[MUD-Dev] Battle Systems

Richard Woolcock KaVir at dial.pipex.com
Tue Oct 5 00:09:43 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999


Matthew Mihaly wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Philip Loguinov -- Draymoor wrote:
> 
> > Thats my premise, here is an idea i would like to bounce of you guys.
> >
> > My new battle system is based less on the combat round as the mud sees it,
> > and more on a psudo initiative/action lag based system.
> 
> This is how our combat system works, and it works quite well player vs.
> player.
> 
> >
> > Basicly, get rid of the auto attack function in a battle.
> > If two players initiate combat, then don't do anything, nothing will happen.
> > They will dance arround each other and thats it.
> 
> I don't like the idea of "initiating combat." What does it mean to "be in
> battle"? It seems to me that that state of being doesn't really exist. All
> you have are players doing individual actions at individual times.
> 
> >
> > To attack with your primary you would type "hit."
> > there will be an option to toggle between hit attacking with your secondary
> > weapon as well and using "hit2" to attack with it.
> 
> If you want more tactics, why not make a big variety of different weapon
> attacks instead of just hit and hit2?
> 
> > Instead of multiple blows per round, what  you get is lag improvement.
> > As you improve with the specific weapon, you also get faster with it, which
> > results in less lag, which has the same effect as multiple blows.
> > Haste and Slow spells act by affecting lag for everything you do.
> > Etc.
> 
> Just a suggestion: Call it something other than lag or there will be
> confusion in the game when players talk about lag.
> 
> > I'd like to hear what people think of this. Would this work?
> > Could i make it better somehow? How about my assessment
> > of normal mud combat, is it accurate?
> 
> I think your assessment of normal mud combat is right on. Automated combat
> is a joke.

I find that a rather narrow-minded view.  Automated combat is often
very dull and boring - but that doesn't mean it is inherently any
better or worse than non-automated combat.  Take the following two
examples:

The automated approach:

You hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
>kickYou kick the goblin
You hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
You hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
>kickYou kick the goblin

Pretty boring, I'll grant you.  But compare it to the non-automated
equivilent:

>hitYou hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
>kickYou kick the goblin
>hitYou hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
>hitYou hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
>kickYou kick the goblin

Is that any less of a joke?  Now lets look at both system
again, this time the player has either lost connection or
is very badly lagged (and therefore unable to type anything):

The automated approach:

You hit the goblin.
(at this point you lag up)
The goblin hits you.
You hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.
You hit the goblin.
The goblin hits you.

And the non-automated equivilent:

>hitYou hit the goblin.
(at this point you lag up)
The goblin hits you.
The goblin hits you.
The goblin hits you.

A combat system is only as good as you make it.  If you want
varied attacks, then you don't need a non-automated combat
system to use them - allow player to replace their next (default)
attack with another type of attack should they choose to do so.  
Allow the player to create scripts for their default styles of 
attack if you like.  Simply taking out the automation will not 
make your combat better, it will just punish those with slow 
connection speeds.

KaVir.



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list