the enemy to shoot them. In fact, it may be impossible at times. A pistol doesn't have this draw back, being much smaller and more mobile. Unfortunately, a pistol wouldn't be much good outside of close-medium range; just based on my experiences with such, their accuracy goes to hell.

Kelson

Wow... just... wow.

That's really need to know information *backs away slowly*

ROFL

Interesting and funny eh? Anyway if you are really into frpg games and muds, researching information is for some of us part of the fun of design.

Now I've copied the following bit from our private project site to my general mud info site:

Flatfeet & Bootleggers.

This the basic combat system our ftf roleplaying group has been using the past 3 sessions (i.e. months). That is to say they've been putting up with my peculiar fascination with the roaring 1920's. Of course it's not too big a leap since we've been playing Deadlands (a wierd wild west game) for a few years now.

I apologize for the lack of weapon info and situational modifiers, but it's sitting in my friend's basement so that's from memory. The rest of the system we're designing is dozens of pages and entirely fantasy based. This above is design to fit into it as an extension of the swords and sorcery theme, as we'd planned it being compatible with wild west/modern/sci-fi campaigns anyway.

I've floated the idea of opening the site to the world, but they aren't ready for that yet. Five of us very opinionated people are probably too many cooks already. As I'm the only one in the project with any interest in muds or programming I've been trying to keep their work somewhat easily transformable/transferrable with some limited success.

Anyway for the forum's amusement and commentary here's a half-done system that's quite deadly and somewhat realistic (lot's of blood), very playable so far in FTF that is...