Innovative Combat Design

[JosephSeraph]

So you're behind Resident Evil Gaiden?

Noooooooo lol I'm going to give you a more thorough reply later* but no i'm not, what i'm saying is that would be something fun i'd love to do by building on top of that game's setup (which i have seen no other game do so far and it's a big shame)

*I don't like to take credit for something i didn't do so i had to immediately reply as soon as i read this LOL

edit: Resident Evil Gaiden's own system is a bit on the simpler side -- it only features the shooting gauge, which is fine but is isn't really an RPG (nor was it marketed as such) and while interesting in the context of the game, it isn't particularily deep. One thing I didn't mention because on my interpretation of it I wouldn't use though, but adds to the tension of the system, is the fact that enemies are constantly moving towards you, and new enemies pop in the field if you trigger a battle near them. It's a neat mechanic, but hard to program so i'd opt to scrap it if I ever get to play around with the idea like I wanted to.

 

[Zizka]

Ah ok, I was pretty pumped to talk to someone who invented that system.


I just did a mockup of what I had in mind. In the example above, two PC are engaged in close combat. The thief is at ranged combat while the wizard is farther away. Players can move on the scale from turn to turn, going closer (towards the skull) or further away from it. I like it as a concept.

I'm wondering if three locations on both sides is enough however or if it's too limiting. I don't want too have too much for no good reason.

 

[Kes]

@Zizka
'Game Mechanics Design' is for looking at aspects of game play at a more conceptual level. "How do I...?" (implementation) questions belong in the Support forum for the engine you are using. Therefore the query in your last post cannot be considered here. In addition this section is not for feedback on individual projects. If you want that, then post a thread in 'Game Ideas and Prototypes'.

 

[Wavelength]

I'm wondering if three locations on both sides is enough however or if it's too limiting. I don't want too have too much for no good reason.

I'm having a slightly hard time understanding what you want to do (maybe because I read the thread in reverse), but it sounds like you're using a "Row" system, rather than a true Tactical RPG system where you're expected to move around each turn. If that's the case, then 3 rows is definitely enough, unless you have an active battle party of 6+ members. If you have 4 members, 3 rows forces the player to place two members on the same row somewhere, which can add a lot of strategy and choice.

(Tangentially, check out this Design Club video, which explains, among other things, why there are only 3 lanes in League of Legends' main map and 5 players. It's a different reasoning than you'd use for a game like yours, but there's a similarity in how having less space available actually creates a wider array of "real" and interesting choices to make.)

 

[Zizka]

I'm having a slightly hard time understanding what you want to do (maybe because I read the thread in reverse), but it sounds like you're using a "Row" system, rather than a true Tactical RPG system where you're expected to move around each turn.

That is indeed what I am suggesting.

If you have 4 members, 3 rows forces the player to place two members on the same row somewhere, which can add a lot of strategy and choice.

I didn't really take rows into consideration. The characters occupying the same section on the position line naturally stack on top of one another but there's no concept of rows if this makes any sense. There's just one position line split in 6 sections, three on the player's side and three on the enemy side.

In other words, I'd be using only one lane as opposed to three.

 

[Kes]

@Zizka Although you didn't respond to my request for clarification your post makes clear that you only want feedback on your own project.

[mod]I am therefore moving this to Game Ideas and Prototypes[/mod]

 

[Zizka]

I didn't reply because I wasn't under the impression that my opinion about what I'd like the thread to matter at all so I just let you intervene how you wished and take things from there.

I've reworked the concept:

I've tried to simplify things a bit. I'd like to integrate the aesthetics of boardgames (miniatures and dice). Instead of having two sets of terrain (enemies and allies), I mainstreamed things to just 5 tiles.

In order to hit the selected target (marked with a cross air) the player rolls a virtual die. I've identified the "to hit" target number, 6 if the enemy if the furthest away, 4+ one square closer, 3+ one more tile closer and the hand-to-hand tile.

The idea is to use risk-reward:
-The longer they wait to shoot, the more likely they are to hit the target.
-However, the closer the foe is, the more likely the player will end up being injured by getting into a fight with the foe.
-Since ammunition would be limited/it would take time to reload, the player needs to choose wisely when to do which action in combat.
-Once the player gets into close-combat, there should be some kind of price to pay. I'm not sure what that would be. I'm thinking that combat could become a lot harder and the player to deal a lot less damage.

Questions I have for people who have some game design experience or ideas:
1-How could I mitigate RNG? I can imagine how it would be frustrating to keep missing a target... This is a big one.
2-Could I arrange things better to have a more interesting UI? If so, where I could put things?
3-How could I deal with close combat in order to make it riskier since it doesn't use ammunition. In other words, how can I make sure that close combat becomes a last resort as opposed to a way to kill enemies without spending ammunition?
4-Any ideas as to how I could make things look better? More coherent?

Thanks!

 

[Zizka]

No comments uh? It is a hard on to tackle I'll admit.

You'll notice I've changed a few things.

a. have added a bullet meter. Out of the six bullets, you'll see on bullet has been spent here.
b. A bullet would be potentially fired each round.
c. Instead of going for "all or nothing" I've modified the damage system to be less RNG influenced. While 1 or 2 is still a miss, anything higher causes damage, from 3 to 12 on a critical hit.
d. I've changed the die design as well to make it more elegant.
e. I've changed the design of the font.
f. I've modified the pathway to make it more coherent.
g. I've moved the cross hair under the position tile.
h. In this concept, I don't take distance into consideration however... which might be problematic as not very realistic. So that's one issue.
i. Another issue would be reloading. If the enemy advances one tile per round, there would be no point in having a gun clip as he wouldn't have time to empty it anyway.

Possible approaches:
a. Disregard distance as part of the battle mechanic when it comes to scoring a hit.
b. Have more position tiles or have the enemies move half a tile per round. That is to say, to spend one turn to move in between the tiles. Or have the enemy move slower than one tile a turn.
c. Use QTE to determine a hit:

The idea being that the arrow moves left to right and the player presses a key to determine the outcome with different colors dealing different amount of damage.


I still have to design:
a. Close combat.
b. Should I display enemy health?

So what do you guys think as potential players? Would you find that interesting?

 

[Zizka]

So as players, is this something you would find interesting? Yes, no? Why, why not? I'm looking for some feedback because when you're very involved with something, it's good to reach out for other people's opinion sometimes.

 

[Zizka]

Guess not, back to the drawing board then.

I've dramatically reduced the bullet size to make the UI more appealing.

I've gotten rid of the die. This will give the player agency over the result he is going for. This also allows me to implement distance.

The further away the target, the more red zones (miss zones) present. The closer the target, the more green and yellow zones.


If the opponent reaches the player, hand-to-hand is handled this way:
The HP (100 and 50 here) goes down by their damage factor.
The player has 5, the monster has 10. Both their HP goes down by the damage factor until one reaches 0 and dies. So it's important to avoid hand to hand at all cost.

Thoughts?

 

[Kes]

This thread is being closed at the request of the OP. If for some reason you would like it re-opened, please Report this post and leave the reason why.