> Well, I heard "rumor" of a MUD in existence that used something called
> "input-timed combat" or something, but have found no evidence of it.
> But the idea that was described to me just made me shiver in ecstasy
> of the possibilities it could present (ok so that was probably a
> little too descriptive and more than you wanted to know, but listen
> up :-)
Eh, well you're right about the "more than you wanted to know part..."
> The basis is that combat is no longer automated. Timers are still used,
> but you use input to define your next action, sort of like using skills,
> but rather, the skill IS your next attack (and may affect the delay until
> your next "attack" occurs).
Not exactly a new idea. In fact, it was discussed quite extensively on
r.g.m.a. before, though I don't know if anyone ever bothered to
implement it. They (the active posters) seem happier bitching over
semantics rather than actually coding any one of the good ideas that
they accidentally mention in the heat of flame wars.
> Whatever you input is NOT carried out
> immediately, but rather held in memory until your next attack occurs. If
> you have multiple attacks (replaced with a system of "combat points" -
> maximum number of "attack points" spent per combat round), you could do
> combination attacks: hit;circle;kick. If you miss the timed input
> marker (i.e, the combat round occurs and you have no "attacks" in
> buffer), a default "hit" attack occurs.
This could be a fairly simple method for creating more interactive
combat. BTW, as for your example of someone dodging skills ("duck" a
"kick"), I wouldn't try ducking a straight-on kick, unless your
intention is to block the kick with your head.
> To compensate, combat must be slowed down. Of course, this also makes
> combat more realistic, and moves more towards roleplaying in a Diku MUD
> rather than hack and slashing... perhaps the long sought perfect
> combination!
I don't see how a new combat system contributes to role-playing in the
least. Realism != Role-playing. Realism == Suspension of disbelief ==
Good story-telling. You can have role-playing without realism, and you
can have realism without role-playing. But, realism can contribute to
role-playing (and vice-versa). In this case, however, the described
combat system adds something to realism, but nothing to role-playing.
> And making mobs that fight effectively with it is not too difficult. If
> necessary, a simple random system could be used, or just mobs "hit"ting
> all the time, with mobprogs/scripts allowing for more custom occurences.
Making mobs fight effectively would be extremely difficult, IMHO. I
mean,
the first two methods (random skills or always hitting) will NOT, under
any circumstances, compensate for the increased combat ability of a
player. At the very least, a mobile should choose skills which it is
good at, not just say, "hey, I'll kick the guy," regardless of whether
the mobile can kick effectively. The, "always hit," would be silly to
claim as an effective offense whilst the player is using "kick" and
"circle" and other powerful skills. As for scripting, you can't write
scripts for every mobile, and that still leaves mobiles that your
builder's are too lazy to script either getting their asses kicked, or
having their strength and weaponary upped to make them a match (which
is the worst way to go about balancing combat, IMHO).
-dak
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://democracy.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list-faq.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST